The recent problem with Iraq is rather in economic than any other area: locals feel betrayed because their living level is neither matching the Coalition countries nor even of pre-war Iraq. That is what happened worldwide wherever democracy had been endured in.

The question remains to what extent expectations of the Coalition has been met, and a stable affordable petrol supply to electorate is a point of an imminent visual benefit for still in-numbers vehicle-owners.

Plantaganet

“The US/UK occupation of Iraq has effectively and literally kept the price of oil up.”

You are talking rubbish. First you say that US invades Iraq to ensure their cheap oil supply. Now you say that that it was really a ruse to drive up the price of oil. Good for oil companies but rather bad for the rest of the US/World economies.

“However the occupation of Iraq has turned into a tragic super power bloodfest. Bush's Vietnam. No way out for him. Around 100 Muslims die for every US soldier killed.”

Most of the casualties in Iraq are, have been for quite a while, the result of a power struggle between the different sects. Iraqis killing Iraqis. Its basically a low level civil war that could become a regional conflagration if the US/allies just up and left. Iran, Syria, Turkey and many others have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak and are supporting/arming their favourite protagonists. Those of you who assume that leaving Iraq will improve matters are dreaming.

“Also, talking up a war premium in the market is a very easy way for a host of middlemen to milk consumers.
Also, Saddams oil was different to Saudi oil because you couldn’t pay for the former in $US, not after 2000 anyway “

Again this doesn’t make sense. If US was interested in energy security they would never have invaded in the first place. Just look at the cosy deal that Chirac organized with Saddam to supply POL at below the market price. And if all the Americans wanted to do was drive up the price of oil, ( A ridiculous idea by the way) they could have just accidentally bombed the major refinery in Iraq whilst the No Fly Zone was still in effect.

“No wonder nobody wants to join the army, killing to keep ourselves auto-erotically obese seems flawed somehow.”

The army is the largest it has been since the Vietnam war. Some people actually feel that WE are under attack from the Islamo Fascists and wish to defend us

biggav,
Your suggestion that the US has made a deal with Osama Bin laden in order to keep the US mainland safe is ridiculous. The Saudi royal family, among Americas few allies in the Middle East, were facing open revolt in some quarters of their kingdom. Once America was in Iraq, there was no point in alienating an ally by insisting on retaining bases it doesn’t really need.

“Appeasement is different to "doing bin Laden's bidding" of course. I don't think any ever accused Chamberlain of doing Hitler's bidding when they discuss his appeasement - he made what he thought was an intelligent decision given the circumstances”

What? Chamberlain gave Hitler his assurance that the UK would not stand in his way when he invaded Czechoslovakia etc. He sold out his principles for a flawed peace initiative and the rest of Europe had to pay. You swing from the position where the US Gov’t only cares about keeping the Oil/military companies happy at the expense of everyone else, to one where Bush would happily negotiate with Osama Bin Laden if it could keep his people safe. Surely attacks on the American mainland are good business for Raytheon, Halliburton etc.

I mean really people. I don’t pretend oil security isn’t part of the US policy. But to make a complex issue simple for the sake of making a point is intellectually dishonest.

The question was, why would the US invade to get what it could buy? There are two answers to this: security, and money. But the real answers is that countries start wars because they think they can win.

Given that the USA has 4% the world's population and uses 25% its oil, secure access to oil reserves without money flowing out of the USA is of vital importance in maintaining its way of life.

"Energy security" for the USA means that whoever sells you oil today must be willing to sell to you tomorrow. Countries can change their minds about who they're friends with, after all. As world demand for oil rises faster than supply, the time may come when countries will stop selling oil to the USA and sell it to China and India instead. Only by physically controlling the oil reserves, and indirectly threatening some others, can the USA ensure energy security.

As for money, if the USA pays $15 a barrel to the Iraqi National Oil Company, that's $15 that leaves the USA forever. But if the USA pays $80 a barrel to Haliburton to pump out Iraqi oil, that's $80 that comes straight back to the USA. Invading was a way to make sure that US money would stay in the USA. With a record current account deficit of 6% of GDP, and the largest debt in human history, keeping money in the USA is important to them.

Of course, now their energy is not secure and the war is very expensive. But they didn't EXPECT to be losing.

Paul.L, mixing up quotes and repeatedly calling all ridiculous does not an argument make.

There is no conflict between invasion of Iraq and energy security, cos Big Oils energy security was hurt by peace, if the ten years of seige/sanctions preceding Iraq invasion can be called peace. National Oil Co's in less-industrialised nations have for years been increasingly locking out or limiting foriegn oil co's, Saddam was doing that AND not accepting US$ for oil, a practice dangerous for the hyper-indebted US government (fyi's, 'Iran asks Japan to pay for oil with yen, not dollars' http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20070715a1.html).

Paul.Ls unwritten assertion that Bush-Cheney administration is making decisions for US citizens energy security goes against all the evidence: demand management? renewable fuels? regulation for engine efficiency? great support for PT? No, no, just barely, and no.

Whereas Big Oil love high prices, love wars (US military is the biggest single oil consumer on planet), still salivate over prospect of control of Iraqs oil and are right now still trying to ram laws thru Iraqs misbegotten parliament, and funded Bush II to the hilt.

@pauL - "Very little oil is getting out. It costs an absolute fortune ... How do the “US oil robber barons” benefit from the current state of affairs?"

Are you kidding me ? It is about controlling the oil, not about producing it cheaply.

Look at where Bush/Cheney get their money from - both directly and through the people who support them. Oil companies, oil service companies, military contracting companies (Halliburton being the classic example).

Look at the market cap numbers for the big players in each of these market segments from 2001 to today and you will see how spectacularly successful they have been at enriching themselves and their backers (and look at the US budget deficit to see how spectacularly the US taxpayer has been done over) - its one the greatest financial plays in history.

This isn't about producing or buying oil cheaply - its about controlling supply and extracting maximum financial advantage - same as it always has been. Like I said, study some oil industry history.

http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools
http://www.gregpalast.com/its-still-the-oilsecret-condi-meeting-on-oil-before-invasion/
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/?comments=view&cID=137609&pID=136933

For that matter, do a little reading about the oil law the Americans want the Iraqi parliament to pass - the number one benchmark of their "success" from Bush's point of view - something he has stated repeatedly in recent months. This law hands over development of any "undiscovered" oil fields to foreign companies - and if you read those links about Iraq oil history you'll learn that the amount of "undiscovered" oil in Iraq equals all the Saudi oil reserves.

The point you should try and understand is that what is in the oil industry' interest isn't in our national interest as a whole - we'd be much better off letting the technology industry switch us over to an electrified transport system - lots of money to be made, and no "war on terror" nonsense to deal with for the next 30 years or so, which is what happens if we stay the present course...