NPR wants us to believe that the idea that the US invaded Iraq for oil and the control of oil is nothing but a misperception. On Monday's ATC Robert Siegel interviews Amy Jaffe, head of the oil industry-backed Baker Institute Energy Forum and member of the Iraq Study Group.
Refering to the Iraq Study Group oil recommendations (see this report on them) Siegel asks her this puffball question: "...does the discussion of oil suffer here from the pressure of not wanting to make our discussion of Iraq sound like it is all about oil?" (See, it just sounds like it's all about oil.)
Jaffe's response is well worth considering: "...well you know we are a little bit hindered by this whole blood for oil debate. The sensitivity about whether we be perceived as quote-unquote 'stealing the oil' is part of the reason why the sector is so messed up today….we didn’t want to be seen as quote-unquote 'getting involved in the oil' and so there was a proclivity toward projects that were tinkering at the edges…we were so busy trying to fix the surface equipment that we didn’t mind the store on the oil fields, cause we’re so afraid to touch the oil fields..."
Notice how she quickly shifts from the present (the current business of the Iraq Study Group) and into talking about the whole Iraq war project itself and how the US "sensitivity" about not wanting to be seen as "stealing the oil" is why things are so messed up today. Working at the Baker institute, Ms. Jaffe surely knows that there's a good reason for not wanting to be seen as "stealing the oil" - because that's exactly what the US war plans and implementation were and are all about [and not just the oil but the whole Iraqi economy]. If you doubt this you should take a look at Greg Palast's documented work on the whole sordid affair: you can read about it on his web site, on the BBC, or watch it on YouTube. Or you can settle for the reporting of NPR and be assured that the real problem with US projects for this New American Century is just one of misperception.