From: Joel Cannon (jcannon@washjeff.edu)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 18:49:23 EST
I have responded in the last post to what I thought was ``the'' important
issue concerning the impending invasion of Iraq. I respond here to
Glenn's criticism of my post.
In my first post, I suggested that the Hubbert curve was a substantial
factor in the push toward war in Iraq. My post was appropriately
qualified (as in I think the case is strong for it, but not absolute)
in the introduction and not qualified as well as it should have been
in my concluding paragraph. I have been skeptical that the war is
about oil. However, the more I study the history surrounding Iraq and
the U.S., and listen to what people are saying, the more plausible
this position appears. While Glenn has provided some helpful
information that sharpens the issue, I think it is still more
plausible than not, that oil in general, and the impending decline in
oil in particular, that is a controlling factor.
My evidence was basically that administration justifications that do
not make sense in light of past statements (therefore there must be
some other justifications) coupled with Iraq's significance in light
of the Hubbert curve and the imminent decline in oil strongly suggest
that oil in general, and the Hubbert curve in particular, may be an
important factor.
First I agree with Glenn that:
1. from the Bush administration's knowledge of the Hubbert curve ``it
does not automatic follow that that is the reason for the war.''
2. that a war for oil does not make good business sense in the short
term at today's oil prices. Absent long term considerations it
would make more sense to buy it on the open market. Thomas Friedman
made a similar argument (and similarly neglected long-term
considerations) using different statistics recently in his
column in The New York Times.
3. ``that we will never have peace until the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is resolved.'' However, I think that insisting on justice
for the Palestinians as well as security for Israel would be a
better way to accomplish this than invading Iraq.
However, each item needs elaboration.
Considering 1, it was the absence of credible alternative
explanations coupled with Hubbert that makes it follow that the
Hubbert curve is a likely reason for the war.
Regarding 2, the reason Hubbert and oil are important are strategic
considerations, which include but go beyond strictly economic
analysis. The real threat relevant to Glenn's speculation of an Iraq
pan-Arabic state is that their power will be leveraged because they
control our oil supplies. To quote Bush's father in the buildup to
the first Gulf war, ``What is at stake here is our way of life.''
(that is quoted from memory, but my recollection is quite clear,
because it struck me that defending an affluent style could not be
justified from a Christian perspective). If my analysis is correct,
the war on Iraq may be undertaken to ensure that the US and not Iraq
is the party that dictates oil prices.
Regarding, Glenn's concern that Saddam's pan-Arabic government would
try to ``topple the West,'' it is not credible that a country whose
GNP in 1989 was $37,390 billion
(http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Horan/gulf/Iraq_finance/Iraq_economy.html---it
was in deline has been declining since then as a result of the Gulf
war and sanctions )with a few motley fission weapons would
pose a legitimate threat to the US (or its allies). By contrast, the
US had a GNP in 1991 (the year of my almanac) of $5,233 billion
dollars, its defense budget exceeds the aggregate defense budget of
the next 10 largest military budgets, and it has a massive arsenal of
hydrogen bombs. Even if Saddam could add the combined GNP's of the
occupied countries and occupation cost Saddam nothing, the threat he
could pose would not be credible. (Glenn also mentioned N. Korea as a
parallel. They are not a credible force to topple the west.)
Beyond this I think questionable assumptions affect Glenn's economic
analysis. First, I hope that the U.S. would honor international law
and repay France and Russia. I find little evidence that this
administration takes international law seriously. As a relevant
example, the threat of losing this money has reportedly been used to
twist France and Russia's arms at the U.N. Security
Council. Similarly, while I hope that the U.S. would rebuild Iraq, I
find no reason for optimism based on recent experience with the
Balkans and Afghantistan where the UN has been left to do the
rebuilding.
Finally, the point of my post was that ``the end of cheap oil'' (the
title in Glenn's original post) is a likely factor, not oil per se at
today's prices. The decline in the availability of oil is, I presume,
a long term problem (I am worried about how I will pay my heating bill
in 5 to 10 or more years). Nevertheless, I think it is useful.
Glenn's analysis involves only short-term economic considerations.
Glenn estimates that the war will cost the equivalent of between 1.4
and 2.4 Billion barrels of oil at todays prices. About .2 Billion
would be needed to pay off France and Russia and more needed to
rebuild Iraq to the degree that it is rebuilt. Ignoring the rebuilding
money, that means 2.6 Billion barrels. Furthermore, he said that Iraq
could produce about 2.4 million barrels oil per day today, but
produced about 50% more than that (3.9 mil.) in 1979.
Using Glenn's maximum cost, and his range of oil production, it would
take between 705 and 1000 days of Iraqi oil production at today's
prices (between 1.9 and 2.7 years) to pay off the war at current
prices. If we accept Glenn's economic analysis, which I accept as
having been done quickly and is likely conservative with regard to
actual costs, the war would be paid for long before the Hubbert curve
begins to bite. If we are worried about Iraq threatening our
oil-consuming economy in a time of shrinking oil supplies, an
investment that ``pays'' itself off this quickly would be a good
investment from a business if not a moral standpoint. A good
businessman like Cheney might find it economically
attractive. Clearly, a real analysis would change this (the more
ethical we are, the longer it will take), but I don't think Glenn's
figures eliminate the possibility or even liklihood that call oil and
the Hubbert curve into question as substantial reasons for the
administration's push toward war.
This post is too long already. I just note that an important point is
the implausibility of the Bush administration's stated reasons for
invading Iraq. I cited evidence that Saddam's character, including his
human rights violations, his weapons of mass destruction (programs
that were actively supported by the US, and US corporations), and his
drive to acquire nuclear weapons (Israel bombed an Iraq research
reactor in 1981 because of fears of nuclear weapons) were known when
Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1984 to normalize
relations. If Rumsfeld was so mistaken about Saddam's character then,
why should we trust Rumsfeld's assessment of his character now? Or why
should we believe that Rumsfeld is giving us his honest opinion? Glenn
did not respond to this except to imply without evidence that in the
absence of war, Saddam would develop a bomb and rule the Middle East
from Gibraltor to Pakistan.
In short, while it is uncomfortable to believe that our national
leaders would go to war over oil, I think there is a strong
circumstantial case for it and the Hubbert curve, introduced to us by
Glenn, is an important consideration with regard to this
possibility. In the words of a poster I recently observed it appears
to me that, ``If Iraq's main export were broccoli, there would not be
a war on Iraq.''
Blessings,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I demand a better excuse than revenge or oil for the
prosecution of a war that is likely to do more harm than
good, that will destabilize not only the region but also
the world for years to come, and that will confirm...our
country's reputation as an irrational and undisciplined
bully."
- Rev. Peter Gomes, Baptist minister, Plummer
professor of morals at Harvard, and Republican.
He gave the blessing at Reagan's second inauguration
and preached at George Bush Senior's inauguration
service.
For a helpful discussion of the crisis in Iraq:
http://www.sojo.net/action/Teachin_Primer_Iraq.doc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 18:58:40 EST