I will be the first to admit that I’ve been following this ISIS debate and coverage too closely; one must be wary of what the corporate media is trying to draw your attention to while something else is going on right behind you.
I just watched a forum led by The Independent Institute that Gore Vidal spoke in about a decade ago where they discussed the state of global terrorism and America (you can see it here - long, but worth it) . It came at a time when the wounds America had gained from September 11th were healing. One thing Vidal was sure of at the time, and which I am sure of now, is that the entire situation in Iraq was one concerning oil, not retribution.
When we invaded Iraq we were worried about the Kurds who were being gassed to death by Saddam Hussein.
It’s funny that we were worried about that, considering Reagan made a point of stopping Congress from responding to that exact situation when Hussein was our desired ally and trade partner. However, Hussein invaded Kuwait and we realized he wasn’t going to be such a great trade partner.
We invaded Iraq under the lie that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and had ties to al-Qaeda, but almost everyone who voted in favor of that war, including the Democrat’s darling Hillary Clinton, knew what they were voting for: oil, money, and power. That is not to be mistaken with the concept that we only went in Iraq to get oil, but we certainly went there in the hopes of protecting our stake in the oil, money, and power we are invested in in the region.
Less than 15 percent of our oil comes from the Middle East. However, we have serious investments in the Middle Eastern oil industry that pay out in dollars and influence, including our need to stay copacetic with Saudi Arabia. When Iraq is unstable, the U.S. economy and our influence over Middle Eastern power is unstable. As Noam Chomsky put it in a 2008 article: “For US planners, it is imperative that Iraq remain under U.S. control, to the extent possible, as an obedient client state that will also house major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world's major energy reserves.”
All of the above leads to our concerns over ISIS.
Are the war hawks in the government really concerned about the Iraqi civilians and the state of Iraq as an attempted democracy? I think not. Be sure that a government the United States cannot control to its benefit in an important resource area, like ISIS’ possible takeover of Iraq, will result in military action. ISIS could certainly pose a threat to American security somewhere down the line, but the level of eagerness to get involved is surely a response to the fact that Iraq has the world’s “second largest proven oil reserves.”
The oil production facilities of Exxon Mobil, BP and PetroChina in southern Iraq have been largely evacuated because of the threat from ISIS in the north. At the beginning of this year, Iran (an enemy of Saudi Arabia) and Iraq were talking about working together to elevate their oil production to a level that would surpass Saudi Arabia’s. Saudi Arabia, our ally, surely wasn’t happy about such a prospect. It’d not hard to draw the lines here.
If we are really concerned with terrorist groups coming together against the U.S., perhaps we’d be launching a full scale military operation in Yemen, instead of just sending drones. Ah, but Yemen doesn’t have much oil.
The concern over ISIS is the concern for the U.S.’ interests in the Middle East. We are certainly not a nation willing to go to war over atrocities committed in Africa, and I see no reason to believe we’re concerned over the same issues in the Middle East. Our country is always willing to lend a hand to the helpless, as long as they lend us a hand when we need to fill up our gas tanks.