The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Iraq Oil to Fund US Occupation of Iraq,0,2932094.story?co


Plan: Tap Iraq’s Oil
U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says

By Knut Royce
Special Correspondent

January 10, 2003

Washington -- Bush administration officials are seriously considering
proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a
military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an
Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important
role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis,
according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including the White
House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war,” according to a
source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue.

"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the
spoils of war,” said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We
[the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic
government [in Iraq].”

The source said the Justice Department has urged caution. "The Justice
Department has doubts,” he said. He said department lawyers are unsure
"whether any of it [Iraqi oil funds] can be used or has to all be held in
trust for the people of Iraq.”

Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick
Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq's oil
funds be used to defray the cost of occupation.

Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about "internal
policy discussions.”

Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in
the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not rooting out
weapons of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a recently retired
professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University.

"It would mean that the real ... objective of the war is not the
democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi
people, but a return to colonialism,” he said. "That is how they [Mideast
nations] would perceive it.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of an occupation
would range from $12 billion to $48 billion a year, and officials believe an
occupation could last 1-1/2 years or more.

And Iraq has a lot of oil. Its proven oil reserves are second in the world
only to Saudi Arabia's. But how much revenue could be generated is an open
question. The budget office estimates Iraq now is producing nearly 2.8
million a day, with 80 percent of the revenues going for the United Nations
Oil for Food Program or domestic consumption. The remaining 20 percent, worth
about $3 billion a year, is generated by oil smuggling and much of it goes to
support Saddam Hussein's military. In theory that is the money that could be
used for reconstruction or to help defer occupation costs.

Yet with fresh drilling and new equipment Iraq could produce much more. By
some estimates, however, it would take 10 years to fully restore Iraq's oil
industry. Conversely, if Hussein torches the fields, as he did in Kuwait in
1991, it would take a year or more to resume even a modest flow. And, of
course, it is impossible to predict the price of oil.

Laurence Meyer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor who chaired a Center f
or Strategic and International Studies conference in November on the economic
consequences of a war with Iraq, said that conference participants
deliberately avoided the question of whether Iraq should help pay occupation
or other costs.

"It's a very politically sensitive issue,” he said. "... We're in a situation
where we're going to be very sensitive to how our actions are perceived in
the Arab world.”

Meyer said officials who believe Iraq's oil could defer some of the
occupation costs may be "too optimistic about how much you could increase
[oil production] and how long it would take to reinvest in the infrastructure
and reinvest in additional oil.”

An administration source said that most of the proposals for the conduct of
the war and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are being
drafted by the Pentagon. Last month a respected Washington think tank
prepared a classified briefing commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the
Pentagon's influential director of Net Assessment, on the future role of U.S.
Special Forces in the global war against terrorism, among other issues. Part
of the presentation recommended that oil funds be used to defray the costs of
a military occupation in Iraq, according to a source who helped prepare the
report. He said that the study, undertaken by the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, concluded that "the cost of the occupation, the cost
for the military administration and providing for a provisional
administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil.” He said the
briefing was delivered to the office of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary
of Defense and one of the administration's strongest advocates for an
invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13.

Steven Kosiak, the center's director of budget studies, said he could not
remember whether such a recommendation was made, but if it was it would only
have been "a passing reference to something we did.”

Asked whether the Pentagon was now advocating the use of Iraqi oil to pay for
the cost of a military occupation, Army Lt. Col. Gary Keck, a spokesman,
said, "We don't have any official comment on that.”

NSC spokesman Mike Anton said that in the event of war and a military
occupation the oil revenues would be used "not so much to fund the operation
and maintaining American forces but for humanitarian aid, refugees, possibly
for infrastructure rebuilding, that kind of thing.”

But the source who contributed to the Marshall report said that its
conclusions reflect the opinion of many senior administration officials. "It
[the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there,” he said. "...
They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose.
They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don't
think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the
invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation.” Copyright
© 2003, Newsday, Inc.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]