Iraq war - war for oil?

[invocation]

Hey guys, I'm doing an essay on this. Does anyone know any good resources (books, URLs, etc), for either side?

Thanks in advance

[Lyev]

"Either side"? There is no other side; it is unequivocally an imperialist occupation to gain hegemony over Iraq and its people, militarily and therefore economically. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took absolute control of Halliburton's $7 billion dollar oil contract in Iraq. Upon invasion the oil infrastructure of Iraq was pretty much immediately taken control of by western forces, with as little damage done to it as possible. Some good reads on the topic are; The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and Hegemony or Survival? by Noam Chomsky.

[invocation]

Oh I agree, but I still need to look at both sides, even though I already know one side is bullshit.

RE: Chomsky and Klein, do the books overtly argue that control of oil was the main (or one of the main) reasons for the invasion?

[RadioRaheem84]

It was a failed attempt by the neo-conservatives and the Republican administration at the time to democratize Iraq and make it a flourishing free market liberal democracy. The policy stemmed from a belief that the US had the military and economic capacity to change a nation into a liberal democratic state that can join the rest of the trader nations. It was to "drown the cesspool of tyrants in the region". Oil was a small factor in my opinion, because the cost of the experiment wasn't even going to met with a decades supply of Iraqi oil. That's why the venture has been a costly failure.

There was also the belief that a full free market would pay for the intervention as companies bidded for contracts. Like a former general said, the neo-cons were like Jacobins in their planning, thinking that the US military could be used as a revolutionary force for capitalist democracy.

[Spencer]

If memory serves they may not relate directly to the question of 'war for oil' or even solely Iraq but you might want to check out Mark Curtis' books, "Web of Deceit" and "Unpeople". The guy essentially argues that Britain is a rogue state, so they might be of use if you wanted to argue against the idea that the war was being carried out for 'benevolent' reasons.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Try these:

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oil_and_War_in_Iraq

http://www.alternet.org/world/90509/