journal-neo | The long-term Washington strategy since
at least 1992, well before September 11, 2001 and the Washington’s
declaration of its War on Terror, has been by hook or by crook, by color
revolution or outright invasion, to directly, with US
“boots-on-the-ground,” militarily control the vast oil reserves and
output of the major Arab OPEC oil countries. This is a long-standing
institutional consensus, regardless who is President.
Cheney: ‘Where the Prize Ultimately Lies’
To appreciate the long-term strategic
planning behind today’s chaotic wars in the Middle East there is no
better person to look at than Dick Cheney and his statements as CEO of
the then-world largest oilfield services company. In 1998, four years
after becoming head of Halliburton, Cheney gave a speech to a group of
Texas oilmen. Cheney told the annual meeting of the Panhandle Producers
and Royalty Owners Association in reference to finding oil abroad,
“You’ve got to go where the oil is. I don’t think about it [political
volatility] very much.”
During his first five years as CEO of
Halliburton, Cheney took the company from annual revenues of $5.7
billion to $14.9 billion by 1999. Halliburton foreign oilfield
operations went from 51% to almost 70% of revenues in that time. Dick Cheney clearly looked at the global oil picture back then more than most.
In September 1999 Cheney delivered a
speech to the annual meeting of an elite group of international oilmen
in London. One section is worth quoting at length:
“By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?
Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”The PNAC Warplan
Now let’s follow that bouncing ball
sometimes called Dick Cheney a bit further. In September 2000 Cheney
signed his name before his selection as George W. Bush’s vice
presidential running-mate, to an unusual think-tank report that became
the de facto blueprint of US military and foreign policy to the present.
Another signer of that report was Don Rumsfeld, who would become
Defense Secretary under the Cheney-Bush presidency (the order reflects
the reality–w.e.)
The think-tank, Project for a New
American Century (PNAC), was financed by the US military-industrial
complex, supported by a gaggle of other Washington neo-conservative
think tanks such as RAND. The PNAC board also included neo-conservative
Paul Wolfowitz, later to be Rumsfeld’s Deputy Secretary of Defense;
‘Scooter Libby,’ later Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff. It
included Victoria Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan. (Notably Victoria
Nuland herself went on in 2001 to become Cheney’s principal deputy
foreign policy adviser). It included Cheney-Bush ambassador to
US-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and hapless
presidential candidate Jeb Bush.
Cheney’s PNAC report explicitly called
on the future US President to remove Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and
militarily take control of the Middle East a full year before 911 gave
the Cheney-Bush Administration the excuse Cheney needed to invade Iraq.
The PNAC report stated that its
recommendations were based on the report in 1992 of then-Secretary of
Defense, Dick Cheney: “In broad terms, we saw the project as building
upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in
the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense Policy Guidance
(DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for
maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power
rival, and shaping the international security order in line with
American principles and interests.”
At a time when Iran as a putative nuclear “threat” was not even on the map, PNAC advocated Ballistic Missile Defense: “DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the world. (emphasis added)
In the report Cheney’s cronies further
noted that, “The military’s job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet
expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the “zones of
democratic peace; (sic)” to deter the rise of a new great-power
competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East;
and to preserve American preeminence…”
The Cheney PNAC document of 2000 went on: “The
United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in
Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides
the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.“
The quote is worth reading at least twice.
A year after the PNAC report was issued,
then-General Wesley Clark, no peacenik to be sure, in a March 2007
speech before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, told
of a Pentagon discussion he had had shortly after the strikes of
September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and Pentagon with someone
he knew in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s office.
