RosenbergBloodAndOil

Blood and Oil

The film // Blood and Oil //, released in 2008 and directed by Jeremy Earp, addresses the complex themes of energy security underlying United States military operations and partnerships of the last 70 years. In particular, the film asserts through its examination of the partnership with Saudi Arabia that the United States has been involved in a large number of conflicts related to control of oil resources in modern times, and through these has empowered the kinds of terror which plague it to this day.

In considering the dynamics of these confrontations, one can identify four main sets of stakeholders. The first of these is the United States government/military, which has hoped to secure access to energy resources to sustain its ability to exert its power and influence in foreign policy. In the aftermath of World War II, it had become clear to leaders such as FDR that the United States could not sustain its current levels of consumption without forging relationships with countries rich in resources. During the war, the United States had consumed one-third of its total oil reserves, and it was likely that another large conflict may have further eaten into this supply. In response, on February 15, 1945, FDR met with the king of Saudi Arabia, and agreed to provide protection to the royal family in exchange for the rights to develop oil extraction facilities in the country. However, in the 65 years since this agreement, the United States has had to weigh the concern of energy security against the numerous costs associated with it- military conflict, promoting un-democratic institutions, and the increasing rise of transnational corporations in maintaining these flows.

On the other hand, the governments of oil rich countries have a vested interest in the development of resource bases within their national borders. While they welcome the royalties and other incomes which are associated with these operations, they also have significant concern over the degradation of value systems that is commensurate with foreign incursions. In the first Gulf War for instance, the United States stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to help protect its oil interests, which was seen by some as permitting infidels to exert authority over Islamic holy sites. Additionally, they are often at the heart of resource conflict, and can be subjected to hostile military actions which force them to build foreign alliances to protect their interests.

In addition, multinational oil corporations, as the principal operators and prospectors, have often invoked military institutions to protect the flow of oil. In the event that these operations were disrupted, corporations would incur significant losses, both financially and in terms of influence. These fears have led to them to consult with government officials such as Dick Cheney, whose Energy Task Force to determine a national energy strategy consisted mostly of oil executives. Through lobbying, campaign finance, and other such means, corporations have ensured that their interests are represented in the political process, through the so called “petroleum-military complex.”

The last major stakeholder depicted in the film is the citizenry of the United States, which according to the featured polls is averse to sacrificing the lives of soldiers in exchange for the preservation of resource flows. To combat this, the United States government has subjected them to exaggerations and lies which have muddled the purposes of engaging in these conflicts. Both in the first Gulf War and the Iraq War, it was claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, despite little evidence attesting to this. As a result of a lack of education, in addition to ignorance, the public has been unable to assert its perspectives within the conduct of energy policy.

In terms of our dependence on oil, it is suggested by the film that the perception of the American Dream as “freedom on wheels” has led to levels of consumption which have made oil vital to perpetuating our way of life. At present, 98% of transportation energy in the United States is derived from petroleum, and agricultural mechanization, pesticides, and herbicides constitute a large portion of our food supply. Consumers also purchase a substantial number of products manufactured from petroleum, among them plastics and lubricants. Although in the 1940’s the United States was self-sufficient, these increasing levels of consumption have necessitated expansion of oil imports on an economic basis. In addition, military conflict, and the mobilization of resources associated with it, is seen as a driving force behind our ties to petroleum. In the case of World War II, nearly every vehicle ran on petroleum fuels, among them tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, and jeeps. With the looming specter of a Cold War in the latter half of the 20th century, these resources were seen as vital to ensuring that troops would be positioned to protect political and other interests around the world, and it is this which pushed the United States to invest heavily in protecting these flows. The last major factor contributing to this dependency is implied to be the conflicts of interest between government officials and the oil industry, which have led to the incorporation of corporate executives in decisions on national energy policy and led to an imbalance in Federal funding between alternative energy research and oil operations.

As a piece emphasizing the ties between military history and resources, the film delves significantly into the problems caused by our dependence on oil. In recent years, the United States has imported nearly two-thirds of its demand for oil, which has increasingly tied it into the geopolitical realm of resource acquisition. The agreements necessitated by such arrangements have required that the United States ignore the lack of human rights, religious freedoms, and democracy associated with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran under the Shah, which has undermined its reputation internationally.

In addition, the reliance on petroleum has drawn the United States into numerous conflicts which have threatened its access to these resources. During the Iran-Iraq war for instance, the United States used naval forces to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers from Iranian troops, and in the first Gulf War in 1990, deployed troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to prevent Saddam Hussein’s forces from controlling the oil fields. Additionally, by leaving some of these troops in Saudi Arabia after the conflict, the United States began to sow the seeds of terrorist networks such as that of Osama Bin Laden, which were formed in response to the outrage of this perceived “occupation” of Islamic holy lands. It was estimated by the National Defense Council Foundation that the United States spent $137 Billion on protecting oil in 2007, which has represented a substantial cost both financially, and in terms of the weaknesses bred by the entrenchment of a greater number of forces around the world.

Beyond the level of national governments, the last major problem associated with a dependence on oil is suggested to be the loss of stability for United States citizens. At the turn of the twenty-first century, incidents such as rolling blackouts in California, high energy prices, and lines at gasoline stations threatened to undermine the quality of life in numerous regions of the country. With the increasing number of soldiers sent into these resource-based conflicts, the families which have been left behind are subjected to great human and social costs. It seems possible that if these kinds of hardships continue, perhaps the citizenry will take a more active role in pursuing alternative sources of energy.

Although the film does not explicitly describe a shift away from oil, it is suggested that such a mobilization may help to foster a lesser amount of resource confrontation internationally. With the increasing role played by countries such as China and Russia in attempting to secure access to these resources, it is clear that in the absence of such changes, the scale of military endeavors will likely continue to escalate in the future. Since the amount of money spent on protecting oil was stated to be seventy times what was expended on developing alternative sources of energy, it seems reasonable to assume that the resources are available to undertake the kinds of scientific research necessary to wean ourselves off of this dependence. However, galvanizing such projects would likely require broader social reforms as well, which would serve to educate the population regarding the costs of a continuation of the present policy. Although it is possible that even alternative energy sources may be subject to similar kinds of political and military conflict in the event of a scarcity, it is likely that the renewability of these resources may lessen the urgency of securing vast networks of supply, as is the case with petroleum.

In terms of the arguments presented by the film, I was most compelled by that suggesting that the ties of the United States to foreign petroleum go back as far as World War II. With the memory of two global conflicts fresh in the minds of policy makers in 1945, it seemed reasonable to suppose that similar conflicts may be likely in the future, and especially so in the wake of the development of nuclear weaponry. Although the character of such conflicts was not known at the time, it was clear that petroleum was a vital resource for powering the equipment necessary to emerge victorious from military endeavors. Since the United States had consumed a staggering one-third of its total oil reserves during World War II, it was possible that it may not have been able remain self-sufficient in sustaining its existence in the face of a similar occurrence in the coming years. Nonetheless, what was particularly surprising was that FDR himself had met with the king of Saudi Arabia in 1945 to forge the alliance which persists to this day, and that the Truman Doctrine included provisions for plugging up Saudi oil fields if taken over by the Soviet Union. Such foresight is impressive, but also sobering in evincing that officials could have already begun to attack this crippling dependence before its explosion in later years.

However, I was less compelled by the suggestion that the United States has been consistently willing to exert its influence by force in the event of conflicts over oil. Even in more recent endeavors, the United States has proven reluctant to “finish the job” so to speak in completing the annexation of these resources. In 1990, Saddam Hussein’s forces in Iraq were not pursued across the border to topple the regime, and the United States has been hesitant to support aggressive military actions by Israel in response to perceived threats against its sovereignty by Ahmadinejad in Iran. While Saddam Hussein was ultimately removed from power in the 2003 Iraq War, the substantial costs of the occupation and subsequent regime change have been clear to both politicians and citizens, and will likely dissuade such actions in the coming years. While the United States has been vociferous in proclaiming its position with regards to petroleum internationally, it will be more difficult to back this authority up in the future with the rise of China as a global superpower.

As a film emphasizing the present state of oil politics, there are few recommendations for corrective action other than to shift resources from the military into scientific research in alternative energy sources. However, it seems that such a shift in perspective has been blocked by corporations and politicians alike in the last decade. As a particularly telling example, Dick Cheney, prior to assuming office, was the CEO of Halliburton, a private contractor which has been involved in both oil operations and private security overseas for U.S. forces. It is clear that these conflicts of interests are the primary impediment to policy efforts to combat our reliance on oil, and likely require strict restrictions on campaign finance, revolving door appointments, and other sources of influence to be remedied.

In the aftermath of such reform, it will be necessary to shift away from the use of petroleum as a fuel, which will require that alternatives are both available, as well as economically feasible. At present, options such as nuclear fission are more expensive than coal or natural gas, in large part due to the high cost of capital. In this case, subsidies should be redirected from oil corporations to these kinds of operations to place them more on par with traditional electricity generation facilities.

Last, large scale mobilization of the citizenry will be necessary to place pressure on elected officials to enact these reforms. In the event that the costs of present forms of energy security become too great to bear, governments will be provided with no other choice but to invest in a more sustainable future. In particular, the responsibility for generating these incentives falls on the ability of the public to organize, such as through NGO’s, PAC’s, and CSO’s. With the lack of education of the citizenry, and the ignorance of the immense costs of our dependence on petroleum, it is vital that this information be disseminated in a manner which can connect with those who are most affected by these policies.

In viewing this piece, I was compelled to seek out additional information regarding the concessions offered to Saudi Arabia by the United States in exchange for its oil. The following sources provided useful in this endeavor:

[]

[]

From the first of these sources, I became aware of the policies of the United States with regards to the various oppressive practices of the Saudi regime. With regards to women, the United States forced its own female soldiers to wear abayas in the 1990’s, while men were forbidden from wearing Saudi clothing. Children who were abducted back to Saudi Arabia by their fathers were provided little assistance, since the father was granted control over the movements of his family under Saudi law. American Jews were forbidden from serving in Saudi Arabia, and the United States has submitted its officials to restrictions on the celebration of Thanksgiving, as well as the censorship of incoming mail. It is clear from these practices that contrary to its proclaimed agenda of human rights and freedom, the United States has often encouraged or turned a blind eye to practices which are in direct conflict with these statements.

From the second of these sources, I have learned of the various facilities which the government of Saudi Arabia maintains within the United States. Along with the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C., the kingdom maintains consulates in New York, Houston, and Los Angeles. Of note among those is Houston, which is a city that is known as a center of oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, an Armed Forces Office is maintained in Washington, D.C., as well as a Cultural Mission. With its importance as a supplier of petroleum, Saudi Arabia has established a number of particularly striking facilities which suggest its level of coordination with the United States on numerous foreign policy issues.