Gotta keep that hummus flowing!

March 15, 2006 10:45 AM

General in charge of Iraq says "It's the oil", suggests permanent bases.
"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend."
Considering that Reuters reported on the general's statement, it's surprising to see that the only other major news organization online which has picked up the story so far (besides the Arizona Daily Star) is Al Jazeera. The Daily Star initially ran -- and then removed -- the aforementioned quote. Perhaps it's unfit for internal consumption?
posted by insomnia_lj (42 comments total)

Permanent bases are the elephant in the living room that no news outlets in the US will talk about.
Here's an example not related to Iraq: how many of you have heard of Camp Bondsteel?
posted by nofundy at 10:51 AM on March 15, 2006

So does this mean the war protestors that said "No Blood For Oil" were spot on?
posted by nofundy at 10:52 AM on March 15, 2006

He does not say "It's the oil".
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 10:55 AM on March 15, 2006

Another conspiracy.

Maybe it isn't being wildly reported because Abizad didn't say anything for sure and didn't say anything new; it was all just "maybe" "can't rule it out" about what we already know. That is, it isn't in more news stories because it is relatively new and it isn't newsworthy.

Newsfilter is one thing. But posts about how News isn't on more websites? Wow.
posted by dios at 10:55 AM on March 15, 2006

So does this mean the war protestors that said "No Blood For Oil" were spot on?

Not only spot on, but also photographed by the FBI.
posted by DragonBoy at 10:57 AM on March 15, 2006

He does not say "It's the oil".
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 12:55 PM CST on March 15

Nor did he "suggest permanent bases."

But accuracy has ceased to be of any importance here. It's all about the partisan scoreboard.
posted by dios at 10:58 AM on March 15, 2006

Yup, Oil we'll probably lose. How stupid can you get? We just spent $500 billion to give a few trillion dollars of Oil to Iran.

AWSOME!
posted by delmoi at 10:59 AM on March 15, 2006

"it isn't in more news stories because it is relatively new and it isn't newsworthy."

It's about 10 hours old, which is plenty of time to be picked up after Reuters released it.

Not newsworthy? It certainly is for Al-Jazeera. It's front page news for them. It's a helluva stupid thing for a US general to say, too... reminiscent of the kind of inflammatory things that MacArthur said which cost him his command in Korea. And yes, what MacArthur said was front page news.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:06 AM on March 15, 2006

He does not say "It's the oil".

Semantics.

Perhaps you can you suggest other "goods and resources" flowing out of Iraq that our own nation and everybody else in the world depend upon?
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:08 AM on March 15, 2006

dios: Abizaid does say "Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend". The CIA factbook on Iraq notes that "Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector", and reports that the country does not have comparable strengths in other outputs. So, while the general may not have explicitly been quoted as saying "It's about the oil", there are no other resources that Iraq could supply in such quantity as to be described as impacting the prosperity of our nation, or indeed, any other nation.
posted by boo_radley at 11:09 AM on March 15, 2006

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend."

Obviously he must be talking about dates! They grow plentifully in that area of the world. People use dates every day, and the price of dates has been going up steadily since the invasion of Iraq.

Does dios honestly want us to think he's that obtuse?..
posted by clevershark at 11:12 AM on March 15, 2006

Just a healthy reminder that whatever is said that contradicts the conservative party line is immediately reduced to being simply "partisan", regardless if it spoken by a liberal, another conservative, or a foreign news service. Regardless of its substance.

Note that you're the first person to discuss political partisanship, dios. The tone of the post suggests nothing about Republicans and Democrats but rather that the domestic press is not picking up and running with the story. Is any discussion about the War in Iraq simply a matter of tallying another point on the "partisan scoreboard" to you?
posted by billysumday at 11:14 AM on March 15, 2006

dios, you nincompoop, please tell us what the goal of this war really is, then, if it isn't a poorly-disguised oil grab.
posted by wakko at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2006

boo_radley: the point is that he didn't say "It's about the oil" and as nonfundy so ably demonstrated, the implication intended by the post is that Abizad was admitting the war was about oil. That implication cannot be found in the context of the article---which incidentaly doesn't appear to be working anymore. It is unclear what Abizad was referring to when he said that. It appears he was responding to the question that there the US does have an interest in the region. And his comment stemmed from that. In that context, his comment, in addition to be absurdly obvious, is completely un-newsworthy.

Basically, insomina takes two comments, try skew what Abizad said to generate some sort of story. Then tries to generate some pretext for a post by alleging that something is "unfit for consumption" because more news outlets aren't posting this non-story.
posted by dios at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2006

(The article is back working for me. For some reason it wasn't a minute ago.)
posted by dios at 11:17 AM on March 15, 2006

this is ridiculous. you're mincing words. he didn't *say* the word oil, but it's pretty fucking crystal clear that's what he's talking about.

or does this nation and the rest of the world depend on Iraq's abundant SAND RESOURCES?
posted by wakko at 11:20 AM on March 15, 2006

Ever notice how Dios gets all agitated whenever anything negative for the administration, but never about anything that's not negative for the administration?
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM on March 15, 2006

Perhaps you can you suggest other "goods and resources" flowing out of Iraq that our own nation and everybody else in the world depend upon?

They're the world's number one source of marsh Arabs.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:21 AM on March 15, 2006

Ever notice how Dios gets all agitated whenever anything negative for the administration, but never about anything that's not negative for the administration?

Yes, and so does everyone else. But when it's brought up in MetaTalk, some dumb fuckers always scold us for being mean to him.

To hell with them all, I say. He is trolling and wasting our time.
posted by wakko at 11:22 AM on March 15, 2006

Another conspiracy.

Wait ... it's not about oil?

What the hell are we doing over there then? Spreading "democracy"? Protecting ourselves from "terrorists"? Ten times as many people died from car crashes in 2001. You fight, and risk death, for resources. Not for fuzzy ideals. Fuzzy ideals are what you feed the proles when they want a justification. Leaders do what must be done, and when a resource is needed, they kill to get more of it. Then they invoke fuzzy ideals to justify it after the fact.

I thought this was the neoconservative plan to save the American way of life, to extend Hubbert's Peak and buy a bit more time to avoid the end of our civilization. If we really are in Iraq for something as ephemeral as "democracy," then the whole misadventure is completely unjustifiable. Getting the oil was the one valid justification this war had.
posted by jefgodesky at 11:23 AM on March 15, 2006

but don't forget to flag his posts ! ! ! ! that really works! ! ! !
posted by wakko at 11:23 AM on March 15, 2006

dios: the implication intended by the post is that Abizad was admitting the war was about oil. That implication cannot be found in the context of the article.

the article: Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region.

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.

As always, I am prepared to stand corrected, but it seems like the implication can be found in the context of the article.
posted by Fenriss at 11:23 AM on March 15, 2006

i like hummus.
posted by keswick at 11:24 AM on March 15, 2006

They're the world's number one source of marsh Arabs.

I hear their mass grave industry is finally starting to recover. Good thing we shut down those rape rooms and, uh, whatever else bush was saying we stopped the other day.
posted by delmoi at 11:24 AM on March 15, 2006

> He does not say "It's the oil".

Semantics.

Perhaps you can you suggest other "goods and resources" flowing out of Iraq that our own nation and everybody else in the world depend upon?

No, I can't, it's pretty much oil. I just think misquoting seriously undermines whatever point one is making. And the general most certainly does not suggest permanent bases.

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources..."

This has been the US's core doctrine since day one.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:25 AM on March 15, 2006

If you think oil and strategic footprint isn't the major factor in this...you're either terribly naive or conning everyone else.

The damn near only thing ordered to be guarded during the "invasion phase" was the oil ministry, the oil records, and the oil pipelines.

What wasn't guarded, inventoried, or otherwise paid attention to? Known WMD sites, critical infrastructure, military records, government buildings other than the oil ministry, cultural and archeological sites.

Witness what's prioritized, and do the math. Preserving the oil is about the only thing they did plan, and poorly at that.
posted by edverb at 11:26 AM on March 15, 2006

I object to the use of quotation marks in the FPP as "summary marks," because this is a place where quotation marks are generally used to demarcate quotations.
posted by rxrfrx at 11:29 AM on March 15, 2006

Perhaps it's unfit for internal consumption?

If the General's remarks are "unfit for internal consumption," (note the proper use of quotation marks there), then why were they included in a Defense Department press release?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:35 AM on March 15, 2006

Dios...I got your f*cking conspiracy theory" right here.
posted by edverb at 11:36 AM on March 15, 2006

And the general most certainly does not suggest permanent bases.

From the first paragraph: "The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday."

It may have changed - the article wasn't availalbe a few minutes ago but is now.
posted by petebest at 11:40 AM on March 15, 2006

I've been making a pretty penny importing and selling priceless museum artifacts that were ransacked during the fall of Baghdad. Perhaps that's what he means by "goods and resources."
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:47 AM on March 15, 2006

I suppose the argument will soon be made that "long-term" does not necessarily mean "permanent"...
posted by clevershark at 11:49 AM on March 15, 2006

Delmoi is right. I hate to say it but from a strategic point of view we BETTER be getting bases out of this fiasco. With the mess we have whipped up it is a certainty that military intervention actually will be necessary - rather than the current war of choice - in a couple of decades. Or. Likely that was the goal all along.
posted by tkchrist at 11:52 AM on March 15, 2006

While I often disagree with my friend dios, I usually respect him.

So I'm sorry I to have to say that I can't respect his display of willful blindness here. It's clear and obvious even to a five-year old that the only Iraqi "goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend" are oil and oil-derived products.

Dios demonstrates time and again his command of arcane niceties of law and the sententious Latin used to describe them, so it beggers belief that dios can't tell that Abizaid was referring to oil.

So if dios isn't in fact displaying a massive and massively uncharacteristic ignorance, the only conclusion I can draw is that he's being willfuly obtuse in hopes of fooling the rest of of us.

Dios, you know better; we know better. An honest man would admit the obvious implications of Abizaid's remarks. Only a lawyer, protecting a client's interests, would work as hard as you do to appear stupid and obtuse enough to imagine that Abizaid isn't talking about oil.

Since we know you're not stupid or obtuse, dios, the clear implication is that you're working for a client's interests. Who is you client, dios? Who has hired you to hoodwink us, dios?
posted by orthogonality at 11:55 AM on March 15, 2006

Getting the oil was the one valid justification this war had.

I agree. And less than a half century ago we would have simply come out and said that and invaded. So. I guess that is some sort of progress, right? That we have lie to ourselves so we can feel good about bombing the shit out people.
posted by tkchrist at 11:55 AM on March 15, 2006

Abizaid is a pretty smart guy, as with "reading into" what he is saying. He is NOT saying the war was started to get oil to this country. We were getting plenty of oil from Iraq before.

What he is saying is a two point statement that you're misreading

1) Iraq needs to get to a place where it is needs to be a part of the world economy. This economic integration is built on the flow of goods and resources. Oil is obviously part of that for Iraq.

2) Economic integration and trade is important because world prosperity depends on it,

NOT our economy's prosperity is dependant on Iraqi oil... but our economy's prosperity is dependant on "the free flow of goods and resources" IN GENERAL.

Also, ya'll got your "over-react-to-Dios'-presence-in-a-thread-hackles" way too finely set.
posted by stratastar at 11:56 AM on March 15, 2006

dios: The direct statement by the general regards critical goods and resources. Referring again to The CIA World Factbook, oil is responsible for 95% of Iraq's foreign exchange. There is simply no other good or resource that Iraq can produce in quantity to be considered critical to continued U.S. prosperity.

It is perhaps demuring on the general's part that he discusses it in oblique terms; a direct admission from within the military could be potentially ruinous to the government, the ruling part in America, and to Abizaid.

Further, consider the contrarian position: If it truly is not oil, we might consider that it is one of Iraq's agricultural exports that is critical to U.S. prosperity. I refer to this page solely for accessibility of tabular data from the USDA; the USDA's own website is not so forthcoming, and does not aggregate data so plainly. Few of Iraq's agricultural exports (wheat, barley, rice, vegetables, dates, cotton; cattle, sheep, poultry) are key imports for the U.S. Red meat is one, however, the U.S. imports this from other countries (1, 2), and thus could not be considered a deciding factor for to remain in Iraq.

I cannot find information on chemical and other exports from Iraq sufficient enough to provide a similar case for manfacturing and industrial foreign exchanges. However, based on the overwhelming signifigance of the 95% statistic I quoted above, I believe it reasonable that there is no way for continued U.S. prosperity to be reliant on the unreported 5%.

Insofar as the general says our continued involvement relates to goods and resources, he says our involvement relates to oil, solely because that is what Iraq has. It may not be a direct quote as insomnia_lj has (dramatically) chosen to phrase it, but it is heavily implied.
posted by boo_radley at 11:57 AM on March 15, 2006

The permanent bases are nearly 100% completed.
There's no question of the intentions of keeping a permanent presence there, just like we do in former Yugoslavia.

And anyone who thinks it's not about oil seriously needs the help of a mental health professional.

Monju, you're getting the media mixed up with a government agency there. Or picking a gnat while ignoring the log. Like, who thought the CIA had information on all their employees so easily available? That still doesn't mean our media will cover the important stories!
posted by nofundy at 11:57 AM on March 15, 2006

They may not be suggesting them, but they've already built what, five huge bases that are essentially identical to any permanent US base that's ever been built?

Here's an excellent Salon article about them.

Believe me, we're staying there indefinitely. You don't build permanent-type air bases with multiple runways if you're just hanging around for a few months. Airbases cost billions of dollars.

It's the oil, and Abizaid might as well have just said it outright. It's chopping logic and nit-picking semantics to suggest otherwise, and since Al-Jazeera is making this top news, the entire Arab and Muslim worlds will have no doubt about it.

This is a public-relations disaster for the US among the Muslims, not that we need any more of those.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:57 AM on March 15, 2006

Also, ya'll got your "over-react-to-Dios'-presence-in-a-thread-hackles" way too finely set.

Sorry. Maybe when he stops threadcrapping, we'll stop reacting so harshly to it.
posted by wakko at 11:58 AM on March 15, 2006

The lede paragraph of the story is misleading. The "goods and resources" are obviously oil, but the lede says "the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq," which isn't what Abizaid said. He mentions a "long-term vision for a military presence in the region" (my emphasis), not in Iraq.

The Washington Post reported on 106 US military bases and the "more permanent character" of the four large air bases last May, and described the biggest base in Iraq last month. The Telegraph also had a similar article last month. The Salon essay that zoogleplex linked to is also available at TomDispatch.

Seymour Hersh predicted an increase in air strikes last November, and bombing has significantly increased recently.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:02 PM on March 15, 2006

Few of Iraq's agricultural exports (wheat, barley, rice, vegetables, dates, cotton; cattle, sheep, poultry) are key imports for the U.S. Red meat is one, however, the U.S. imports this from other countries (1, 2), and thus could not be considered a deciding factor for to remain in Iraq.

...Unless this mad cow thing is much worse than they've been letting on...
posted by fairmettle at 12:10 PM on March 15, 2006