Probably not much of a surprise to anybody that's followed the ins and outs of the Iraq War, but the Iraqi government is about to negotiate a deal that would give no-bid contracts to Exxon, Shell, Total, and BP to "service Iraq's largest fields":
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
It's pretty obvious what's going on here. As Andrew Sullivan writes, "You don't get to conquer a new province and not get any spoils, do you? Who needs ANWR or a carbon tax when you can drain Iraq at record high oil prices?"
Not only do Exxon and Mobile get a sweet, no-bid deal from the Iraqi government, they'd get a fantastic boost from McCain's proposed corporate tax cuts and loopholes, which may have something to do with massive donations from the industry to McCain's campaign.
There's another connection in the no-bid deal to McCain's candidacy, explained by Matthew Yglesias:
The oil money more plausibly comes into play in explaining the desire to stay at war forever. After all, these companies (or their corporate ancestors) had oil contracts in Iraq in the past and now they're getting them back "36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power." Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business -- especially natural resource business -- in unstable countries. But a given government is much, much, much less likely to nationalize western countries' assets if it's dependent on external U.S. military support and especially if its security services are nicely enmeshed with the U.S. military.
McCain, of course, wants to stay in Iraq - a hundred years, if need be. His Iraqi policy ties in neatly with ensuring that the Iraqi government - now, or in the future - never gets the pesky idea that it actually owns the oil found in its territory and has a right to determine its fate.
You can almost hear the squeals of delight - hey, this means cheap oil again! But these are people who don't care if burning oil (a) is creating a massive ecological and economic disaster, (b) spews harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, (c) and destroys irreplaceable, pristine wilderness. What's establishing an overseas colony with a permanent military presence to fight an endless war in comparison with cheap gasoline prices?
I admit the economy is bad enough for working families without factoring in rising gas prices, especially in the rural areas of our state. But shouldn't we be doing something about it, instead of pushing the problems off on others that will follow us? I wouldn't be averse to find some short-term temporary relief for gas consumers -- if we simultaneously applied ourselves to finding real long-term solutions to our oil-based economy.
I'm fine with leaving all the policy-making to the left. I know we can get us out of these scrapes. But I guarantee that many rigthies won't like the results...especially if they work. |
