A Veteran's Voice

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

G.W.F Hegel, The Dialectic, Big Oil, and The War In Iraq

Before I start I would like to give a quick synopsis of Hegel's theory of the Dialectic. The Dialectic assumes there is an ultimate outcome know only to the puppetmaster that always stays in the background and unknown to the populice at large. It depends on too polar opposite positions. One being the Thesis, and the other being the Antithesis. When these two positions react with one another it produces the desired result known as the Synthesis. Are you following me so far?

In all the debate about the war in Iraq. I wonder if we have missed the greater power at work behind the scenes. We could argue the "Military Industrial Complex", as described by Eisenhower, but I wonder if there isn't a simpler and more appalling power at work here.

Those on the left would call the war in Iraq a war for oil. I would argue that that can not be the case. A stable government in Iraq would be the last thing on earth Big Oil would want to see. And to go even further a pro-western government in Iran would also be a disaster for Big Oil. A steady stream of oil from those countries would provide a lower cost in crude which would end in lower prices at the pump.

That in mind I would like to offer my hypothesis of what has occured since 2001 in regards to Iraq and the greater middle east. Big Oil needed Saddam out of the way to bring the Iraqi oil to the world market. So they pushed for American intervention in Iraq. A stable Pro-Western Democracy in Iraq would therefore, become the Thesis. Politicians on the right put forward that arguement.

As the prospect of a stable government seemed feasible, then Big Oil would've see that as a disaster. So any sign of progress would need to be suppress and an alternate position would need to be promoted. American Isolationism or abandonment of the Iraq experiment, this position would then become our Antithesis. This would leaves the oil on the market, but the instability in the Government, and our committment to it, has fueled fear of a coming collapse of law and order in Iraq and cut off in the supply of crude. This has helped to keep oil prices high, and led to greater profits for Big Oil.

If I am Big Oil I need to have politicians on both sides of the argument to gain my desired result. This would be the Synthesis. My desire is a free flowing supply that is unstable. The instability fuels fear, which in turn leads to higher crude prices. Higher crude prices mean larger profits for Big Oil.

I would conclude by saying that many on the Left would label Iraq a war for oil. I would agree with that wholeheartedly. However, the campaign to lose in Iraq is also a welcomed sign and desired result for Big Oil. The only way Big Oil can lose in Iraq is a stable Pro-Western Democracy in Iraq, that could influence other nations in the region. If Democracy spreads to the rest of the middle east, then the price of crude would fall, and so would Big Oil's profits.

Before you praise Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid for not being beholden to Big Oil. Be assured that Big Oil is tugging their strings just as much as they are the Republicans.

Add to Technorati Favorites!


Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11