Oily people

We knew it all the time.

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi. ...

The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment said that the seizure of the oilfields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking when they refer to the use of force; it has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."

Thus far the BBC for January 2. Meanwhile, the New York Times says the message was delivered to Lord Cromer, then British ambassador to the US, by Defense Secretary James Schlesinger.

As recounted by Lord Cromer, Mr. Schlesinger told him the United States was unwilling to abide threats by "underdeveloped, underpopulated" countries.

Nor, apparently, we were willing to let what people at the time were calling "our" oil permanently remain in the control of the nations whose oil it actually was, as Robert Dreyfuss shows in the March-April 2003 issue of Mother Jones.

Ever since the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States has steadily been accumulating military muscle in the Gulf by building bases, selling weaponry, and forging military partnerships. Now, it is poised to consolidate its might in a place that will be a fulcrum of the world's balance of power for decades to come. At a stroke, by taking control of Iraq, the Bush administration can solidify a long-running strategic design. "It's the Kissinger plan," says James Akins, a former U.S. diplomat. "I thought it had been killed, but it's back."

The plan, which was indeed promoted by Henry the K in a deep backgrounder in 1975, was never killed, although it did suffer periods of temporary exile. For practical reasons, the idea was trimmed back to force projection to prevent an "outside force" (meaning the USSR) from gaining control of the region, ala Jimmy Carter's "Rapid Deployment Force." But it continued to percolate in the background and made advances under the Reagan-Bush cartel, only to be pushed back into the foothills (although well to this side of the wilderness) during the "pragmatic" Clinton years.

It was during that time, manic in its hubris, obsessive in its focus, secure in its base and confident of its reception, The Plan took form and was made whole. In September, 2000, an outfit called the Project for a New American Century proposed the US run the whole world.

That's not hyperbole; their paper was self-described as a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." It declared, among other things, the need for the US to have a "permanent role" in Gulf security and called "the unresolved conflict with Iraq" the "immediate justification" (emphasis added) for a "substantial American force presence" in the region but adds that the issue "transcends Saddam Hussein." The paper was prepared for, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby, now Cheney's chief of staff.

Which means, to put it honestly if rather harshly, Saddam Hussein was not the cause of Gulf War II, he was the excuse for it.

So we have indeed come full circle back to domination by occupation. Admittedly, the hawks have learned a lot about PR in the interim: It's not "our" oil in Iraq, it "belongs to the Iraqi people." We're just, well, taking care of it for them. And it's not about ensuring access to oil for our industries, it's about spreading freedom and justice. In fact, it's not about oil at all and how dare you even mention the idea. We know, you'd be happier if Saddam was still in power.

Now, both US and UK officials say troops will have to remain "at least" another year or two - or even longer, the Boston Globe reports.

Washington - The United States may not be able to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq as planned next year, even though significant progress is being made in stabilizing the chaotic nation, President Bush has reported to Congress.

The status report indicated that large numbers of American troops could remain in Iraq for years

and even the hope of reducing the level from 130,000 to 100,000 by July "may not be realistic."

Somewhere, Dr. Henry is smiling.