66^th in continuing blog series on the administration push to war. Throughout early 2003, the White House propaganda assault on the American public and on world opinion continues relentlessly. Meanwhile, even while American reservists are on beepers, waiting for their orders to ship out to Iraq, American companies are doubling up on their oil imports from Iraq.
February 22-24, 2003:

 
Feb. 22, 2003 – Bush discusses Iraq in a joint photo op appearance with Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar:

“Early next week, working with our friends and allies, we will introduce an additional Security Council resolution that will set out in clear and simple terms that Iraq is not complying with Resolution 1441. For the record, this would not be a second resolution on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, it would only be the latest in a long series of resolutions, going back 12 years.                    

We will discuss this resolution with members of the Security Council, and we will hear again from Chief Inspector Blix. During these final deliberations, there is but one question for the Council to address, is Saddam Hussein complying with Resolution 1441. That resolution did not ask for hints of progress or minor concessions. It demanded full and immediate disarmament. That, and that alone, is the issue before the Council. We will not allow the Iraqi dictator, with a history of aggression and close ties to terrorist groups, to continue to possesses or produce weapons of mass destruction.”

February, 2003 – While the American public in general may be in some doubt as to whether war with Iraq will occur, the petroleum industry appears to be fairly sure. As shown in statistics from the administration, U.S. oil companies ramp up their imports of Iraqi oil even more, to a total of 25.7 million barrels in February 2003 alone. Indeed, the oil companies have imported a total 42.9 million barrels already this early in 2003 (two months), tripling their imports of Iraqi crude from December 2002 through February 2003.

 
Questions remain about these oil imports. For the imports to have doubled, presumably Iraqi suppliers and distributors had to anticipate the greater demand ahead of time. As a reader of mine pointed out, “Just lining up the extra tankers that would be required for doubling their imports must have been a time-consuming job for the oil companies, particularly if they had to hire some of those tankers and consider what jobs were already scheduled for them.”  She speculates that the companies had to pay a premium in order to have them at an Iraqi port on the date they would be required, and further that perhaps the administration tipped off the oil companies to increase their import stockpiles. 

 
Obviously one could infer that with the administration banging the drum for war, the oil companies would know they had to move fast.  Still, some related questions remain. Did the Office of the Vice President continue to have contacts with the Energy Policy Task Force, even after our energy policy was formulated?  Did any of the contacts involve Iraq? 

Feb. 22-23, 2003 – The White House holds a weekend two-day secret meeting to plan ‘post-war Iraq’, as reported by Judith Miller the next day:

        “The Bush administration's new office of postwar planning held a secret session this weekend to assess the government's plans for securing and rebuilding Iraq if Saddam Hussein is overthrown, senior administration officials said today.  

       The classified two-day meeting, called a rehearsal, was held in the vast Eisenhower Hall of the National Defense University in Washington, officials said. It drew about 100 officials from nearly a dozen agencies, including the Departments of State, Treasury and Agriculture, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget, each of which would be responsible for a different mission in a postwar Iraq.        Officials from allied countries that have supported Washington on Iraq were also invited, officials said. The rehearsal ended today.

       "The goal is to integrate work that has been done in a number of areas, such as civil administration and reconstruction," said Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, who described the structure and goals of the new Pentagon-led office in an interview on Friday.”

(New York Times Feb 23, “White House Assembles Officials to Review Plan to Rebuild Iraq After a War,” A12)

Incredibly, the New York Times article–rather than questioning the need for any war with Iraq–adduces criticism of the administration for being too slow on coordinating planning for a ‘post-war Iraq’. Feith responds that to have taken such action while the U.N. was pressuring Iraq to disarm would have made a “misimpression.”

The ORHA mission, as gleaned from this two-day meeting, will have three operations, each headed by a civilian: reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, and civil administration. Feith says, “We’re not looking to govern the country.” At this point Iraqi opposition figures are already receiving U.S. training in Hungary, to serve as part of the guard force in the de-Baathification of Iraq.

Feb. 24, 2003 – Elliott Abrams gives a press briefing on ‘Humanitarian Reconstruction Issues’ at the White House:

“MR. ABRAMS: We go into a situation where we recognize that military action in Iraq, if it is necessary, could have adverse humanitarian consequences. And we've been planning, therefore, over the last several months, an inter-agency effort to prevent or at least to mitigate any such consequences.

We're going into a situation where there are a number of humanitarian problems. About 60 percent of Iraqis, the U.N. estimates, are completely dependent on the food distributions of the Oil For Food program for their food supply, and many other Iraqis are at least partly dependent. There are roughly 800,000 displaced persons inside Iraq, and 740,000, it is estimated, who are refugees in nearby countries.

We also know that conflict can have a number of humanitarian effects. It can increase the number of displaced persons. It can interrupt the Oil For Food distribution of food. It can disrupt electricity supplies. It can lead U.N. and NGO workers to evacuate. Some have already evacuated. We believe that the International Red Cross will not evacuate, and stay during the conflict.

How much displacement will there be? How much of an impact on the humanitarian situation would a conflict have? To a substantial degree, the answer to that question depends on the regime. Does it use weapons of mass destruction? Are there efforts against their own oil wells, such as they did in Kuwait, when they set the oil wells on fire. Other efforts to cause, deliberately cause flooding. Other efforts to encourage ethnic violence or to destroy their own infrastructure. Those are questions we're not going to be able to answer at this time . . .”

The discrepancy between administration claims of future humanitarian assistance for the nation of Iraq and what actually transpires–mainly the erection of the world’s largest U.S. embassy in Baghdad–is almost as great as the discrepancy between claims of an Iraq “threat” and what is actually found there.

These official statements and planning sessions for a ‘post-war Iraq’ demonstrate two things. First, they reveal the unrealistic optimism of key administration war hawks, with regard to Iraq. Second and more impeachably, they reveal the extent to which war with Iraq is already a fait accompli, even while the president continues to make public speeches about pressuring Saddam to ‘disarm’ etc.

Same day -- Bush discusses Iraq in an address to U.S. governors:

“The war on terror is more than just chasing down shadowy terrorist networks. The war on terror is recognizing that weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of brutal dictators, also threatens the American people. I've come to the conclusion that the risk of doing nothing far exceeds the risk of working with the world to disarm Saddam Hussein.

I came to that conclusion because of the new realties we all face as American citizens who love freedom and who aren't going to change. Today we're going to submit a resolution to the U.N. Security Council that spells out what the world has witnessed the last months. The Iraqi regime is not disarming. The Iraqi regime is not disarming as required by last fall's unanimous vote of the Security Council.

Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with the demands of the civilized world is a threat to peace, and it's a threat to stability. It's a threat to the security of our country. It's a threat to the security of peace leaving -- peace-loving people everywhere.”