Das Sirren über unseren Köpfen

"Auf dem Grat des Bergrückens, neben einer verlassenen Schäferhütte, liegt das traumhafte Ziel unseres Aufstiegs: Paschinkanda, eine Wiese an einer Quelle, umrahmt von majestätischen Tannen. Wenn nur das Sirren nicht wäre.
Es beginnt ganz leise, kommt näher, entfernt sich wieder - und ist das Geräusch der Drohnen der US-Armee, irgendwo im Himmel über uns."

 Austrian Armed Forces Photograph/Sigi Schwärzler
"http://www.bundesheer.gv.at

Das Zitat stammt aus dem Reisebericht "Die Andertaler" von Christoph Reuter in GEO, 06/Juni2012. Darin geht es um das afghanische Tal Darah-i-Nur im Grenzgebiet zu Pakistan, dessen Bewohner sich bis heute erfolgreich gegen einen Zutritt von US Militärs und von Taliban Kämpfern wehren. An das Sirren der Drohnen am Rande ihres Tals haben Sie sich gewöhnt ("Die Amerikaner bombadieren wieder einmal das Tal nebenan").

Das Gerät erfreut sich weltweit zunehmender Beliebtheit, besonders bei Geheimdiensten und Militärs, sogar in Österreich (Foto). Die Anzahl der bei US Drohnenattacken getöteten und verletzten Zivilisten ist allerdings hoch. In den USA werden unbemannte Drohnen auch schon zuhause zur Überwachung der störrischen Zivilbevölkerung eingesetzt ("domestic drones"), vorzugsweise bei Demonstrationen. Man kann gespannt sein, wie lang es dauern wird, bis auch die Europäer das Sirren über ihren Köpfen hören werden. Ob wir uns selbst auch Drohnen zulegen werden (können/sollen), wie die Occupy-Bewegung in den USA? (siehe "Occucopter")

Jedenfalls ist das Drohnengeschäft äußerst einträglich - das Überwachungsbusiness floriert. Der Kaviar-Kanonenindex zeigt unaufhörlich nach oben.

Und wie geht die Geschichte aus dem Darah-i-Nur Tal weiter?

"Langsam bezweifeln wir, daß es eine gute Idee war, mit einem halben Dutzend Mann und Waffen durch den Wald zu ziehen, ohne wenigstens eine Schafherde dabeizuhaben. Aus der Luft müssen wir exakt so aussehen wie jene, vor denen wir uns fürchten: die Taliban."

update 2012-07-03: Report: U.S. Firms Lobbying for Drone Sales Abroad
update 2012-09-13: Suicide-bombs without the suicides: why drones are so cool
update 2012-09-20: US-Medienforscher: Drohnen gehören zur Zukunft des Journalismus

Identify the War Hawks!

In 1953, the CIA together with British colleagues orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh. (For more information on that budget-friendly US-coup d'état see The Mossadegh Project or the entry in Wikipedia). After having accomplished the coup under the smokescreen of a non-existing communist threat regarding Iran, the US installed their proconsul - the oppressive, brutal and corrupt monarch Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi whose regime lasted for 26 years. Unfortunately, only radical Islamists could break the US-backed rule. That is why we have the Mullahs in Iran since 1979.
Since then there have been rumors circulating from time to time about the next US invasion target being Iran. Recently, the alleged plotting to murder Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States has been sold as bargain to allegations and blatant threats against this country - rich of oil, desert and culture, reigned by prosperous Mullah businessmen who dislike US influence in the region, and inhabited by people who unfortunately have not forgotten the Shah-regime. In fact, the warmongers are attacking again - partly pretty much the same perpetrators called "experts" as experienced before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In order to restrict the destructive consequences of persons propagating organized barbarism against people, it is very useful 1) to know who these persons are, (2) to expose them together with their propaganda and (3) to publicly kill their propaganda by the means of rational arguments.
To start the list of war hawks, here are five examples of unmistakable, clear and direct appeals to start war against Iran, at least partly based on the recent cock-and-bull story of the planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador on US soil.
(WARNING: If you click through the links given below beside the names of the authors, you might be shocked and disgusted because of the radical militarist contents offered, displaying the US as the chosen people, as a paranoia-driven and fear mongering nationalistic militarist state, incurably hegemonic, islamophobic, and superstitiously believing in their self-invented American Exceptionalism. But that's simply the environment these perpetrators come from. If you are a decent, sensible person, you might want to abstain from visiting most of these sites.)

Btw, the author names are equipped with a link leading to the Right Web, a website dedicated to the monitoring of "militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy". The site offers an long list of warmongers, see Individuals)


William Kristol (founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, member of the Policy Advisory Board for the Ethics and Public Policy Center  - "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy", a director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, board members of Keep America Safe and the Emergency Committee for Israel)

"There’s been plenty of talk. But of course no action. This Iranian regime has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on its hands. It’s a sponsor and facilitator of terror organizations that have killed innocent Americans, Israelis, Iraqis, Afghans, Argentines, and many others. It’s a brutal dictatorship. And it’s seeking nuclear weapons while denying it’s doing so. It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force. And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade. [...] Congress should consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program."

Jamie M. Fly (at present executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, before: director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council, assistant for Transnational Threats Policy at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, researcher at the Republican National Committee, and The Council on Foreign Relations)

"As developments this week make abundantly clear, our disgraceful attempts to “engage” the despotic regime in Tehran — even as Iranians tried to overthrow their leaders in 2009 and even as Americans were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the Qods force — have failed. Fortunately, there is a template for action from President Obama’s predecessors in the Oval Office. An appropriate response would be targeted strikes against key regime facilities that support Iran’s illicit activities. [...] It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response."

Reuel Marc Gerecht (former case officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations once said that the Iranians "have terrorism in their DNA", a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; before: a director of the Project for the New American Century's Middle East Initiative and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute)

"Khamenei probably approved a strike in Washington because he no longer fears American military might. Iran's advancing nuclear-weapons program has undoubtedly fortified his spine, as American presidents have called it "unacceptable" yet done nothing about it. And neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama retaliated against Iran's murderous missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...] The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage. If we don't, we are asking for it."

Andrew C. McCarthy (senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism, columnist for National Review)

"It is one thing to pretend that a jihadist campaign by a sub-sovereign terror network is just a crime spree for which trial in the civilian justice system is an adequate response.Iran, however, is a state actor — not even arguably amenable to court prosecution. A state aggressor must get a political response, not a legal one. There is a range of possible political responses, of course, but given its three-decade campaign of aggression, the response to Iran must be military — and decisive. The regime must be destroyed."

James Carafano (Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Homeland Security expert, studied at the United States Military Academy at West Point, the US Army War College, and the Georgetown University - a private, Jesuit, research university)

"The U.S. is fully within it rights to conduct a proportional military response against suitable, feasible, and acceptable targets in Iran. (In many ways, the situation is similar to military operations conducted against al-Qaeda in Pakistan.)"

-------------------tbc---------------------------

Anybody offering links to similar martial quotes: Thanks a lot in advance!

The One Percent Warmongers

Arthur Ponsonby (1871-1946)

Here's a recommendation: If you want to get sensitive for all kinds of war propaganda lies, read Arthur Ponsonby's Falsehood in Wartime, Anne Morelli's  Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre in quick succession, then inform yourself about the most famous case of warmongering by now - the Incubator Lie (Nayirah), sit back and relax while watching Colin Powell's infamous speech before the UN General Assembly (but don't forget to enjoy one or the other documentation about it) and finally remember Susan Rice's Viagra Hoax - it's only a few months ago! If this doesn't help, you're a hopeless case. If this does not give you a clue that, historically, politicians "have rarely been above the average, either morally or intellectually, [but] often below it", you will never be prepared for the worst.


This selection of crude propaganda hoaxes consists only of a small fraction of all the lies that led to wars or have been spread during wartime. If children and young people study a historiography defining wars as the main framework of history of mankind, then these lies ought to be studied in the first place.


Due to the very obvious incredibility of the "alleged plotting to murder Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States", even mass media infotainment production around the world could not resist announcing serious doubts. "Why didn't the Iranians use tried and tested Hizballah networks and keep Iranian nationals, much less unknown Mexican narcos, out of it?" A deputy to the German Bundestag called the alleged plot "highly irrational, it wouldn't make any sense to attack this ambassador who is not even a big shot in the Iranian system, despite of all the rivalry between both countries. It doesn't make sense to perform such an action on the territory of a state, because it would be clearly the strongest possible provocation which would also carry the strongest possible reactions. This irrationality must not lead to an irrational response." [translation by base2014]


But irrational fiction has convinced whole populations in the the past and has led to military barbarism throughout history. The crux with propaganda lies is that they go a long way in the human mind, just as advertisement does. After a while the remembrance of the alleged plot on American soil will fade away, but the previous ones as well as the next one will add up to a pile of bias. For example, who still remembers the chock-and-bull story of "Iran digging mass graves for US troops in case of invasion", told by some unknown ominous "General Hossein Kan'ani Moghadam", just a little bit more than one year ago? Forgotten, but somehow still present. The picture of "le visage du diable (or l'affreux de service)" becomes clearer and clearer, political steps are taken one after the other, and finally they say war is inevitable.


Throughout history, wars have always been incited only by a handful of warmongers and war profiteers. The propaganda lies applied - even more surprisingly - only slightly differ from each other through time. Nevertheless - and this can be called another tragedy of human beings - virtually the same war propaganda lies are successfully applied over and over again to outwit whole populations and to postpone civilization.

Cheap As War Propaganda Might Be

When FBI Director Robert Mueller mentioned that the alleged plotting to murder Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States "reads like the pages of a Hollywood script", he was right. It does. We remember all the dumb Hollywood fabrications illustrating "the Arabs" as devious Bedouin bandits, nervous pistols waiving around gangsters and weapon dealers, secret sleeper cells in the cosy American-Dream neighborhood and sinister sheikhs sponsoring blood-thirsty unshaved fanatic dark-skinned Muslim terrorists (see examples in the below video). Iranians are not Arabs? So what!

This time, the ludicrous Hollywood script brings us additional features like the ominous Quds Force trying to export Iran's Islamic revolution to American soil, collaborating with the most powerful Mexican drug cartel "Los Zetas" by drowning the last remaining - peace spreading - superpower of the world into a sea of opium smuggled from the Middle-East through Mexico. C'mon - you can't be serious!

War propaganda was never so cheap since Colin Powell's lying before the UN General Assembly and Dick Cheney's fabulous 1% rule.

Any evidence presented to the public? No. What for? Any reasonable motive to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the US? Ah, yes, the Islamic Revolution. Well, c'mon! A more realistic view of the Mullah regime in Iran would be that of Corporate Iran (much like the US). The Mullahs are more rich business men than anything else.

The reason why Mueller described this tale as "reads like the pages of a Hollywood script" was probably because he felt embarrassed by being forced from higher level officials to announce such 1%-nonsense against any rationality.

On the other side - how ridiculous this recent war propaganda may sound to thinking people - the threat of another US-war in the Middle-East region may be real, this time with Israelis participating or - as some bloggers suggest - under their direction. Why? Because of "the uncertainties and dangers of the Arab Spring" for Israel. (Remember Chomsky: "The U.S. and its allies will do anything they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world.")

Readiness for War of the European Population under US-American Leadership?

Recently in the German online magazine „Spiegel“: „Deutsche wünschen sich starke USA“ - („Germans Desire Strong USA“) - an uncritical summary of a per se questionable statistics. Quite a few German might have asked themselves: whom did they interview?

At least, the apprentice of this kind of copy & paste journalism indicated the source: the survey "Transatlantic Trends", contracted by the German Marshall Fund (GMF). The entry in the English Wikipedia displays the warning that the article on the GMF would „be written like an advertisement“ (say crude propaganda).

Exactly the same way – like propaganda – the article in the Spiegel is written. Marginally modified, it was adopted from the website of the GMF: Press Release: 10 Years After 9/11, Europeans Still Desire Strong U.S. Leadership in World. Here are the questions and „results“:

The questions taken as a whole aim at depicting readiness for war of the European population under US-American Leadership (just put the pieces together). According to the GMF, the survey was carried out bei the Compagnia di San Paolo  (sample size, where, how, when, why – details unknown). On its website that Compagnia is called a „charitable brotherhood, founded in Torino in 1563“. Moreover, the brotherhood is member of the European Foundation Centre  which – as a chief task – is preparing the smooth cross border operating of funds in the EU, and of the  ACRI – Association of Italian Foundations and Saving Banks.  Both are lobby organizations.

The question, „if under certain conditions war is necessary to obtain justice“ is a typical suggestive question. 

In the course of a live interview the interviewee probably will not be aware of the last part of the question containing the word 'justice'. And, of course, „some conditions“ can be imagined for almost everything ...

Die Kriegsbereitschaft der europäischen Bevölkerung unter US-amerikanischer Führung?

Kürzlich im „Spiegel“ online: „Deutsche wünschen sich starke USA“ - eine kritiklose Zusammenfassung einer an sich eher unglaubwürdigen Stastik. Da werden sich viele Deutsche gewundert haben: wen haben die bloß gefragt?

Wenigstens erwähnt der Copy&Paste Praktikant die Quelle: die Umfrage "Transatlantic Trends", in Auftrag gegeben vom German Marshall Fund (GMF). Der englischsprachige Eintrag in Wikipedia enthält die Warnung, der Artikel über den GMF sei wie eine Werbung geschrieben (sprich unkritische Propaganda).

Und genauso – wie Propaganda – liest sich der Artikel im Spiegel. Abgeschrieben wurde von der website des GMF: Press Release: 10 Years After 9/11, Europeans Still Desire Strong U.S. Leadership in World. Hier die Fragen und „Ergebnisse“.

Die Fragen insgesamt zielen darauf ab die Kriegsbereitschaft der europäischen Bevölkerung unter amerikanischer Führung darzustellen. Durchgeführt soll die Umfrage von der Compagnia di San Paolo worden sein (Stichprobenumfang, wo, wie, wann, wieso – Details unbekannt). Diese Compagnia beschreibt sich selbst auf ihrer Website als „karitative Bruderschaft, gegründet in Turin 1563“. Ferner ist sie ein Mitglied des European Foundation Centres, zu dessen Hauptaufgaben es zählt, das reibungslose Funktionieren von Stiftungen über EU-Grenzen hinweg vorzubereiten, und der ACRI – Association of Italian Foundations and Saving Banks -  zu deutsch: des Interessenverbandes der Italienischen Stiftungen und Sparkassen. Beide sind Lobby-Verbände.

Die Frage, ob unter gewissen Umständen Krieg notwendig sei, um Gerechtigkeit herzustellen, ist eine typische Suggestivfrage. Bei einem Live- oder Telefoninterview hört der Interviewte den letzten Satzteil mit 'Gerechtigkeit' wahrscheinlich gar nicht mehr. Und "gewisse Umstände" lassen sich für fast alles ausmalen.

Continuous State of War

"Israel does not see the missiles falling on communities along the border as a bad thing. On the contrary, they would be worried and even alarmed were it not for this fire [...] Israeli politicians are terrified of peace, they tremble with fear from the possibility of peace, because without war and without general mobilization they don't know how to live" Zygmunt Bauman

see article in Haaretz: Polish-Jewish sociologist compares West Bank separation fence to Warsaw Ghetto walls

The Westbank Wall (from the Palestine Chronicle)

The Warsaw Ghetto Wall (from Wikipedia)

Surveil Ordinary Citizens! (Überwache ganz normale Bürger!)

(English Version)
Shameless exaggeration of the dangers coming from the so-called international terrorism, communism or radical Islam etc, creates an external threat. Shameless exaggeration of the danger coming from collaborators of the former, critics and dissidents creates an internal threat (key word "sleeper cell"). What we get is Naomi Wolf's Principle Nr. 1: Invoke an External and Internal Threat! And from there, it's only a little step to her Principle Nr. 4 : Surveil Ordinary Citizens! Both procedures can be found in her "The End of America. Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" (2007), dealing with principles of how to destroy (real) democracies.

As she points out, it's not about observing and monitoring each citizen, keeping a dossier on him, and even less about total surveillance as in Orwell's 1984 (which turns out very costly). According to Wolf it's much more effective to create a notion of possibly being under observation. For dictators the purpose of surveillance is more of psychological nature, dealing with intimidation and finally with obedience and submission: by collecting all kinds of data of ordinary citizens  - starting with books they buy or lend, their sexual life, their financial decisions, right through to their telephone calls, joining demonstrations or  medical data - what is happening is a production of data which can be used against citizens and, if necessary, will be used against them. In her chapter 5, Wolf offers a lot of examples of these shady practices in the USA (before and after 9/11), Nazi-Germany, East Germany, China and the Sowjet Union. (Germany's surveillance fanatics of today are not mentioned.)

In the final analysis, Wolf's remarks in this chapter remain on a rather trivial level. No attention is paid to the collaboration of mass-media in spreading this kind of politics of fear. Nevertheless the mass-media take the leading role in this strange play, yet appearing so familiar through history. It's because the spreading of angst - the politics of fear - is only working successfully by uncritical (or intended) copy & paste forwarding of propaganda, typos included. And fear is needed for pushing through any of the restricions of citizen's rights Wolf is criticizing. Also, Wolf totally blocks out economical aspects though it is well known and easy to understand that the security sector is another winner of the politics of fear, world-wide.

Other postings on "The End of America. Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" (2007)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (1)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (2)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (3)

(Deutsche Version)

Die schamlose Übertreibung der Gefahr des sog. internationalen Terrorismus, des Kommunismus, des radikalen Islam usw., schafft einen äußeren Feind. Die schamlose Übertreibung der Gefahr von Kollaborateuren, Kritikern und Dissidenten bezüglich des ersteren schafft den inneren Feind.  Und schon sind wir bei Naomi Wolfs Prinzip Nr. 1: Beschwöre eine äußere und eine innere Gefahr! Und von dort ist es nur ein kleiner Schritt zu Prinzip Nr. 4: Überwache ganz normale Bürger! Beide Verfahrensweisen stammen aus ihrem "Wie zerstört man eine Demokratie. Das 10-Punkte Programm " (2010).

Dabei geht es nicht darum, tatsächlich alle Bürger zu überwachen, von jedem einzelnen ein Dossier anzulegen, noch weniger um die totale Überwachung wie in Orwell's 1984 (die sehr kostenintensiv wäre). Viel effektiver laut Wolf ist das Gefühl zu erzeugen, daß man überwacht werden könnte. Die Zwecke, die Diktatoren damit verfolgen, sind psychologischer Natur und drehen sich um Einschüchterung und letztlich um Gehorsam: mit dem Sammeln von allerlei Daten ganz normaler Bürger - von den Büchern, die sie kaufen oder ausleihen, ihrem Sexualleben, ihren finanziellen Entscheidungen, bis zu ihren Telefongesprächen, den Teilnahmen an Demonstrationen oder medizinischen Daten - werden Informationen produziert, die man gegen die Bürger verwenden kann und, falls nötig, tatsächlich auch gegen sie verwendet. Beispiele für diese Praktiken in den USA (vor und nach 9/11), Nazideutschland, der DDR, China und der Sowjetunion findet man in Wolfs 5. Kapitel zuhauf. (Die Überwachungsfanatiker im heutigen Deutschland werden nicht erwähnt.)

Letztlich bleiben ihre Ausführungen in diesem Kapitel eher auf trivialem Niveau. Der Kollaboration und der Initiative von Massenmedien bei der Verbreitung von Angst-Politik etwa wird keine Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Dabei kommt diesen die Hauprolle bei diesem seltsamen, aber doch so vertrauten Spiel zu. Denn die Verbreitung von Furcht - die Politik der Angst -  funktioniert ausschliesslich über unkritische (oder beabsichtigte) Copy&Paste Weiterleitung von Propaganda, inklusive Tippfehlern. Und die Angst der Bürger dient letztlich genau der Implementierung derjenigen Einschnitte in ihre Rechte, die Wolf so kritisiert. Auch wirtschaftspolitische Aspekte blendet Wolf beim Thema Überwachung völlig aus, obwohl der sicherheitsindustrielle Komplex dabei in weiten Teilen der Welt schwer verdient.

Der Wahre Grund für den Irakkrieg? (True Reason for the Invasion Of Iraq?)

Nachdem seit 2009 die Lizenzen von 11 irakischen Erdölfeldern verkauft worden waren, schienen auf den ersten Blick jene recht zu behalten, die nicht daran geglaubt hatten, die USA hätten "nur" des Erdöls wegen das Land überfallen. Nur zwei der großen US-Öl Giganten werden sich vorerst direkt am irakischen Öl gütlich tun, einer davon Exxon Mobile. (Übrigens, welcher Ökonzern hat den höchsten jemals in Deutschland nachgewiesenen Preis pro Liter Superbenzin verlangt? Richtig: Esso! Wieviel?)

Aber, Hand auf's Herz, wer glaubt schon, daß der Hegemon, der für die Besetzung des Iraks Unsummen an Geld und Ressourcen investiert hat, sich die Butter vom Brot nehmen lassen würde? Kann man so naiv sein?

Der New York Times zufolge geht die Hälfte der 150 Milliarden, welche die Lizenznehmer in den nächsten zehn Jahren für die Ausbeutung des irakischen Öls investieren werden, an die Bohrspezialisten und Zulieferer Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International und Schlumberger, die allesamt enge Beziehungen zur texanischen Ölindustrie aufweisen. Und das, wohlgemerkt, bei einer Steigerung der Tagesproduktion von 2,5 Millionen Barrels derzeit auf geplante 12 Millionen (!) bis 2017.

"Those four have won the largest portion of the subcontracts to drill for oil, build wells and refurbish old equipment.“Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors,” Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. Mr. Munton estimated that about half of the $150 billion the international majors are expected to invest at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade would go to drilling subcontractors — most of it to the big four operators, which all have ties to the Texas oil industry. Halliburton and Baker Hughes are based in Houston, as is the drilling unit of Schlumberger, which is based in Paris. Weatherford, though now incorporated in Switzerland, was founded in Texas and still has big operations there."

Aber es kommt noch besser, denn im Vergleich zu den anderen internationalen Ölmultis werden die US-Firmen besser abschneiden, obwohl sie nicht (alle) an den Lizenzen beteiligt sind. Die russische Lukoil hatte die Bohrlizenz für das West Qurna 2, dem zweitgrößten Ölfeld der Welt, für 13 Milliarden Dollar erworben. Unabhängig vom Ölpreis müssen die Russen an das irakische Ölministerium $1.15 pro Barrel abführen. Das Geschäft wird sich dann erst nach etwa 10 Jahren amortisieren. Bis es soweit ist, werden die genannten US-Bohrfirmen schon ordentlich verdient haben.

"While Baker and its American peers are poised to make significant profits from such work in Iraq, wafer-thin margins seem to await Lukoil and the other international oil producers — which include BP of Britain, CNPC of China, ENI of Italy and the Anglo-Dutch company Shell.Lukoil’s contract, for example, is typical in paying a flat fee of $1.15 for each barrel produced, regardless of oil’s price.That means even if Lukoil ramps up West Qurna 2 production from almost nothing now to 1.8 million barrels a day by 2017, as specified in the contract, it will require more than a decade of subsequent production just to recoup capital costs of about $13 billion. A good portion of those costs, meanwhile, will have gone to its drilling contractors. Lukoil says it intends to drill more than 500 wells over six years.""

Die Russen scheinen aber auch nicht besten Geschäftsbedingungen vorgefunden haben: Lukoils Zulieferer ist Baker Hughes. Dem Lizenzvertrag folgend mußten die Russen das Angebot für die Zusammenarbeit mit einer Bohrfirma im Irak öffentlich ausschreiben ... aber nur Amerikaner hatten sich gemeldet:

"Andrei Kuzyaev, the president of Lukoil Overseas, the company’s subsidiary for foreign operations, said in an interview that he was choosing oil services contractors in Iraq through open tenders, as required by the contract. But in fact, Lukoil officials say privately, only American companies have bid."

Falls die New York Times wahrheitsgemäß berichtet, dürfte es immer schwieriger werden für diejenigen, die an die "Nicht-für Öl"-Hypothese als Rechtfertigung für die US-Invasion des Iraks glauben, abgesehen davon, daß diese Hypothese ohnehin nicht wirklich für hegemoniale Interessen paßt. "Kontrolle über die Ausbeutung der Ressourcen" ist das hegemoniale Stichwort. Auf welche Weise genau etwas für die eigene Wirtschaft abfällt, ist dabei nebensächlich. Und die Russen hat man wieder einmal über den Tisch gezogen.

Guns-to-Caviar Index / Kaviar-Kanonen-Index

[The Guns-to-Caviar Index] „tracks the sales of fighter jets (guns) and executive jets (caviar). For seventeen years, it consistently found that when fighter jets were selling briskly, sales of luxury executive jets went down and vice versa: when executive jet sales were on the rise, fighter jet sales dipped. Of course, a handful of war profiteers always managed to get rich from selling guns, but they were economically insignificant. It was a truism of the contemporary market that you couldn't have booming economic growth in the midst of violence and instability.

But that truism is no longer true. Since 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, the index found that spending has been going up on both fighter jets and executive jets rapidly and simultaneously, which means that the world is becoming less peaceful while accumulating significantly more profit. The

galloping economic growth in China and India played a part in the increased demand for luxury items, but so did the expansion of the narrow military-industrial complex into the sprawling disaster capitalism complex. Today, global instability does not just benefit a small group of arms dealers; it generates huge profits for the high-tech security sector, for heavy construction, for private health care companies treating wounded soldiers, for the oil and gas sectors—and of course for defense contractors.“

Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, Chapter 21: Loosing the Peace Incentive

The idea goes back to Richard Aboulafia: My Guns-to-Caviar Index - Written up by Dan Gross on Slate.

[Der Kanonen-Kaviar-Index] „vergleicht die Verkaufszahlen von Kampf-flugzeugen (Kanonen) mit denen von Firmenjets (Kaviar). 17 Jahre lang zeigte sich zuverlässig die Gesetzmäßigkeit, dass die Zahl der verkauften Firmenjets deutlich nach unten ging, wenn Kampfflugzeuge Konjunktur hatten. Und umgekehrt: Wenn die Verkäufe von Firmenjets zunahmen, sackten die Umsätze bei Kampfflugzeugen ab. Natürlich schafften es  einige Kriegsgewinnler immer, mit dem Verkauf von Kanonen reich zu werden, aber die fielen volkswirtschaftlich nicht ins Gewicht. Es galt als Binsenweisheit der zeitgenössischen Wirtschaft, dass es in Zeiten von Gewalt und Instabilität kein nachhaltiges Wachstum geben könne.

Doch diese Binsenweisheit trifft nicht mehr zu. Seit 2003, dem Jahr des Einmarsches im Irak, zeigt der Index, dass sowohl bei Kampfflugzeugen als auch bei Firmenjets die Umsätze rapide und simultan gestiegen sind, was bedeutet, dass die Welt kriegerischer geworden ist und zugleich erheblich mehr Profite angehäuft werden. Zur größeren Nachfrage bei Luxusartikeln hat nicht nur das sprunghafte Wirtschaftswachstum in China und Indien beigetragen, sondern auch die Ausweitung des begrenzten militärisch-industriellen Komplexes zum blühenden Katastrophen-Kapitalismus-Komplex. Die weltweite Instabilität kommt heute nicht nur einer kleinen Gruppe von Waffenhändlern zugute, sie generiert auch riesige Profite auf dem Hightech-Sicherheitssektor, im Bereich Großbauwerke, für private medizinische Unternehmen, die verwundete Soldaten behandeln, in der Erdöl- und Erdgasbranche – und natürlich für militärische Dienstleistungen.“

Naomi Klein, Die Schock-Strategie, p.598f