Bush Oil Buddies Divvy Up Iraqi Oil, Now Joined By "Liberal Scion" Peter Galbraith

The ongoing saga of the Iraqi oil patch pie adds a new chapter, courtesy of the Thursday New York Times, and its above-the-fold front pager, "American Adviser to Kurds Stands to Reap Oil Profits."

In today's installment, we learn that Peter Galbraith, former ambassador, foreign policy expert to Joe Biden and John Kerry, and son of the famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, is in line to reap $100 million dollars -- maybe more -- from contracts between a Norwegian oil company and the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq. As an advisor to DNO, Galbraith and a partner received a 10% stake in a large Kurdish oil field back in 2004.

What's more, Galbraith has long championed the idea of partitioning Iraq, presumably into three regions that roughly encompass the country's three stakeholder groups (Shiite, Sunni and Kurd).

Why does this matter?

For one thing, the American-created central government in Baghdad has long insisted that it has sole constitutional authority over all of Iraq's oil. For another, giving the central government time to devise an equitable oil agreement between the stakeholders was the main goal President Bush touted when he announced "the surge" in January 2007.

Later that same year, in September, Hunt Oil of Dallas announced an oil production-sharing agreement with the grand poobahs of the Kurdistan region. At the time, Bush briefly feigned concern:

"I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm - if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

Nine months later, in June 2008, Ray Hunt himself crowed about it at a dinner in his honor. D Magazine's online blog "Front Burner," in a piece titled "Oilman Hunt Sees A 'Soft Partition' For Iraq," quoted the longtime Bush crony parroting the Galbraith line:

"I think that, in the end, you'll end up with a soft partition of Iraq, a very decentralized government, with authority granted to three provinces. The Kurds I think will end up being an example...American democracy is not one-size-fits-all, but, as an example of what freedom can do, it's remarkable that this can happen."

Freedom's just another word for "I'm gettin' mine, boys!" Galbraith apparently figured that out years earlier.

Remarkably, the latest story in the Times states that "Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith's thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith's oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say." Come again?

Vice President Biden may not favor partition now (he's not in charge of foreign policy), yet he certainly advocated it for years. In fact, he co-wrote a 2006 op-ed promoting it -- in the Times, no less! -- and often hyped it as one of his great ideas on cable chat shows. Partition may or may not be a great idea. Still, how does the germane fact of Joe's historic support not make it into the paper's story today?

Alan Greenspan noted in his 2007 memoir The Age of Turbulence, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Since I've previously blogged about this at Huffington Post, I'll just say it again:

Desert Storm in 1990 was also about oil, but Bush the Elder tacitly signaled that the motivation was to protect Kuwait's oil fields, which is why much of the world (including Arab neighbors) approved of the limited military action. "No-fly" zones over Iraq, continued by Bill Clinton for eight years, ultimately turned Baghdad's Bully into the mother of all empty suits.

Ah, but the son also rises.

Immediately after 9/11, Bush the Lesser held a megaphone at Ground Zero, promising that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." That should have meant al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, but it morphed, at least publicly, into Saddam's mythical mushroom clouds and WMDs. Then it became freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, and finally it arrived at the fantastical notion of remaking the Middle East, at all cost and with our blood.

Remaking it for whom, exactly? Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon-Mobil, our Chevron shining bright?

 

Comments

[LWS]

The fact is Shell, Exxon, Conoco-Phillips, ENI, Occidental, and Lukoil, represent corporations from Italy, to the United Stares, the Netherlands and Russia -- all paying customers who are purchasing Iraqi oil.

How wonderful for the Iraqi's -- they stand to profit immensely.

International trade occurred before the Iraq war. Now it resumes. The Fact is international trade does not depend on war.

BTW Bush and Cheny do not own or control any part of the many corporations involved. These corporations did not benefit from the war, these trade agreements do not depend on the war. These corporations would be involved in the oil trade even if the war had not happened. There is nothing sinister or even remotely wrong about this trade -- so long as the industrialized world runs on oil, such trade will occur.

This only reflects healthy international trade -- not a criminal conspiracy. There is nothing evil or wrong here, unless you are a socialist and hate/fear capitalism.

Yes those corporations will make profits and those corporations will also employ millions of people, who depend on that employment to feed, cloth, and provide shelter for their families.

Anyone got a problem with that?

[tacevad]

you overlook the fact that france,and russia plus others ALREADY had contracts to develop those oil fields that convieniently became null and void with the illegal invasion.

[LWS]

You cannot re-make history to fit your agenda. When you claim there have been seven prior "oil wars" in Iraq, you are distorting the motivations and identities of the world power blocks involved, you are distorting facts, and fabricating a fantasy into existence: 1914-1918 is WWI, a conflict that involved all the world’s major powers (the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires). At that time Iraq was a part of Persia. You blur this into WWII and then confuse the issue by including the first Gulf War -- these conflicts were not actually related at a causal level, this is simply falsification.

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

....don't slip in the blood,
don't stumble over the dead bodies.

[LWS]

Well said!

Al-Qaeda attacks began in 1992, with coordinated bombings of two hotels in Aden, Yemen, killing one Australian tourist. In an interview with Abdel Bari Atwan, Bin Laden has claimed al-Qaeda responsibility for the 1993 attack on U.S. troops in Mogadishu, the bombing of the National Guard Training Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

August 1998, Al-Qaeda operatives carried out the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 5,000 others.

December 1999 al-Qaeda planned attacks against U.S. and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan. Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial.

January 2000, the planned bombing of LAX failed when bomber Ahmed Ressam was caught at the US-Canadian border with explosives in the trunk of his car.

Al-Qaeda was directly involved in coordinating the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, along with the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and the September 11 attacks which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 innocent men and women.

[Davwbaird]

and there you it and it was know by 40 percent of it before Iraq. iTs the oil. Cheney set up the haliburton while defense sec, under the first bush and then became haliburton ceo and got paid off with a 59 million bonus .. what you think?

[LWS]

Can you present evidence to support your allegation?
Preferably in properly punctuated and complete sentences.

There is nothing illegal about forming a corporation.
There is nothing illegal about becoming it's CEO.

As the CEO of a private sector business it is not anyone's business (except his board of directors and share-holders) how big a bonus he received.

It certianly is not your business -- unless you are a stock-holder.

It is not illegal to receive a bonus.

Fact: Iraq oil remains in Iraqi control. No material resources have been sequestered or moved across international boarders -- except under the legal agreements governing international trade, trade which profits Iraq.

[afgail]

US blood for Iraq & Afgan oil. US tax dollars to wage war for oil company profits. Just another transfer of wealth from the average American to the super rich.

[LWS]

Can you produce material evidence to support your claim, or are you just mouthing the words?

Fact: Iraq oil remains in Iraqi control. No material resources have been sequestered or moved across international boarders -- except under the legal agreements governing international trade, trade which profits Iraq and Afghanistan.

[dieselis]

" The love of money is the root of all evil." You don't come in the world with any nor will you take any out with you but its nice to have all you can get your hands on while your here. No its not money is necessary for survival in our system but its also the destructive force of all things good when greed takes over. Having a lot of money, nice. Having it well with your Soul, priceless.

[TCPITS]

When your lords and masters in the ruling class take their spoils, just suck it up. Otherwise you can hang the last politician with the guts of the last preacher (Rabbi, Mullah, whatever)

[suntzu]

If he is human, Galbraith still needs to sleep at night. That is, unless he stays up thinking how rich he got over the dead bodies of Americans and Iraqis.

[Ameriki]

Much of the bloodshed in Iraq may have been prevented if Cheney and Bush had not vetoed the proposal to give every Iraqi citizen a share of the Iraqi national oil company. Cheney and Bush would still have enriched themselves and their buddies though not as much as taking all of the oil has enriched them. The veto also eliminated a possible trouble-maker if the Iraqis had decided to compete with the Exxon/Mobi­l/Chevron/­BP/OPEC cartel rather collude with them.

It should be noted that President Obama continues Cheny's and Bush's sacrificing of Iraqi, Afghani, European and American lives to Mammon.

[Chipher]

http://afghanistanpetroleum.com

The $100Bs of Afghan oil & gas have already been auctioned off and the corrupt re-up'd leader of Afghanistan, every bit as corrupt as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is preparing to sign the contracts.

Not one word in the world media, and not one penny to the Afghan people.

[WilliePilgrim]

Gee, I wonder what other public spirited leader/political power broker, ex-vice president, international player, peace prize winner, scion of a powerful political family, and one time contender for the CEO or America Inc is actively promoting government action in such a way that it would enrich them personally? Hmmm....Do they all just fly around to exotic locations for meeting so they can laugh at us for our incredible naivete? If you think 100 million is a lot, you have to consider what the tens of trillions being anticipated that will flow into organizations targetting specific transactions and exchanges of money over the next several decades until we finally reach 'the ideal climate".
Putting one's money where one's mouth is doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as putting one's mouth where the money is.
Is there no way that policy when involved with this much money can be made transparent so we see just who is going to benefit prior to our national interests promoting specific action? Not bloody likely.
For all its drawbacks, capitalism when untainted by government corruption and interferrence, is possibly the most transparent and competitive system that does the best job at seeing to the fairest distribution of wealth. If anyone is making that much money it should be open to others to compete for it, and not simply handed off to one's yachting buddies.

[Chipher]

...maybe Galbraith tried to torpedo Karzai because the whole Afghan oil & gas auction charade was going too smoothly, and Galbraith figured he would offer his services to make sure the deal closed? That gives a whole new twist to SecState C|inton's urgent 'certified and legitimate' roundup, she was trying to head off Galbraith's tree spike and protect her own commish!

Who is Gustavson Associates, Denver, and who did they know to get the Afghan auction contract?

http://afghanistanpetroleum.com

[den1953]

Wonder when the money turns to blood or better yet nightmares for life , sad for all the American & Iraqi lives that were lost!

[LWS]

Between 1983 attacks at Haij Umran and the 1991 attacks in the an-Najaf -
Karbala area’s, Iraqi troops used chemical weapons of mass destruction (including Mustard Gas, Mustard Gas and Tabun, Mustard Gas and Nerve Agent, and Mustard Gas and CS) 15 times resulting in the deaths of approximately 42,701 people.

Imagine how the world would be different if Saddam Hussein had not been such a murderous monster.

[Davwbaird]

imagine if we not given all those to him.

[supertim]

very reminscent of the plot for the movie, "syriana", starring george clooney, funny how art imitates life

"The film focuses on petroleum politics, and the global influence of the oil industry, whose political, economic, legal, and social effects are experienced by a CIA operative (George Clooney), an energy analyst (Matt Damon), a Washington attorney (Jeffrey Wright), and a young unemployed Pakistani migrant worker (Mazhar Munir) in an Arab country in the Persian Gulf."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriana

[mergina]

Americas blood and guts for oil profits. Lock bush and cheney up for the war profiteering they are so guilty of.

[SecretSister]

Bush buddies and Iraqi oil...what's next the moon?

[wired]

In the last sentence of the article, oil companies are mentioned. What are their stakes in Iraqi oil? Beyond the Norwegian company, I've read that a Chinese oil company has won a contract in Iraq. Can someone point to the oil drilling companies that Bush & Co are profiting from and what their stakes are? A link showing the complete picture, perhaps?

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

My question in the final sentence ("Remaking it for whom, exactly?") was rhetorical. I wasn't really wondering. It's about the oil.

There have been seven prior "oil wars" in Iraq, broadly speaking: 1914-1918; 1918-1930; 1941; 1980-1988 (the U.S. and U.K. supplied Hussein with arms, chemical/biological weapon precursors, military training, satellite targeting, and naval support in his eight year war with neighboring Iran); 1991; 1991-2003 ("no-fly" period); and 2003.

Only the uninformed believe that what happened under Bush II was somehow different from the preceding century-long history. It's equally naive to think that because Norwegians and others are moving in, it wasn't about U.S. interests, per se.

It was, and is. We didn't spend a trillion-plus just to topple Saddam. Oil companies' future profits – and current share price and market capitalization – depend largely on reserves under their control. Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in known reserves. Only last month, Business Week reported (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_46/b4155000179541.htm) that "Shell, Exxon, and ConocoPhillips are in talks to boost Iraq's oil production to more than 6 million barrels per day—behind only Saudi Arabia in OPEC."

The word "multinational" exists for a reason. Rome-based ENI is partnering in Iraq with California-based Occidental. Near Basra, Dallas-based Exxon-Mobil and Netherlands-based Shell are squaring off against a Houston-based Conoco-Phillips and Russian-based Lukoil partnership.

And so it goes.

[wired]

There are indeed different approaches to understanding the international oil business, which is in itself a very complicated topic involving almost every economic and political area. I often read how this all is supposed to be a specific "Bush" construct, when in fact, as you write, it is multi- and international. But in political discussions, the overall picture gets blurred and remains partisan.

Case in point: the arms trade with Saddam you mention.

"The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the U.S., equally keen to protect its interests in the region, opted for and developed an indirect approach. The CIA began covertly directing non-U.S. origin hardware to Hussein's armed forces, "to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war."
http://wapedia.mobi/en/SIPRI_Arms_Transfers_Database,_Iraq_1973%E2%80%931990

[wired]

Strange, that one reads relatively little about the major arms suppliers to Iraq, the former Soviet Union and that wonderful nation, France, but quite a bit about "Bush". Whether the CIA help was as massive/ effective as from the afore mentioned countries is to a large degree speculative and therefore open for partisan politics.

In the end, one can become quite cynical, when we read about how the UN (corruption), France (weapons trade), the USA (CIA), and other countries and individuals (of ALL political persuasions) were and are still cashing in during the Iraq controversy at the cost of sane international politics.

It seems that my questions cannot be answered, since the circle around the topic can be widened arbitrarily to fit or ignore any preset political stance.

Anyway, thanks for writing about Galbraith and the Norwegian interests in Iraq.

[LWS]

You are misrepresenting the facts when you claim "the U.S. and U.K. supplied Hussein with arms, chemical/biological weapon precursors ..." falsely implying that it was done with intent, when the facts surrounding t his are clear: The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research.

Once the true intentions became known all shipments of biological research materials were halted.

[mouselion]

Can someone point to the oil drilling companies that Bush & Co are profiting from and what their stakes are?

Haliburton -- they're main business mission is oil drilling and support, their subsidiary, Kellogg-Brown & Root has a main business mission of geophysical oil exploration.

****
Why would KBR have no-bid contracts for troop support services in Iraq?
****

[dhinds]

The decision to invade Iraq preceded 9/11 and was intended to provide access to the oil Saddam Hussein had nationalized, a goal that was accomplished at a tragically great cost: The lives lost, the debt incurred and the moral stature of the USA reduced to worthless hype; the suicides and homelessness among the war's American victims who know or sense they've been deceived.

When GWB was in the Texas Air National Guard he "borrowed" a navy jet to visit a girl friend. Once he became Commander In Chief, he had the nation's Armed Forces at his disposal.

He betrayed his country, which has yet to recover from the results of his treachery.

[darker]

BUSH = FRAT-BRAT posing as president. A store-front behind which Republican
rich ran amok and destroyed all controls of the American financial system
while creating WAR PROFITEER opportunities at the cost of America lives and others,
and pushing UNLIMITED PROFITEERING for oil company pals and banker friends.