Not Optional

March 27, 2006
       This is how deluded the American public is now: Various polls are showing that the war in Iraq has reached new lows of unpopularity. The dumb bunnies in the news media are implying that when the numbers get low enough, we will pull our troops out and go home.

      This is not going to happen. Our inordinate hubris has led us to believe that this conflict is optional.

      Notice, too, that the war-weary public has done, and continues to do, nothing to change its habits of profligate oil use which have driven us to project our military into the Middle East. We have not even begun a discussion of what we might do. We just expect to keep running American society exactly the way it has been set up to run -- as a nonstop demolition derby, with hamburgers and fries between laps around the freeway.

      At the highest level of public discourse, the cluelessness is shocking. The New York Times Sunday Book Review ran a front-page piece yesterday on Francis Fukuyama's latest salvo, America at the Crossroads, which is largely about our Middle East war policy, without once using the word "oil." The reviewer, Paul Berman, is not a dummy, but he has evidently flown up the national rectum with the rest of the people who are paid to think in our society. To these guys, the whole issue is an effete argument over strategic fashions such as "realistic Wilsonianism."

       The plain truth is, if anything happens to upset the current management and allocation system of the the global oil markets, the industrial economies of the world will collapse, and America's will collapse hardest and worst because of the way we have arranged things for ourselves. The global oil markets currently revolve around Middle East oil production. If the region is overcome by instability, than it's simply GAME OVER.

       You can spin out any number of strategic scenarios about what is liable to happen in the Middle East from here on, with or without America trying to run a police station there, and none of them are good. They range from Iran gaining control of twenty percent of the world's remaining oil, to a free-for-all world war joined by virtually all the nations capable of projecting military power into the region. We'd be stuck with the consequences because we are otherwise too cowardly, lazy, and greedy to face our situation at home -- which is simply that we cannot keep running a drive-in utopia. We have to make other arrangements and we have to make them now.

       Our denial runs deep and hard. Even the educated minority (including the tech wonks) believe that we can run the freeways and the WalMarts on alternative fuels. They flatter themselves listening to the morning yammer about "renewables" on NPR as they make the daily commute from, say, the suburban asteroid belts of Northern Virginia into Washington, DC. They bethink themselves progressive, cutting edge, morally superior in their Priuses.

      The major media have done a huge disservice to the public in supporting these delusions. CBS's 60 Minutes show did it twice this year already, broadcasting one segment that flat-out stated the Alberta tar sands would solve all our problems, and then a second segment a few weeks later stating that coal liquefaction would keep everything humming indefinitely. CNN ran a prime-time Sunday show the week before last saying that we could keep running all our cars on ethanol forever. The damage that this disinformation might do is really out of this world.

      What can we do? Oil man Jeffrey Brown of Dallas has made the interesting suggestion that we replace some or all of the national income tax with a substantial national gasoline tax. A congressional debate over that would be worth hearing. It would be a good start in concentrating our minds in the right direction: that is, toward the problems we have created for ourselves at home. There are many other things we could do also, from rebuilding our railroads to removing incentives for suburban development. They would all require major shifts in our behavior. We can either begin them voluntarily or wait for events to compel us to live differently. In the absence of that, our presence in Iraq is not optional.

Comments

[nostalgia]

What - America is in the Middle East for oil?

That is an objectively anti-American statement, which could only be uttered by some cynical Old European.

By the way, this week's Der Spiegel has the coming resource wars on the cover - the main feature of the montage is two grime covered workers. Think about that fact carefully.

[chuck roast]

Kunstler says:
"Oil man Jeffrey Brown of Dallas has made the interesting suggestion that we replace some or all of the national income tax with a substantial national gasoline tax."
Yeah, this is interesting...while the millionars dump their vast savings from this proposal into world savings glut, and the happy motoring public from Tyson's Corner by a Lexus for the rising Freshman, Joe Doaks (who has never made enough to pay taxes) is trying to figure out how he can afford the the $7/gallon to put into his piece-of-crap-82-Buick-pollution-production-machine so he can drive to his second job at 7-11.
Maybe you should think about the equity implications of the things that you write before you post them.

[mpg]

Talk about hubris and delusion. Hasn't the Iraqi experience demonstrated that putting occupying forces on foreign soil does not necessarily lead to increased oil production.

[jorge]

Jim:

I spend some time yesterday listening to the different analysis programs on the major networks. It would be straining the obvious to say that you are 100% right in your assessment of the state of US MSM.

The most frequently heard phrase during these programs was "how strong and vibrant the US economy is". The second most used phrase was "we are facing a sustainable 'Goldilocks' situation with raising interest rates, low inflation, and no effects on the economy from the raise in interest or high energy prices". In other words, its business as usual, baby. The US of A is positioned to keep rolling on the river per saecula saeculorum.

Sometimes I feel compelled to believe this. By any measure of reason, the US economy should have already started a backslide of gigantic proportions. No other nation in recent history has accumulated the huge load of debt and worldwide obligations the US has assumed, plus the debasement of its economic engine through outsourcing and downsizing, and kept on going. Eppur, si muove: we forge ahead without any apparent deleterious effects on our ability to keep forging ahead.

Makes me doubt my own sense, common and otherwise.

Nobody is preparing anybody for unpleasant consequences simply because the unpleasant consequences are nowhere to be found. Not in the MSM, not in the daily political discourse, not even the intellectual discourse coming out of reputed think tanks.

Why should we be hunkering down for the Great Reckoning if those screaming 'wolf!' are being proved, once again, no more than delusional fearmongers? The end is nigh, they've said time and again, while the US economy reaches new heights in GDP, conspicuous consumption, house appreciation, and so on.

Your's is a lonely voice these days, Jim my friend. You keep banging the drum against the avalanche of good news that suggests that suburbia, Las Vegas, and the trade/national deficit will go on growing forevermore.

Cheers,

[Semanticleo]

Those of the Status Quo, have their routine exclamation;
'we can't afford to lose
Iraq', down pat because
they know the only way they can
enjoy their ill-gotten War Gains
is if the apple cart is not turned
over, but merely tilts a mite.

No remote island, or hoarded
wealth, or stored MRE's can be
of any benefit when the butcher's
bill is presented.

[Eric]

I'm moving to Vermont.

[Barry]

Jorge -
You asked, "Why should we be hunkering down for the Great Reckoning if those screaming 'wolf!' are being proved, once again, no more than delusional fearmongers?"
Knowing your views from previous posts, this must be a 'rhetorical question,' right?
But, one answer might be that there is a fear, albeit an almost 'unconscious' one, that things are 'not all right." There is a small, gnawing anxiety in the population - it has to be channeled and channeled it will be - into persistence in the face of adversity, in the unwillingness to recognize how extremely 'leveraged' the whole system is, and how dependent the charade has become on the necessity of maintaining the appearance of 'status quo.' If, for one second, the great wheels of consumerism slowed or halted, the consequence could well be the collapse of the entire system. It's MSM's responsibility, as a benefactor of the this system, to placate the fears of the masses - to reassure them that everything is 'pie in the sky' happy times and 'things just couldn't be better.'
People reading Jim's books tend to underestimate the intensity and scope of the 'anger' that will occur when (and, there's no question here about if . . . only when) the whole house of cards falls. I do not.

[jorge]

Barry:

No question, it was rhetorical.

But with a little of a twist, you know. The building blocks for the coming unpleasantness are in place, and yet, the bad stuff does not happen. As I said, it makes me doubt my own sense of things.

BTW, if you subscribe to the Atlantic monthly there's a wonderful article in there about the astonishment with which Europeans have received the news that the American Fed's dismissed collecting and publishing M3. Europeans cannot fathom (at least not publicly) how the Fed intends to keep tabs on inflation by dismissing a tool that measures the total money supply.

Coincidence? Conspiracy? I don't know, but it seems to me that every little bit of news coming out of Washington these days are intended to dismiss unseemly notions contradicting the 'don't worry, be happy' image of America chucking along unimpeded.

Quoting myself, I don't believe in witches, but there sure is a few of 'em out there.

Cheers,

[george]

JK implies that we are being led by visionaries Bush and Cheney who only hope to keep the home fires burning a little longer while they figure out what to do. Well, Bullshit! This war is not worth even one soldier coming home with metal tubes for arms and legs, one child being pulled from the rubble, or one helicopter pilot being extracted from the wreckage. Bush and Cheney, gutless cowards who were nowhere to be found when it was their turn to serve their country, haven't the moral standing or brains to be school crossing guards. This whole war was an oil grab that blew up in their faces and they don't have a clue as to what to do except "stay the course" with other people's kids getting killed and maimed. The damned Iraq oil was there and available under Saddam in any case. There has to be an accounting for this fiasco.

[Peter]

What if Jim is wrong?

What if he, Heinberg, Simmons, Deffeyes, Ruppert, Savinar, et al, are all nothing but a bunch of de facto chicken littles?

What if it's confirmed that the center of the earth is indeed a rich gooey nougat of endless oil so that our lives of saving up for a MacMansion, 2 hour commutes in SUVs, shopping at the tri-cities mall, and 4 hour sessions in front of the lobotomy box every evening can just go on forever and ever?

What if this American Nightmare...ooops...Dream can just go on without end?

[Sarah Hempel Irani]

I know a guy who drive a geo from the '80s. It gets better gas milage than the prius. Is technology *really* going to save us?

I live in what has recently been named an ex-urb of Washington. Fortunately, I work here as well. My husband has his eyes on a job closer to the city, but we are against commuting. Problem is, that even on a salary that exceeds the national average we might be able to afford a condo down there, but not be able to furnish it. Granted there are a lot of stupid McMansions in the suburbs on Washington, but living closer for many middle income families is simply not an option. Sure we have a train in Frederick, but it is located in BFE, so you have to drive there, get on the train ride for an hour and a half and then hope that it gets you closer to where you want to go. It only leaves during rush hour and if you miss it, tough luck. Its something, but not enough.

There are plenty of folks trying to can Amtrak. We love the train and try to take it whenever possible. It is cheap and preferable to driving. It is inconvenient and slow, though and not many Americans are willing to tolerate that!

So what CAN we do? There ARE people talking about the oil crisis- many are right here. It feels like our living closer to work and getting our foods from local farms isn't enough. HOW can we effect greater change?

[netkat]

that many people "educated" about peak oil/gas/resources are clinging to the myth of bio fuels is, I feel, one of the stages of denial, particularly "Bargaining."

It has a few goodies wrapped up in one: A) we back off petroleum oil B)drive more efficient cars, and C)do the environment a big favor by burning french fry oil instead of sweet crude.

The bargaining is about making a deal with Nature to give us a pass on the damage we've done by sucking on a different teat, then continuing to "do all the things we do now."

I think there needs to be more talk about how and why bio fuels, hydrogen and other magic solutions are really untenable, and that we need to make fundamental changes in how we do things.

I'd say a few pants-wetting stories along the lines of: "Either take the train to work, or end up on the street licking old gum off the sidewalk for sustenance" might be of the intensity necessary to get the Average American Couch Potato to at least pause in between pizza spins.

nk

[david]

Kunstler: let's stipulate that our armed forces are in Iraq for the
oil. But does their presence help perpetuate our hydrocarbon guzzling
society?

Right now, Iraq's oil production is below pre-occupation levels. If
this is part of the stategy (laugh, I am) along with continuously
provoking a body of resisters so that our forces may never withdraw
without harming Iraq's security; then what is the catalyst for ramping
up and basically confiscating that country's oil supply?

Then, assuming that this theft gets off to a successful start will our
blissful days of suburban living last forever more? No, it is a crack
dream to believe that hijacking resources will yield a satisfactory
outcome for us.

Kunstler, this occupation is increasing the rate of resource
depletion. A successful occupation is still an economic disaster for
us. This is where I stridently disagree with your thesis. All the
deaths, destruction, debt and decay of our moral fiber will be for
naught.

With or without Iraqi oil, it is imperative that we accept that our
way of life is not sustainable.

[Peter]

"I'd say a few pants-wetting stories along the lines of: "Either take the train to work, or end up on the street licking old gum off the sidewalk for sustenance" might be of the intensity necessary to get the Average American Couch Potato to at least pause in between pizza spins."

This does not compute. At least not with Americans.

A few seasons ago, Tony Soprano is having a conversation with the one-legged Russian woman who explains to him how Americans differ from everyone else on the planet. While the rest of the world expects life to be hard and is pleasantly surprised and grateful when something good happens, we Americans are the opposite. We keep expecting life to get better and better and go into shock when bad things happen.

That one short scene packs a lot of insight into why we are so deluded about what is happening in the world.

[Lilli]

Its hubris to say that its 'not optional'. You could be driven out.

[ConservativeGreen]

Netcat: Your idea that people are in the grief stage of denial is simple and eloquent. You could also argue that people are acting like addicts. Functional addicts mind you, but addicts non-the-less.

Thoughts to ponder:

- California recently banned all smoking in public places, but LA still has some of the worst smog in America. Huh?

- My local rag had a decided upbeat article on how technology will fix the coming energy crunch. With a little help from the Alberta tar sands.

Every hippie, greenpeace, deep-ecology freak has been beating on the drum of "Its not sustainable" knows deep down, no one is listening. And deep down most people _know_ we can't go on with our current arrangement, but they would rather believe the fantasy than deal with reality.

1. We admitted we were powerless over oil - that our lives had become unmanageable.

Well, we know we are addicted to oil. But for now, our lives are manageable. So no change.

And what does that make us? The whiny co-dependants. And by definition, we are probably the enablers.

[kd]

I agree with you, David. JHK's post disappointing. His thesis -- "no option" -- rings hollow.

[Max]

There's much talk in both the MSM and alternative news that the Iraq war/slaughter has blown up in the faces of the neo cons who simply have no idea what to do about it. I have a different take on this. How's about the neo cons knew all the time this would happen (after all, one thing no one can accuse them of is being stupid!)and have actively encouraged this viewpoint? Meanwhile, all the time behind the scenes, Iraqi oil is in fact being quietly siphoned off and being put in storage somewhere in the US, and possibly the UK, in readiness for when the brown smelly stuff really and truly hits the fan? Who knows, I certainly don't; but I certainly don't trust our so called leaders to tell me the time. So how come they're so happy to encourage this idea that the Iraq war has been some huge mistake from which they have no idea how to extricate themselves?

[Jennifer]

"Joe Doaks (who has never made enough to pay taxes) is trying to figure out how he can afford the the $7/gallon to put into his piece-of-crap-82-Buick-pollution-production-machine so he can drive to his second job at 7-11.
Maybe you should think about the equity implications of the things that you write before you post them."

If Peak Oil is correct (and I think it is) Joe Doaks will be there in a few years regardless of what tax policies the government implements. At least a gasoline tax now would get America started in the direction of moving away from our cheap-oil economy.

[Max Wyvern]

Jim,

I agree with everything you say here except for the crack about "morally superior" Prius owners. I get so sick of hearing this. I have one and I don't feel the least bit morally superior. I feel like I have a great car. A car that has lots of interior space, has plenty of zip for getting up hills, and gets close to 50MPG on average.

I also understand that driving a Prius is not the solution to our problems, even if everyone did. It's a car- built at great expense to the environment including the consumption of lots of fossil fuels. It also enables me to travel from my suburban home to work at reasonable cost to me, perpetuating an unsustainable culture. I am perfectly capable of enjoying the driving experience, satisfied with my decision to purchase it, and not feeling "morally superior."

Somehow I feel that I'm not alone in this view.

[jorge]

Jim sed:

"Our inordinate hubris has led us to believe that this conflict is optional."

I can't possibly argue with this statement. It's 100% correct at this stage of the game. Leaving Iraq under present conditions (and nobody knows if, when, or how present conditions are going to change to something resembling stability and security) would plunge the entire region into utter chaos.

Thus, the US is now in Iraq as a matter of necessity, not choice.

If, however, the question is whether this country should have launched a war of choice against a nation that posed no immediate risk justifying such an aggressive move, the answer is considerably different. The underlying reason for the Iraqi invasion was to execute an iteration of the Carter Doctrine(yes, Jimmy Carter, the elder statesman/Habitat for Humanity-house builder): id est, the Persian Gulf region is an area of strategic interest for the United States and the United States will take any actions needed to secure access to the petroleum reserves in the region. Bush thought he could pull off the invasion of Iraq and secure the oil reserves in the region against present and future instability and market manipulation by other great powers; the recently disclosed memo of conversations between Tony Blair and Bush on this matter point out to a highly optimistic appraisal of the resulting condition of post-invasion Iraq with both politicians in agreement that pacification and stabilization would be achieved at low cost in money and lives. They were, as we know, tragically wrong on all counts.

This nation would not be in Iraq at all-not because of a despotic regime, not because of disobeying UN resolution, not because of the US's desire to spread democracy- if Iraq didn't hold the second largest oil reserves in the Persian Gulf region. The hornet's nest has been brutally disturbed by the US with unpredictable consequences, except one: we have to take care of the mess we wrought on the Iraqi nation at risk of plunging the entire Persian Gulf into utter chaos.

That's of course, the exact opposite of what the Bush administration intended with its ill-advised iteration of the Carter doctrine, but there you have it.

Would it have been wiser to leverage the lessons of the 70's oil shocks and use the Bush-Cheney connections with the oil industry to place this nation on a different kind of war footing, i.e., the war against oil depletion and global warming? Would it have been wiser to declare the 'non-negotiable' lifestyle of Americans entirely negotiable in view of its utter unsustainability and irreversible damage to future generations? Of course it would have been the right thing to do.

But, as the sage once quipped: "Balls, said the Queen: if I had them, I would be King". Don't expect the right thing to do to come from the team at the WH. Unless, of course, it's right for them.

And we are, so, stuck in Iraq....

[Weaseldog]

Let's so you decide to walk up to Hulk Hogan and kick him in the nads. Your friends are horrified by your idea, but you do it anyway.

Catching him by surprise, you drop him.

Now, is too late to surrender. It's too late to quit. You have to keep going.

So you kick him while he's down, as he tries to fend off your blows, and is eventually going to get up.

Your friends are gone.

Clearly, you must stay the course.

[Ricardo]

I realize this may shock a lot of people (except maybe Kunstler himself, who is shock-proof as a one-idea-person), but there IS a relatively painless solution to all this shit. Funny thing is, the same solution will have to be used sooner or later, no matter what, except the later it is used, the more painful it will be. The problem with this solution is it is up to the Government to use it. Governments hardly ever do anything useful. Anyone even superficially familiar with history knows this.

Here's the solution.

If you're a private automobile owner (like James H. Kunstler, for instance, or most of the folks on this here forum) and you drive up to a gas station to fill your tank, and you have ordinary license plates, you'll have to pay a federal tax on every gallon you pump. Two dollars per gallon. Commercial vehicles (including taxis) are exhempt. The rest depends on how long the Feds are willing to wait for the results. If the entire project is to take a year, then the tax has to go up one hundred percent every month.

If you can afford it, you can still own a car and drive it to your heart's content when the year's up. If you can't, too bad.

Yes, Suburbia will collapse, but even before it does, there's going to be a whole bunch of people seeking to benefit from the situation. Railroad construction will take off right away. People WILL want to move closer to the work place (necessiating urban construction that is practical). A lot of jobs that produce nothing but hot air (80 percent of all jobs today) will have to go - but many of them will be replaced by useful work. Agriculture will take off (a lot of people, instead of spending the entire day in the office looking important or miserable will start producing organic food in their backyard, at first, before real farms appear in the area).

The one good point Kunstler makes in his book is that a great deal of our industry that does not seemingly serve the private jalopy market, does in fact serve it. Subtract the jalopy - and we will only need one twentieth (or less) of the energy we're using today. That amount of energy CAN, in fact, be produced using diversified alternative sources - and we will be forced to figure out ways to produce it WITHOUT relying on oil-based technologies. Biofuels are, of course, a dangerous myth, but solar, wind and tides are, in fact, workable options - because, remember, we will need energy for stuff OTHER THAN having to fuel four-wheeled tin-and-plastic cans along the highway.

That said, improvements WILL HAVE TO BE MADE in fuel efficiency. We will have to start with finding THE RIGHT WAY TO CALCULATE it, first and foremoest.

For instance, there is no excuse, in this day and age, for how your jalopy operates (we're keeping our taxis, remember)? It uses most of the energy (say, 99 percent) to MOVE ITSELF. Not you or your passenger - itself. That's plain idiotic.

Our jet planes are even worse. They're prehistoric. They're essentially tin cans filled to the top with kerosine. This hasn't changed in half a century. Technology, my ass. Propeller planes are technologically far more advanced, although even they, well, suck.

The reason they suck is this.

Any vehicle, be it a ship, a car, or a plane, should be able to STOP if and when something in its works needs repairing. You stop it, you fix it, you resume traveling. As it is, our planes use most of the energy to - guess what - provide lift. That's not merely idiotic - it's an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Our planes, when they stop, fall out of the sky and smash to pieces.

The airship might be a VERY good, VERY practical solution. They require ALMOST NO ENERGY to keep themselves airborne. If built right, they're more fuel-efficient than even trains (think about that!) When folks discuss hybrids, they might as well consider combining the airship with the train somehow. Trains do use a lot of energy (far less than your jalopy, but still) - because they're HEAVY. Subtract some of the weight by adding something blimp-like (if this necessiates putting up guardrails on either side of the track, so be it) - and you'll have the most energy-efficient vehicle in history. The one thing you'll have to bear in mind is that speed IS NOT a concern right now. Not anymore. We've had enough speed over the past century to realize (finally) that a) it DOES NOT save time b) if some time is, in fact, saved, the happy saver will always find a way to waste it.

The good thing about electrical trains is they use ONE source of energy (well, okay, several - all those power plants along the way), as opposed to being, each of them, their own power stations. EVERYONE knows that centralized power sources save a lot of energy, in the long run.

Naturally, no government has the nerve to tell the citizens, "We're going to raise your private jalopy fuel taxes a hundred percent every month" - without some explanations and a propaganda campaign.

Well, that's easy. In fact, George W. Bush has ALREADY mentioned something in that vein (alas, it was a customary bureaucratic half-truth) - we've got to get off the oil needle. That's a start, but the rest of the campaign is a no-brainer - ads, flyers, radio and TV messages, leaflets stuck under one's windshield wipers - "By turning that ignition key just once you're putting yourself, your loved ones, and your country in danger," "Each mile you travel in that tin can of yours kills two people somewhere in the world - you're WORSE than any of the war criminals in history," "You don't support the terroritsts - you support AND inspire them," and so forth.

A lot of folks will grumble, of course, that the rich can still drive around, etc. So what. They also own yachts, those filthy rich, and folks grumble about that too, but the fact that you can't own a yacht while that asshole over there can is not sufficient grounds to expect a revolution.

P.S. About the capitalization. I was willing, I listened, I was ready to refrain from using it. However, I believe it was Jorge's post (or was it? I can't remember ... and I'm sorry) that made me change my mind. Now I'm convinced more than ever that folks just don't grasp the main points if you don't accentuate them VISUALLY.

Consider. The few lines I wrote about the atheist conspiracy - Jorge immediately responded by saying that Ricardo challenged him (i.e. Jorge) and some others, including Jefferson, Madison et al, whereas my point was (true or not, right or wrong) that it was Jorge (the atheist) vs. Jefferson, Madison and me. The meaning of my message was not merely misconstrued or misinterpreted, but REVERSED. Sorry, folks. I HAVE TO use caps - until TV is rendered unaffordable by the energy crisis and people learn to READ (instead of swallowing the written equivalent of the soundbyte) again.

[EastCoastShock]

At least some credit should be given to the CNN show for pointing out that peak oil is real and could utterly annihilate our way of life if we don't do anything to address the issue of our dependency on oil. It even had Kunstler-endorsed oil expert Matthew Simmons explaining how utterly precarious the oil supplies are.

Unfortunately, the prescription is always the same - running the Automobile Nation on some sort of alternative fuel. The CNN show highlighted the success of the Brazilian ethanol program. That's all well and good, but I wonder how we expect to apply the Brazilian model when there are no petroleum-based fertilizers and with millions more automobiles.

Finally, I'd like to point out in response to some comments here that Kunstler may still very well be right on securing Iraq for its oil. Recall that Iraq has substantial untapped reserves due to relatively low amounts of production spurred by economic sanctions and war. Just because the US is not getting any oil out of it now does not mean that it will not pump that oil out later. It could simply be a deferred investment.

[Weaseldog]

I don't remember the CNN show covering Peak Oil.

I remember it repeating over and over that shortages can be caused by terrorism and natural disasters.

In fact I don't think the words, "Peak Oil" were ever spoken on the program.

Now they did talk about oil running out some day, but in a far off dreamy, sort of hazy context.

Killing Iraq's oil production might well be a way to save it's oil for future use. But if that's the plan, I don't see how it would become available to fuel US consumption.

It may take a generation before Iraq becomes a reliable place to pump oil again. The US is likely to no longer be a world power by then. Iraqi oil will likely then be used to power some other entity's military adventures.

So ECS, you may be correct. The US may be sequestering Iraqi oil for someone to use later.