[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason we rushed into Iraq in 2003. They have all the oil. (And we had to beat the Chinese to it.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why the Iraqis just contracted oil development in the Rumaila field out to British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). CNPC also has exclusive development rights to the al-Ahdab field. The Italian firm Eni is contracted on the Zubair field. Conoco and Exxon are in bidding talks on the West Qurna field, but as of now no American developers are making a dime off Iraqi oil. But we had to get in get that oil for ourselves. It all makes perfect sense!
[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you are better informed than I. Now please explain to me why there are 14 permanent U.S. military installations in Iraq? Are we just providing the security for all that oil and the other nations you mentioned are cashing-in while we keep it secure?
Also, what are the percentage stakes of each of the aforementioned countries? Do the Chinese have a larger stake than any other country? What is their percentage take of Iraqi oil production?
If what you say is true then we seem to have gone into Iraq and did the fighting and dying for six years (and paid the cost financially, to the tune of one trillion dollars so far) so that other countries, including (Communist) China, could reap the benefit?
Sounds like we did a dumb thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
First, I want to apologize. Upon further research, I have learned that Exxon Mobile, in partnership with Royal Dutch Shell, have been awarded the development contract on the West Qurna-1 field. That's one.
As for percentages, I don't have that right in front of me, but I'll be happy to provide a number when I have the time.
The short answer to the rest of your question is that, contrary to popular opinion, this wasn't really a war for oil. This was something that had been brewing for a long, long time. As a good friend in Naval Intelligence has stated in the past, the surprising thing wasn't that we went in, it was that we didn't go in sooner.
We maintain a presence because it's in our best interest to do so. Simply removing Hussein and giving the Iraqi's a "Peace out, ya'll" would have de-stabilized the entire region to level we can't imagine. Literally. The current Middle Eastern situation would look like a friendly basketball game compared to what would have happened if we we were not maintaining a presence. Don't think for a second that our adversaries are not supremely intimidated by that presence, and that their tactical and policy decisions are not affected by that intimidation.
Wish I could get more in-depth, but I think we're pushing the limit of the "No Politcal Posts" policy already.
