There was a time somewhere between the perilous lead up to war in Iraq and the first bomb drop in March of 2003 when American oil interests were the de facto reason for war. People held placards reading “No Blood for Oil” outside embassies, and even pundits discussed it. But somehow, somewhere, in the mix of absent WMDs and non-existent ties to Al-Qaeda, the oil motive slowly shifted from view.
Canadian journalist Linda McQuaig won’t let it. A fearless writer of the left, McQuaig has written a polemic that puts the rush-to-war as a rush-for-oil thesis back into scrutiny.
It’s the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight For the Planet, McQuaig’s fourth book, is a readable and revealing assembly of evidence supporting her thesis. Writing in her often biting, sometimes accusatory tone, there are few revelations in the book but plenty of important evidence.
McQuaig’s writes about a Dick Cheney task force that set about to examine, among other things, vanishing American oil reserves (just months before 9/11). With dwindling oil fields would come an increased reliance on foreign energy, particularly in the Middle East, said Cheney. If Middle East oil was “where the prize ultimately lies,” then America would need to make the Gulf a “primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.”
So maps were drawn. Countries were divided based on oil reserves. Another task force was assembled. Then came 9/11.
“The fact is, we’re almost halfway through the world’s finite supply of oil and so the scramble for it has become more intense,” says McQuaig over the phone from Vancouver while in the midst of a book tour that brings her to campus this week. “This is something Dick Cheney was very focused on before entering the Bush government. Where is the U.S. going to get its oil?”
Certainly the Middle East, which supplies the bulk of the world’s supply. But there was one problem: Saddam Hussein. In one of many compelling points, McQuaig notes that France, Russia and others negotiated oil contracts with Saddam to be implemented once economic sanctions were lifted. The U.S., however, was left off the list.
“You can see this was of tremendous concern to the U. S. because [Iraq has] tremendously valuable, easily accessible oil fields,” notes McQuaig.
Others, no doubt, will roll their eyes and attach to McQuaig’s efforts the label of “conspiracy theorist.” An agenda-pusher. A leftist gadfly. Even editors at fairly liberal magazines dismiss “oil conspiracies” when talking about the war in Iraq. McQuaig bristles at the accusation.
“Dismissing something for a conspiracy is a short-hand way to not deal with it,” she says. “I wish [opponents] could mount a serious argument that oil is not a concern. Explain all these things, why they aren’t important.” She goes on to attack the latest justification for war-namely that bringing democracy to Iraq justifies a military campaign-as lip service from the U. S. government.
“We know it was not for WMDs, links to Al-Qaeda, so now they’re down to bringing democracy to the Middle East. Where’s the evidence they cared the slightest for democracy in the Middle East? The history for this is compelling. Democracy has not been on their radar screen.”
Conspiracy or not, the book’s main points raise questions about their conspicuous absence from the mainstream media.
“What a damning comment on the mainstream media for being so unquestioning and accepting,” notes McQuaig, who is known as a fierce critic of the right and has written books on globalization and capitalism in addition to her regular stint as a Sunday columnist for the Toronto Star.
“Even if you leave oil aside, it’s just unbelievable the media is so unquestioning of explanations put forth. The media essentially went along with it. The media completely failed to be critical.”
Realizing their embarrassing drop in journalistic rigor, media institutions are only now acknowledging the mistakes. The Washington Post recently ran a 3000-word article by its own media critic damning the paper for pulling punches in the lead-up to war. Even Dan Rather wishes he asked tougher questions.
Tough questions aside, McQuaig’s book hints at difficulties in forming a viable energy policy both here and abroad. NAFTA, as McQuaig points out, requires Canada to export energy to the U.S. at the level of American consumption, as well as guaranteed access to our resources.
“We’re fine if we don’t want to cut exports. But if we want to we can’t,” explains McQuaig. “It’s not inconceivable that parts of Eastern Canada could end up with an oil shortage. If a crisis arrived, Canada could not cut back its exports.”
Putting sensible policies in place will be a challenge, of course. But McQuaig does not ascribe to fatalism or lack of effort.
“[Scientists are] right, Kyoto doesn’t go far enough. But do you suggest we do nothing? That sounds fundamentally silly. We have to take these steps as the political will unfolds.”
Linda McQuaig is one of the featured speakers at the Navigating a New World symposium at Convocation Hall on Saturday, November 6. Her new book It’s the Crude, Dude is out now on Doubleday Canada.
