The Iraq War has NOT been about oil?
Well, highly confidential memos leaked to the public appear to expose on such duplicity.
From The Independent (hat tip Bob Wenzel) [bold emphasis mine]
Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.
The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.
The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".
But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.
Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.
Read the rest here
Comments:
What government says in public and what government does are almost always different.
Here is an example of the public choice theory at work where well-entrenched and powerful vested interest groups shape government policies.
Also, corporatism or crony capitalist agendas extrapolate into imperial (foreign) policies advertised in the name of national security, but covertly operates for the benefit of the politically favored groups. In short, “national interests” equals corporate interests.
Lastly, the beauty of the internet is to act as a neutralizing agent against clandestine operations by governments. Either the internet will reduce the incidences of government’s secret operations or governments will wage a war of control against the free flowing information provided by the internet via censorship. We see more signs of the latter than the former.
