Stuart Littlewood

A speech made 75 years ago by a US Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler, helps put today’s belated Iraq war inquiry, promised by the British government, into proper context.

”There are only two things we should fight for,” said Butler. “One is the defence of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket…

“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

”I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service… I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

”I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

”I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

For nearly a hundred years the West has had designs on Iraq’s oil, the US State Department describing the oil deposits in the Middle East as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”. So anyone who still thinks the Iraq war had nothing to do with the oil “racket” hasn’t been paying attention.

First in was Britain. In 1912 the Turkish Petroleum Company was set up. Owned 50 per
cent by Anglo-Persian Oil (in which the British Government had a controlling interest) and 25 per cent by Shell, it secured concessions in the Ottoman Provinces of Baghdad and Mosul – later to become part of Iraq.

When Turkey sided with Germany in 1914, the British Army move to protect these potential oilfields, occupying Basra and capturing Baghdad. At close of play in 1918 our forces occupied most of the region, and the League of Nations subsequently granted Britain the mandate for Iraq and Palestine.

The world’s second largest oil reserves were practically in our pocket. But we couldn’t resist double-crossing the Arabs…and in the end lost everything.

When the Kurds of northern Iraq showed resentment at being part of ‘British Mesopotamia’ the RAF bombed them. Wing-Commander Arthur Harris – ‘Bomber’ Harris, who later fire-bombed Dresden and other German cities – boasted: “The Arab and the Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within 45 minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”

In crushing the ‘Revolution of 1920’ we killed or wounded 9,000 Iraqis. Villages were destroyed by British artillery and rebel suspects shot without trial. Our methods earned undying hatred. But who cared with all that oil in the offing?

In 1921 Britain set up a sham constitutional monarchy and imported Feisal to sit on the throne. We pulled the strings. Then we OK’d the dropping of bombs and gas to quell the Kurds again. Lord Thompson described the effects as “appalling”.

Turkish Petroleum’s first well, near Kirkup, came on stream in 1927. America demanded a piece of the action, and by 1928 the shareholders consisted of Anglo-Persian (later BP), Shell (largely British), CFP (French) and the Near East Development Corporation (representing five large American oil companies), each with 23.7 per cent. Mr ‘Five Percent’ Gulbenkian held the rest.

The Iraqis, guaranteed a 20 per cent stake, were cheated. Their attempts to participate in their own oil business were successfully resisted by greedy western oilmen who didn’t want any interference. Turkish Petroleum, re-named the Iraq Petroleum Company and with two subsidiaries, Mosul Petroleum and Basra Petroleum, had stitched up a monopoly of the country’s oil and the Brits were in the happy position of controlling nearly half of it.

The Anglo-Iraq Treaty of 1930 paved the way for “independence” on condition that Britain retained air bases and influence over Iraq’s affairs. But it wasn’t long before such meddling outlived its welcome and everything started going downhill.

Resentment boiled for many long years. In 1958 things turned very nasty when the ’14 July Revolution’ swept away the despised monarchy in a vicious army revolt. The royal family were shot and a republic was declared, headed by General Qasim who had received some of his training in Britain.

The US-British response was to plan a joint invasion, but it was called off because “nobody could be found in Iraq to collaborate with”.

The Ba’ath party and other extremists formed assassination squads. Conditions would soon be ripe for the emergence of a psychopathic hoodlum like Saddam, and the first we hear of him is his botched attempt to bump off Qasim.

After a series of murderous coups and counter-coups, Qasim’s government was out and the Ba’athists were in. For the timebeing they strengthened links with America, which was suspected of backing the coups. The CIA supplied intelligence on Communists and radicals to be rounded up. 149 were officially executed and up to 5,000 murdered.

Now second-in-command, Saddam created a sinister state apparatus that would eliminate all opposition and keep the Ba’athists in power.

Iraqi oil was nationalized in 1973, a move that marked the end of the road for UK and US companies, which together had held a three-quarters share in oil production. From now on the Iraqis would turn to French and Russian partners.

Saddam became president in 1979 and immediately launched a war on neighbouring Iran that lasted eight years. He used poison gas against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians and there wasn’t a murmur of protest from Western governments. Afterwards John Kelly, the US assistant secretary of sate, visited Baghdad to tell Saddam: “You are a force of moderation in the region, and the US wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq.”

Did the US simply want Iraq as a friendly buffer against Iran, which had ousted the American-backed Shah and was no longer susceptible to the usual diplomatic pressures? Hardly. In 1999 General Anthony Zinni, chief of the US Central Command, testified to Congress that the huge oil reserves in the Gulf region were a “vital interest” for the United States, and the US “must have free access to the region’s resources”.

Free access means, of course, military and economic control. In other words, America would stop at nothing to secure future energy resources and strategic leverage.

Faced with Iraq insiders like France and Russia, as well as hopeful onlookers like China, Germany and Japan, what could the US and Britain do to tip the balance and scoop the pool? Answer: resort to military intervention in pursuit of regime change, provided that a plausible excuse could be found.

Prime minister Gordon Brown initially said the inquiry into the Iraq war would not point the finger of blame. Now, after accusations of a whitewash, it may do so if it wishes. The angry public want it to. They wish to see the vile racketeers dangling from the lamp-posts on London Bridge.

-###-

Stuart Littlewood
24 June 2009