The War in Iraq: Cynical Money-Making Scheme Disguised as Paternalism?

Article by Kate Banks. Edited by Hannah Probert. Additional Research by Ellie Veryard.

Much has already been said and written about the Second Gulf War, despite the ongoing nature of the conflict and the fact that it began less than a decade ago. Many have suggested that the motives for the United States and its allies’ intervention in Iraq were self-serving, namely the pursuit of oil, and I believe that there is a great deal of truth in these assertions. I would argue, however, that most critics do not go far enough and that the U.S. had deeper, self-interested, economic motives for declaring war on Iraq in 2003. This article is not attempting to examine in detail all the varying motivations for the Second Gulf War which have been suggested on all sides of the debate. Rather it is an examination of the wider financial motivations for the United States to invade Iraq, above and beyond the oft-cited ‘War for Oil’.

One such reason being the militaristic nature of America’s economy. Approximately one and a half trillion dollars are spent on military expenditures worldwide per annum, not only accounting for a huge percentage of the American economy, but also making up nearly three per cent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).[1] There is an intrinsic link between the sale of arms and the U.S. government, owing in large part to what Eisenhower termed the ‘military-industrial-congressional complex’ in 1961, which ensures that the armed forces, commerce, and politics are closely connected.[2] This essentially means that corporations, some public but mostly private, can bid for weapons contracts worth billions of dollars. On occasion, however, no bidding occurs at all and the contracts are awarded without explanation. Weapons manufacturers therefore do not have to demonstrate value in comparison to their competitors but must simply endear themselves to governments and, sometimes, to individual politicians.

This now inherent connection between money and warfare has had a deep impact upon the Iraq War. It seems that it is not only transnational corporations that can be accused of exploiting war for profit, but members of the United States’ own government, notably former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney worked for Halliburton until he was asked to join President Bush’s cabinet in 2000 and retired with a severance package worth $36 million. As of 2004 he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton, while Vice President. and has also received stock options from the company. This clear corporate influence over a high-ranking member of the U.S. government is of course worrying in itself, but is even more so considering that Halliburton was awarded a government contract worth $7 billion for which only they were allowed to bid, a move described as ‘unusual’.[3] Contracts such as these, in this case awarded prior to war being declared, seem to indicate that Corporations were far more fundamental to the plans for this war than has ever been disclosed publically.

In addition, it is not simply Halliburton that has benefitted from the War in Iraq; many other private companies have gained much from western involvement in the region. The Washington D.C-based firm, Creative Associates, for example, was awarded contracts worth over a hundred million dollars to produce a new curriculum and text books for the post-Saddam regime.[4] The involvement of American, rather that Iraqi, companies in this manner might be justified, in that such corporations were performing what was not only a humanitarian task, but one which required considerable expertise. Despite this, the fact that Bearing Point was paid $240million to implement a market driven economy and Remote Technologies Inc awarded $466million might not only appear to be a patent example of American neo-colonialism attempting to transport democracy to regions which have no history of it, but also blatant war-profiteering.

Whilst the above raises questions about alternative motivations for the invasion of Iraq it is important not to forget the importance of oil as a motive for the Iraq invasion. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), ‘Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil – the world’s second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues.’[5] Despite Donald Rumsfeld claiming that the link between oil and American involvement in Iraq is ‘utter nonsense’[6], it is hard to believe that the Bush regime did not see the link between billions of barrels of oil and billions of dollars, nor that many in the United States might not see easing access to oil as in the national interest. Indeed, G. W. Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq by April 2001 and cited improving western access to Iraqi oil reserves as the official reason for doing so.[7] Although many reasons for the Iraq war have been propagated, including the need to combat terrorism and the fear of a threat to world security, cynics, myself included, would argue that the Bush administration seized on the 9/11 tragedy which occurred six months later as an excuse to launch a ‘war on terror’ which was to find very little in the way of weapons of mass destruction, but was to generate billions of dollars for private American corporations.

[1] http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

[2] http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7444083.stm

[4] Naomi Klein, ‘The Shock Doctrine’, p. 348.

[5] http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

[6] http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

[7] http://culturechange.org/Bush_planned_Iraq_before.html

*****

Donald Rumsfeld is alleged to have shaped the public message regarding the war in Iraq to play up the danger America faced from other possible insurgent groups. He supposedly ordered sustained criticism on American newspapers who published material condemning the war.

From 2004 Bush’s approval rating dropped from the 90% reached in the aftermath of 9/11 to below 50%. This is believed to be due to the growing criticism over the Iraq affair, the emerging allegations about torture of suspected terrorists and the response to Hurricane Katrina. In 2006 it dropped to around 37%.

← Back to Volume 2

← Back to Issue 5