Iraq: A Failure or a Success?

By Abe W. Goodman

On the Hubbert Peak and America's quest for global supremacy.

Anyone who is interested in understanding the present state of the world should acquaint him or herself with the "Hubbert Oil Curve."1 The Hubbert Oil Curve, also known as "peak oil" theory, was put forward by the late American petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert on February 4th, 1949. It stated that the inevitably finite nature of oil would mean any given state would run out of the resource. As oil extraction increases to keep up with the growing demand, the production hits a peak, after which is referred to as the depletion. During the depletion, what oil is left is difficult, costly and energy intensive to extract because what is first extracted is the easiest, least energy intensive pockets. These costs are deferred to the market, driving oil prices up. The price of what is left also increases as demand outpaces the supply, which places the oil in fewer and fewer hands, until production wanes to nothing. He predicted that wars would be fought for oil during the depletion period. Hubbert was the first insider to warn of the finite nature of oil, using his curve in 1956 to correctly predict that oil production in the U.S. would hit its peak in 1970. Sure enough, he was precisely right, as oil production in the U.S. did peak in 1970. The first trial of the Hubbert Curve was an unfortunate success. The OPEC oil embargo followed in 1973-1974, and these two developments heralded a shift to the more "hawk-like" tendency in Washington foreign policy that we are now familiar with. At the time the cost of crude oil was at a stable 3$/barrel, (inflation adjusted to present day: 12$.) Oil prices have fluctuated like any other commodity, but have been on an increase to the record high in October 2004 of 55$/barrel. The U.S., once a world leader in oil production and self-sufficient until the 1960’s, now produces less than it did in 1940. As the world's leading consumer of oil, the U.S. has over the proceeding decades become increasingly dependent on oil imports from places like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Brazil, Indonesia, Venezuela, Sudan and Nigeria. These are areas in the world embroiled in violence and turmoil, where oil is seen by many not as a blessing, but a curse. In 1971, with the accuracy of his first prediction, Hubbert turned his theory to global oil production. He predicted, "The end of the oil age is in sight, If present trends continue, production will peak in 1995 -- the deadline for alternative forms of energy that must replace petroleum in the sharp drop-off that follows." 2 If his second projection is correct, we are now well on the other side of the global oil production curve. The major difference from the implications of Hubbert’s first prediction is that whomever or whatever controls the remaining oil at the end of global "peak oil" will have de facto world predominance. Billions of us are completely dependent on our oil-driven economy for survival. As ancient organic matter locked for millions of years underground by geological activity, oil is a finite resource. Opinions on how finite is subject to who is asked, but a broad consensus, whether from environmentalists or oil multinationals themselves is that it WILL happen. Global oil reserves are difficult to predict because of the propensity of oil-producing nations to over-exaggerate their oil reserves to entice foreign investment. On the politicians of his day who mocked the peak oil theory, Hubbert said, "Often people ask about the key differences between various scenarios. The geologists and engineers illustrate the rise, peak and decline of oil. The oil companies and governments draw a rising graph, never depicting peak nor decline. One must ask, "Which approach has integrity?"3

In the last few decades peak oil as well as common sense has begun to trickle down from scientists into the boardrooms and government bureaus. Petroleum geologist Colin J. Campbell argues that, "The Hubbert (global) model is fundamentally correct, and that the world faces the start of oil depletion between 2004 and 2015 -- potentially leading to a major global crisis in the early 21st century."4 While Shell places peak oil at 2020,5 others predict the curve will peak much, much later, as with the United States Geological Survey which estimated that there is enough petroleum reserves to continue current production rates for at least 50 to 100 years and places the peak oil point at between 2026-2047.6 Another projection, using estimated known global oil reserves of roughly 2-3 trillion ultimately recoverable barrels, gives the prediction of peak rates of global consumption of crude oil between 102-148 million barrels per day between the years 1997 and 2004.7 While the mainstream media remains mum on the subject, sometimes things do squeak in. The Detroit News reports, "During the past 15 years, world oil consumption rose an average of 948,000 barrels a day. It rose more this year, and the International Energy Agency forecasts higher consumption next year. Worldwide oil discovery peaked in 1965. Beginning in 1984, consumption has exceeded discovery every year. Since 1999, the discovery of large oil and gas fields has collapsed: 16 in 2000, eight in 2001, three in 2002 and none last year. More and more countries have peaked in their oil supply as consumption has surged. Of the 48 major oil-producing countries listed by British Petroleum, which provide 98 percent of the world's oil, 17 were past their peaks in 2003, and 31 were past their peak as of 2002."8

Our civilization is built on oil. Our lives are supported by a "fossil fuel welfare state" as governments funnel valuable billions of public funds to build huge networks of roads and highways, promote land use necessitating the car, and even wage costly wars to ensure a steady supply of cheap, reliable oil. In addition, the personal automobile has become the cornerstone of our reality. While humans evolved over a million years ago, it is only been the last fifty years that we have felt the "need" for an automobile. It is tragic that this unquestioning "need" may bring an end to our species. We surrounded ourselves with oil in the form of plastic products made from petrochemicals, wear nylon and other synthetic petrochemical materials, and even bathe with petrochemical soaps and products. Our food is often grown in petrochemical fertilizers. Every aspect of our lives are pegged to the cost of oil, from the cost of heating our homes, the value of our money to the price of an apple shipped by truck for thousands of miles. Hence in turning on the heat, having a savings account or buying an apple, we inadvertently give a vote of confidence to the military-oil-industrial complex. In addition, petrochemicals are highly carcinogenic and therefore we render toxic our homes, the land, water and air when we introduce petrochemicals, which has led to an epidemic of cancer, asthma, and allergies. Although the Republicans are merely one physical embodiment of the gargantuan powers represented by our oil-driven economy, one could say, "To drive a car is to vote Bush!" Indeed, the money spent on automobiles and any other aspect of the military-oil-industrial complex is vote of confidence in Republican policies. Unfortunately, the solution will not be as simple as finding an alternative fuel.

Richard Heinberg, professor of Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Community at the New College of California, has stated that "(oil is) about as important to industrial societies as water is to fish. We wouldn’t be talking right now if it weren’t for oil. The industrial revolution was, basically, all about fossil fuels. Coal came first, but when oil was harnessed things really heated up. With oil humankind discovered the cheapest, most abundant source of energy ever. Energy is everything. I happen to teach ecology, and in my field we study population and resource balances in nature—which is really just another way of talking about energy. Human societies, like ecosystems, are fundamentally just energy processing systems. With the industrial revolution, human beings discovered an energy subsidy like no species has ever found before in the history of our planet. As a result, we’ve increased our human population from just a few hundred million, at the start of the industrial revolution, to over six billion, three hundred million now. And of course the total is still growing: we’re adding about a billion people every twelve years at current rates. This is something that’s never been seen before. We’ve added more people just since 1999 than even existed in the world just a few hundred years ago. This is an indication of the incredible impact that fossil fuels have had on human societies." 9

If fossil fuels have lead to a ballooning of our population, the opposite may come true when we run out. With this in mind, control of global oil reserves is the key to any state's survival as well as ambition to regional and global domination. Presently America gets a great deal of its oil from the Western Hemisphere, in 2002 Canada supplied 17% of the oil consumed by the U.S., Mexico, 13% Venezuela, 11% with Saudi Arabia, 14% the rest of the Middle East, 10% and Africa, 14% increasing yearly. European nations import oil mainly from the Middle East, 24% from the former Soviet Union, 20% internally from other European countries, 20% and Africa 20%. Russia has a tenuous hold on vast oil reserves domestically centered in the Caucasus region of the Caspian Sea, making separatism in oil-rich Chechnya and neighboring states a major thorn. China and Japan are the second and third largest oil consumers. China imports 20% of its oil from Africa, the rest from Saudi Arabia, 15% Iran, 14% and Oman, 11%. Japan, along with the rest of the industrialized pacific (like Australia, S Korea, New Zealand), takes 81% of its oil imports from the Middle East, 2% from Africa, 6% from Indonesia and 7% from the rest of the Asian/Far east region. The oil in the Western Hemisphere falls mainly into the American sphere of influence. The oil of the Caspian Sea, the "other Middle East" is divided two quarters of which fall into the Russian and Iranian spheres while the rest is split into a quilt of zones for multinational oil corporations.(maps1,2) In the case of Sudan, the center of the country has a cookie cutter pattern of zones licensed to oil multinationals including a sizable chunk reserved for Talisman Energy of Calgary. North of Sudan’s oil region lies Darfur where a program of genocide has decimated hundreds of villages.(maps3,4) There has been a century of continuous jostle for control of African and the Middle Eastern oil. This is unlikely to change. "A recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D. C., foresees that by 2020, 50 percent of estimated total global oil demand will be met by countries posing a high risk of internal instability." 10 With the close of the Cold War and key oil reserves existing mainly in the "third world," American strategists have begun a military realignment plan Donald Rumsfeld calls "rationalization." It calls for the closure of some military bases on the old fronts of Germany, North Korea and Japan, and the creation of many more along what is now called the "Arc of Instability" to counter "Terrorist Threats." This "Arc of Instability" stretches from Columbia, Venezuela, along North Africa, through Central Asia, the Middle East, to the Philippines and Indonesia. This "Arc of Instability" also happens contain the world's key oil producing nations. 11

The U.S. already maintains at least "702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories." employing "over a half a million people" but "If there were an honest count, the actual size of military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries." Considering that there are only 193 countries in the world, three quarters of the nations of the world play host, or are occupied by, the U.S. military. This worldwide network, "actually constitutes a new form of empire -- an empire of bases . . . without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order." 11

These military bases are clustered in regions of strategic importance to America, of which many are in oil-producing regions, or in nations used, or that can be used, as passage for future oil pipelines.12 It should be noted that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had refused an ambitious Unocal oil pipeline project that would have brought oil from the Caspian region to western markets mere months before Bush II won the disputed 2000 election, soon after which September 11th occurred and the bombing of Afghanistan started. When the war was over, Hamid Karzai an ex-Unocal contractor, was handpicked by the Americans for president.

"As part of the war to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, the US secured bases in Uzbekistan (Khanabad Airfield) and Kyrgyzstan (Manas Airfield near Bishkek) for about 1,000-1,200 personnel. These two bases are still active. In Afghanistan itself, the US seems sure to retain control of Bagram airfield outside Kabul as well as a base outside Kandahar. Important bridgeheads in the Persian Gulf include Bahrain and Qatar, both of which host key US facilities; the United Arab Emirates; and Oman. In Eastern Europe, after the end of major hostilities in Iraq, marines remained at an installation at the Black Sea port of Constanta, Romania. (There also is a) US presence at the airbase at Incirlik, Turkey." 12 America's support of opposition of the democratically elected Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and their refusal to become seriously involved in the atrocities in Sudan also point to the oil factor of foreign policy. In Iraq, The U.S. has waged two costly wars and carried out a daily air campaign of bombings for fourteen years, over twice as long as the bombing campaign over Germany during World War II. Since the commencement of the occupation the major population centers have been difficult to quell, but the securing of the oil fields and infrastructure in the sparsely populated regions in the south and the east have been seen as paramount. Even with the support for the Iraq campaign beginning to slide domestically, the actions of the U.S. military have been to "dig in" and increase its presence. Famous muckraker Seymour Hersh, the man who broke the stories of My Lai and Abu Ghraib, declared, "The Iraq war is not winnable. It's over . . . America has no idea how irreparably its torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison has damaged its image in the Middle East . . . (and that) the military has been "disappearing" civilians suspected of participation with the insurgency." 13 While seemingly a failure, the actions of the U.S. and its allies during the Iraq campaign have guaranteed one thing: enough instability to warrant a very long involvement. Violence has plagued the occupation, but the vast majority of the violence has been isolated to the urban areas and the majority of victims have been Iraqi citizens, estimated at 100,000 casualties. Despite the rhetoric, much evidence points to a strategy of long-term occupation. In addition to bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, the military is building six new bases in Iraq, The largest of which, Camp Anaconda, occupies 25 square kilometers, requires nine bus routes, and will ultimately house as many as 20,000 troops. The US base at Baghdad airport now features a "Burger King" franchise. Fully one-quarter of Kuwait is under U.S. control. 11 While the terrible loss of 1,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq as well as over 100,000 Iraqis in nearly two years of occupation, it should be pointed out that took eleven years, 57,000 American and 3-5,000,000 Vietnamese deaths before the war on Vietnam and South East Asia ended. While the US and British governments have remained silent about any timetable for withdrawal, "The Independent" has exposed, "a cross-party group of MPs has returned from Iraq convinced British troops may have to be deployed there for at least another 10 years . . . One senior member of the committee said: "It will take 10 to 15 years at least [before troops can be fully withdrawn] . . . A Tory member of the committee, Richard Ottaway, said: "There will need to be a continuing commitment from foreign forces for 10 years at least . . . Mr Blair declared that Britain was not a 'nation of quitters.'" 14

When factoring in the Hubble Oil Curve in all nations’ interests it would be a strategic imperative to hold every oil-producing region that can be held militarily. This means it is of great national interests for Nigeria to put down its native rebels in the oil-rich Niger Delta, for Russia to consolidate its Caspian Sea holdings, squash separatism and to continue re-nationalizing its oil industry, for China to secure a national oil extraction infrastructure and imports to feed its runaway industrial growth, for the C.I.A. to continue its campaign to remove the leftist Chavez government from Venezuela, and for America and Britain to not withdraw from Iraq and the Middle East until iron-fisted pro-western regimes are in place, if ever. Washington is well on their way to setting the diplomatic stage for invasions of oil-rich Syria and Iran, even with a tenuous grasp of Iraq. It is clear from the actions of the present neo-conservative U.S. administration that oil is at the top of its agenda. So who are these neo-conservatives? The neo-conservatives are far away and rival the traditional American conservative. The last twenty years there has been a concerted effort to chase all conservatives from the Republican Party. While traditional conservatives promote fiscal restraint, the neo-cons have spent the U.S. into a guaranteed national bankruptcy with a debt of nearly 8 trillion dollars, at nearly 2.5 billion a day. Neo-conservatism rose as huge multinational corporations rose, and largely seek policies to serve the interests of these corporations at the cost of good, responsible governance. The neo-cons are the political arm of the American ultra-rich, and struggle to paint their rich-centered policies as beneficial to the society as a whole. They are fervently anti-socialist, viewing Third World liberation struggles as illegitimate, even when they are democratic, and has led to the U.S. orchestrating dozens of coups of democracies not following the U.S. agenda and the support of a "rogue’s gallery" of right-wing military dictators. Neo-cons use religion to paint nations impeding their interests as "evil" but are willing to wage bloody wars of conquest in contravention to their alleged religious beliefs. Neo-con economic policy is centered on the Reagan era "supply-side" or "trickle down" economics. This states if government removes as many regulations and environmental laws governing corporations, gives money to the rich via huge tax breaks and practices runaway spending on sectors on the weapons and high-tech industry, money will "trickle down" to the poor and middle classes. Of course this theory has been proven false, and as we have seen corporation grow to sizes economically rivaling small nations, we have seen the continuous roll-back of earnings and the near disappearance of the middle class in two generations. To pay for this "corporate welfare" of feeding the rich, the neo-cons slash social budgets of the "demand-side," welfare, public schools, libraries, social security retirement benefits and any other government spending focused on the citizenry, (military spending excluded.) They condemn seeking peace through diplomacy, arms control and the United Nations as "appeasement" and seek unilateral military action. Seymour Hersh stated bravely, "How could eight or nine neo-conservatives come and take charge of this government? They overran the bureaucracy, they overran the Congress, they overran the press, and they overran the military! So you say to yourself, How fragile is this democracy?"13 The first "War on Terror" was declared in 1981 by these same neo-conservative hawks that are now in power, those involved in the Reagan-Bush-Bush II Oil Regimes. The first war on terror amounted to an unprovoked terrorist war fought on our behalf by dictatorial forces armed and trained by the U.S. to squash the rise of leftist elements in Latin America. The result was "a couple hundred thousand people being killed and four countries ruined" and that, "the people now in office in Washington have the unique honor of being the only ones in the world who have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism." 16 The present Bush II regime, made up of the same neo-cons as the last two Republican mandates, re-declared their "War on Terror," instituting a new, open-ended type of global conflict. Iraq has been invaded countless times in history, notably by Britain in 1914-1918 with the aid of chemical weapons, and then again during WWII. It is well known that developed plans for an Iraq invasion have been on the Republican table for decades. The plan existed even when Saddam Hussein was still an ally of America and authorized to be sold chemical and biological weapons from western chemicals manufacturers to counter the threat of Islamic Iran, who hosted a failed American puppet dictator, the Shah, before the Islamic Revolution of 1979. During the Iran-Iraq war, the American-backed socialist dictatorship (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq) was favorable to an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship (Iran.) It was during the Iran-Iraq war that the Kurdish village within the war zone was gassed, while both sides were using these weapons. Although the stated reasons for the present Iraq invasion has changed numerous times, from WMD to the current reason for a continued occupation, that of a "democratization" of Iraq, an election will not bring an end to the occupation. If America was so concerned with democracy, why would in not be policy to force it on Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, and all other dictatorial nations where America already has considerable sway? Even a cursory look at the history of American foreign policy would reveal that it has removed, rather than supported, more democratically elected governments and aided and abetted more military dictatorships than it has ever removed. The 2004 U.S. sponsored coups of the elected governments of Aristide in Haiti and the attempted coup in Venezuela are two shining recent examples. To encapsulate the neo-con agenda, "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for (neo-conservatives) Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).15 It states the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". That America should develop, "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also proposed, "developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." The document also stated, in September 2000, that transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."15 The neo-cons were to soon get what they wished for. "It is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with airplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House". An American flight school alerted authorities when a group of Muslim students showed great interest in learning to fly commercial airliners, but not how to land them. This warning was not investigated. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001)." 15 With the American media creating in-depth studies on Bin Laden and the Taliban for the months following September 11th 2001, not once did they mention decades of C.I.A. involvement in arming, training and funding Bin Laden and the Taliban against the Soviets. This constitutes a radical re-writing of history. 9-11 continued a long American tradition of following up catalyzing events with the commencement of wars the public would not have supported otherwise. The "Sinking of the Maine" is now concluded to be an accident. Nevertheless, Spanish saboteurs were blamed, which led to the Spanish-American war. Precipitating Pearl Harbor was an American economic, iron and oil embargo that threatened the Japanese industrial economy and left her vulnerable to an invasion by Russia. The pretext the Americans were hoping for was a "first shot" from Japan to extend US military and economic control in Asia beyond its holdings in the Philippines, which they ruled brutally. The Tonkin Gulf incident was a fabrication but led to the war in Vietnam. To justify his administration’s actions, Reagan created an atmosphere of fear with the image of a nation under assault from Libyan assassins as well as El Salvadorian and Nicaraguan terrorists.16

Although the Iraq campaign in the short-term seems to be failing, ultimately it's success or failure can only be decided sometime between 2015-2045. "The White House has so far requested roughly $100 billion for the occupation of Iraq in 2005, which translates to about $8.3 billion per month, or over $270 million per day (eighteen times more than the administration's first offer of help to tsunami victims). And that's only Iraq. The US military budget request for 2005 was 420.7 billion dollars - double that of China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany combined.17

"Of course, perpetual war requires a lavish arsenal so the US spends further billions each year perfecting its weapons of mass destruction. In 2004 alone, a full $6 billion was earmarked for federal biological weapons programs, dedicated to destructive pursuits including bringing back elements of the 1918 Spanish flu (which killed 40 million people) and producing even deadlier strains of anthrax. Meanwhile the US budget for nuclear-weapon activities in fiscal 2004 topped $6 billion" 17 It is clear America’s actions have already been predetermined. Whether or not it can convince the public domestically and abroad to stay the course in Iraq and in as many other oil states until the world is at the end of the Hubbert curve has yet to be decided. Securing reliable oil reserves is also in the interest of every other nation in the world with the ambition of national survival.



ENDNOTES
1-"The Coming Global Oil Crisis"
 http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/
2- "Oil, the Dwindling Treasure" National Geographic, June, 1994
 http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/natgeog.htm
3- "Forecasts of Future Oil Output" page featuring various projection graphs
 http://www.hubbertpeak.com/curves.htm
4-"Hubbert peak" From Wikipedia,
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak
5- "Forecasts of Future Oil Output" page featuring various projection graphs
 http://www.hubbertpeak.com/curves.htm
6-The World Petroleum Assessment issued by the United States Geological Survey
 http://energy.cr.usgs.gov
7-"Hubbert's peak theorists' views" Dr. Leo P. Drollas, Centre for Global Energy Studies, London
 http://ogj.pennnet.com/forum/display_messages.cfm?CategoryID=1&TopicID=685&SiteIDs=OGJ
8- "Gas prices soar as oil reserves near peak" Detroit News
 http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0410/04/a17-291458.htm
9- "Plan War and the Hubbert Oil Curve-An Interview with Richard Heinberg"
 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=36&ItemID=5351
10-"TURKEY: THE KEY TO CASPIAN OIL AND GAS"
www.israeleconomy.org/strategic/strat13.pdf
11-"America's Empire of Bases" Global policy forum
 http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm
12- "US Military on the Scent of Oil" Global Policy Forum
 http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/1119scent.htm
13- "Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh spills the secrets of the Iraq quagmire and the war on terror"
 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml
14- "Ten More Years? MPs warn British troops will be in Iraq for a decade, Blair proclaims: 'We are not quitters'"
 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1222-02.htm
15- " This War on Terrorism is Bogus."
 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0906-01.htm
16-"Noam Chomsky on Reagan's Legacy" on www.commondreams.org
 http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0607-08.htm
17- "Stingy? Not with WMD and War"
 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1231-03.htm

Comparative Maps
Maps 1,2: Oil interests in the Caspian Basin
 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/sudan_oil_usaid_2001.pdf
 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/darfur_villages_0802_2004.jpg
Maps 3,4: Sudan: Oil and Genocide : oil licensing zones in south central Sudan; the pattern of village destruction in central and north Sudan
 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/sudan_oil_usaid_2001.pdf
 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/darfur_villages_0802_2004.jpg