What motivated the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, and was it in their national interest?
As you travel through this inquiry you will be presented with FOUR POSSIBLE CAUSES of the Iraq War:
- Neo-conservatism;
- 9/11 (and the War on Terror);
- Weapons of Mass Destruction; and
- US oil interests.
LEARNING INTENTION FOR THIS PAGE: By the end of this section,
- ANALYSE historical evidence and draw conclusions about the past.
- APPLY historical knowledge (constructed through engaging with historical evidence on this page and past pages) to discussion and historical writing;
- CREATE a coherent piece of historical writing that addresses an historical question/argument, that demonstrates your knowledge and understanding of the topic and your grasp of historical skills in accordance to success criteria;
- REFLECT on your work in light of the feedback you receive and REVISE where necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB-QUESTION 4: Was oil a motive for the United States to invade Iraq in 2003?
A few months after the first attacks on Iraq, Australian cartoonist Peter Nicholson drew this cartoon to describe what he saw as the likely outcomes of the war:
LEVEL ONE (Reading for literal understanding): Make a list of the results of the war as foreseen by Nicholson. What can you literally see in the cartoon - NO INTERPRETATION YET!
(a) There is a lot of burnt/destroyed buildings
(b) There is an orphanage with many children outside
(c) ????
(d) ????
LEVEL TWO (Reading for interpretation): Draw conclusions about what the author is intending to mean - What is the message of the source considering the interpretation of each of the cartoon's parts?
(a) The US bombing destroyed many Iraqi buildings
(b) The orphanage and orphans represent the children left without parents due to the war
(c)????
(d) ????
LEVEL THREE (Defending an opinion): Applying knowledge - To what extent would the cartoonist agree with the statements below (use evidence to support your answers):
(a) The results of the US invasion of Iraq are a complete contradiction to the promises made by President Bush when he declared war.
(b) The US invasion of Iraq was motivated by the securing of oil fields with disregard for the Iraqi lives lost and the damage inflicted along the way.
NOTE: As you continue through this inquiry section, return to this cartoon periodically to re-evaluate how appropriate its message is?
ACTIVITY 2 - ANALYSING STATISTICS
Open the following spreadsheet on BP Energy Statistics from 1965-2009: CLICK HEREANALYSE the data and IDENTIFY the data that addresses the questions below
ESTABLISHING DEMAND:
- What is the US's oil consumption in 2009 as a percentage of the world consumption?
- Are there any single nations close to the oil consumption of the US?
- Click on the 'Oil - proved reserves history' tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet and list the top FOUR countries as a percentage share of the world's known oil reserves.
- How do these four countries compare to the known oil reserves of the US?
- What are Iraq's oil reserves in relation to the world's and in comparison to the US's? And what is the trend of Iraq's known oil reserves over the past 20 years.
- Is there an argument for oil as motive for invading Iraq? Can you identify a reason why Iraq might be targeted for invasion and not the other top three nations?
REFLECTING:
- Statistics always show a point in time - they are of a temporal nature. We need to recognise that when studying statistics of the past. If you were going to link any of this to the 2014 involvement of the US military in Iraq, what might you need to know?
ACTIVITY 3 - RESEARCHING & FORMING HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE
As we navigate through the following PREZI and respond to the guiding questions around the evidence, take notes in the same fashion as you would for your Category 2/3 research assignments. This will be in preparation for an extended piece of writing (using TEECL paragraphs) that addresses the focus question for this section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Task 1: REVISION
Revise your understanding of Interests and Arguments: Securing U.S. oil interests in Iraq by going back through your notes from this section and HIGHLIGHT THE EVIDENCE you might use for the writing task below. (15 minutes)
Task 2: EXTENDED WRITING
Answer this section's focus question
'To what extent was the U.S. motivated by oil interests in Iraq?'... in an extended piece of writing 600- 800 words using the TEECL model using source evidence studied so far to support your ideas - this forms part of your preparation for an upcoming Extended Response to Stimulus Exam.
NOTE: Do this first in your books/computer, then post it in the comments below for teacher/peer evaluation.
REMEMBER: You will need to incorporate seamlessly the evaluation of the evidence that you use. Often the easiest way to do this is through the introduction of the evidence. Use the the following examples as a guide to introduce your quotes/evidence in an authoritative way - to show that they are credible, useful and identify the perspective in the information:
SECONDARY EVIDENCE:
- ... as noted by Latrobe University's senior lecturer...
- University of [university name] Professor of History [name] gives an objective perspective where he states ....
- An official website for ...
- Historian [name] claims in his book ...
- ... published by the authoritative Australian Broadcasting Corporation ...
PRIMARY:
- As described by [name] who gives a primary account of ...
- ... This bias is not surprising from [name] because ...
- ... as revealed in the following witness testimony ...
- Evidence from this primary source has more weight because it provided verifiable evidence ...
- Supporting this perspective is a primary account by [name], who states that ...
SUCCESS CRITERIA: To be successful in this task you will have demonstrated the following points in your writing
Gold:
CONSISTENTLY COMMUNICATES accurately selected definitions, key historical concepts, terms, events, developments and people involved with US oil interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. Uses a DIVERSITY of primary and secondary evidence to ANALYSE the EXPLICIT and IMPLICIT reasons behind U.S. oil interests in Iraq and how this might have MOTIVATED the the US to wage war in Iraq. Your writing will include DIRECT and INDIRECT reference to CORROBORATED evidence in support of your ideas. Evaluations discussing CREDIBILITY (accuracy, reliability, relevance etc.), UTILITY (usefulness) and PERSPECTIVE (bias, representativeness etc.) should also be included.
Silver:
USUALLY COMMUNICATES accurately selected definitions, key historical concepts, terms, events, developments and people involved with US oil interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. Incorporate the analysis of EXPLICIT reasons behind U.S. oil interests in Iraq . CORROBORATES secondary evidence to support your ideas. Includes evaluation of the likely RELIABILITY of evidence used in your writing.
Bronze:
Communicates some definitions, terms and key historical concepts and people and describes accurately the events around US oil interests in the Middle East and elsewhere.
SELF/PEER/TEACHER EVALUATION:
- Unpacking the Criteria - Criterion 2 & 3: DOCUMENT LINK
PEER FEEDBACK COMMENT CRITERIA:
When you give peer feedback, be sure to address the following in your commentary so that your feedback PROMOTES LEARNING and PROGRESSES your peers:- identify SPECIFIC areas in the writing - don't be too general
- comment SPECIFICALLY according to the criteria using the language of the criteria - look for omissions or areas for improvement
- make suggestions that will improve their work - identify SPECIFICALLY where adjustments could be made and how you would SPECIFICALLY improve it.
- comment on SPECIFIC successful elements of their writing - celebrate their success!
The current price for Crude Oil is 80.54 USD per barrel and the world uses approximately 90,266.2 thousand barrels of oil a day. As oil is such a precious resource worldwide, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 with the motivation to secure and control Iraqi oil reserves as they represented the possibility of economic power worldwide and geopolitical control in the Middle East. This is demonstrated through the economic benefits of the US control of Iraqi oil reserves, the unequal consumption and production of oil and finally, the geopolitical issue of Iran and their potential nuclear threat.
ReplyDeleteOil is a precious resource worldwide and is also a valuable asset and commodity. With great control of oil supplies comes great power as oil is so widely used and valued. According to the BP statistical review of World Energy, 2009 the world’s total consumption of oil was approximately 84,077 thousand barrels per day. This secondary source demonstrates the massive demand for oil worldwide and further implies that if one can control this commodity, there would be great power and economic benefits. This possibility is likely to have motivated the US to invade Iraq in 2003 in order to secure oil reserves. This possibility for the ‘power’ and economic motive is further demonstrated by a statement made by The US Department of Energy in their 2003 International Energy Outlook “Complete US control of oil would preserve the rule of the dollar, not only would oil producers continue to use the dollar for their international trade, but the dollars international standing would increase…” This primary source explicitly demonstrates that the US control of oil would put them in a very powerful and convenient economic situation, further showing power and economic benefit to be a motive for the US to invade Iraq in order to control oil. This is corroborated by an extract from ‘Iraq and Our Energy Future’ a 2003 primary publication from the University of Wisconsin “The wars in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 have both had oil as a contributing factor…the 2003 war was… about who will control the second largest oil reserve in the world. Iraqi oil reserves represent a major asset that could quickly add capacity to world oil markets…” This source further indicates that control of Iraqi oil meant massive economic and power benefits to the US, making it a very viable motivation for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The US consumption and production of oil along with the subsequent requirement to import it further demonstrates that oil motivated the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The US uses much more oil than it produces, making it necessary for the US to import most of its oil supply. This is a possible motivation for the US to invade Iraq to secure further oil supplies as according to a primary source, the Energy Information Administration (2004), in 2003, the US were producing around 20 million barrels of oil a day, but only producing 10 million barrels a day. This explicitly demonstrates that the US was consuming twice as much oil than they were producing. This implies that the US were in need of more oil to import as the chart predicts up to 2025 when US production will drop below 10 million barrels a day and consumption will skyrocket to about 28 million barrels a day, making it necessary for the US to guarantee more oil imports for the future, thus giving them more reason to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein. However, according to a secondary source, the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2009), Iraq is the fourth largest oil producer in the world behind Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran. When the US’ relationships with these countries are examined, the reasons as to why Iraq was targeted are very clear. As the US and Saudi were already on very good terms due to their joint fight against Communism in Afghanistan, they were already strong trading partners in oil. The US and Venezuela were also already trading, however, the trading slowed as Venezuela condemned the US action in the Middle East. Trading with Iran was inapprehensible, as after the Iranian Revolution they became nemeses due to their clash of cultures. However, the US was not only attempting to access oil in the Middle East, but also end this clash of cultures with Iran, or at least assert their power and keep Iran’s nuclear programming under surveillance.
ReplyDeleteThe Us not only invaded Iraq for their oil, but also for the geopolitical advantage of having military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq- the two countries surrounding their Middle Eastern ‘enemy,’ Iran. According to David E Sanger, graduate of Harvard and the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, the US are trying to keep an eye over an alleged nuclear programme in Iraq President Bush was not going to save the world from terrorists in 2003, but prevent the expansion of power of ‘The Axis of Evil.’ In 2002, Bush stated “States like these [North Korea, Iran, and Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” Iraq was invaded the following year, implying that Bush was beginning to try and eliminate these ‘axis’ powers by pushing America’s military power further into the Middle East. This is corroborated by an image from Eric Margolis, an American journalist who writes on Middle East affairs, which shows American Military bases in the Middle East. This explicitly demonstrates that there is an American Army base in every country surrounding Iran and implies that America’s presence is not only reaffirming their power, but also ensuring that Iran does not become too powerful, and cannot pose a threat to America. This shows that the US not only had oil interests in the Middle East but also those of protection of their power and safety.
As oil is such a precious resource worldwide, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 with the motivation to secure and control Iraqi oil reserves as they represented the possibility of economic power worldwide and geopolitical control in the Middle East. This is demonstrated through the large consumption of oil worldwide and its subsequent high value and potential for control, the US’ unequal levels of oil consumption and production and finally, the geopolitical control of the Middle East and the containment of the ‘threat’ to US, Iran and their alleged nuclear weapons programme.
Feedback:
Delete- you have established a good strong hypothesis which is supported throughout
- throughout you have recognised implicit and explicit meanings of all the sources used
- you're corroboration of sources is good throughout particularly in the first body paragraph however to validate these you could evaluate them to show them as being reliable etc
- Evaluation of sources could be improved throughout.
- the synthesis of your evidence could be stronger in paragraph two in order to create a stronger argument
- overall the formatting of your essay is good - it flows well and you link really well between paragraphs. you also use excellent vocab :))))))))))))
- The way in which you have used the sources and link them to your own understanding is good and it flows within your essay
Delete- Your links from paragraph to paragraph is strong
- The points that you had made are strong and this is evident through your links back to the sources.
- You used the sources really well and this is evident as you support your claim on the source by adding your own understanding.
Excellent opening and strong hypothesis.Body paragraph 1 is an excellent paragraph – really supports your hypothesis and with strong supporting evidence (primary and secondary), well done! Keep the temporal nature of your argument tight in body paragraph 2: ‘…, making it necessary for the US in the late 20th century and throughout the years leading up to the Iraq War in 2003 to import most of its oil.’ Excellent implicit conclusion drawn in paragraph 2 re: US consumption vs production. Well done.
DeleteYou could BRIEFLY note the contentious nature of sources by contrasting the BP Review point about 4th largest with the earlier source used in Paragraph 1 that states Iraq as the second largest oil reserve in the world. But you use the source well to lead into the geo-political relationships with the top 4. You show your historical knowledge here – you have read well in preparation. Good job! Body paragraph three deals nicely with the geo-political element of the invasion and you use evidence well. One suggestion, you could use the terminology ‘to “balance the increasing power” of Iran and prevent it growing too powerful in challenge with US hegemonic power.’ This maintains a link with the THEME of this Inquiry: ‘The Study of Power’
One consideration could be to introduce an opposing/critical perspective from Osama Bin Laden (Blog page 2), to contrast the representation of the Axis of Evil as terrorists with that which Bin Laden labels as terrorists – the US and global corporations under the ideology of free market capitalism?????? If you have space
Overall, a very strong essay Lillie, well-argued and supported with direct and indirect reference to the corroboration of primary and secondary evidence. If you are to pursue this argument for the exam, I would look to bolster even more with further evidence where possible from the sources provided. GOLD!
Mr S.
The United States was motivated to invade Iraq in 2003 because of the need to supply an unbalanced consumption rate in the US; hence the control of Iraqi oil would lead to an increase in power for the US in the Middle East. This was evident through the level of importance oil was classified to the US, the effect this reliance had on their presence in the Middle East and the reasoning behind invading Iraq that counteracted both their want, and imminent need, for Iraqi oil.
ReplyDeleteAs, some classing it self-appointed, global hegemon, the United States had a high demand for oil for their consumption, a demand that required the country in charge to import oil to make up for the supply they lack. The U.S Department of Energy, in an International Energy Outlook reported that “already a little over half our daily consumption of 20 million barrels is imported”, which is also corroborated by a graph that was released by the Energy Information Administration in 2004, that showed that at 2003, the consumption rate was almost 5 million barrels per day above the production rate, which also on a decline as the consumption rate heightens. Explicitly, this relays the already known fact that the US imports oil, but works as an implicit signal to other countries, especially countries that they are competing with for hegemon status with such as Russia and France, that they don’t have the supplies to support their own country. The report also states that US control of oil would “increase the dollar’s international standing and hurt the credibility of the euro, which corroborates which previous hegemon beliefs and gives strong motive for the US’ invasion to be centred on oil.
With prior knowledge to suggest that the US already lacks in the supply for their oil demand, it corroborates belief that the war waged on Iraq was built on a foundation of oil motive, rather than in the interest of the Iraqi, and American, people. According to BP Energy Statistics from 1965 to 2009, in 2003, the US were consuming over 20 million barrels of oil a day, while as previously mentioned half of the US’s daily oil consumption is brought in from other countries. Comparing these statistics, it explicitly shows that the US had to import over half of their oil to supply the oil they feel, as hegemon, they need and deserve. The BP Energy Statistics, in 2009, also show that the US’s oil reserves only make up 2.1% of the total oil preserves in the world, while Iraq sat at a steady 8.6% share of the total, fourth largest in the world. People may question why the US would choose the fourth, but with the top 3 countries being Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran, there is even more heavy evidence to corroborate US motive. Saudi Arabia being the country with the most oil reserves seems like the most likely target, but with a business relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, the US is already receiving 902 000 barrels of oil, similar to Venezuela who was producing 1 119 000 barrels to the US , as shown in a diagram produced by the Energy Information Administration and NG Oil and Gas (2009). As a country who promises a strong economy, and who promotes being the most powerful nation on the globe, the US were extremely dependent on other countries for their oil, something that could be fixed by invading Iraq, control of this oil supply not only meaning the supply for US demand, but more power.
As well as the oil motive, the US had ideological justification, in their opinion, to invade Iraq. An advantage of the US invading Iraq, besides the power that comes with oil, is the power that they have the possibility to gain through controlling the Iraqi people. In a reverse domino theory, the US introducing democracy to the Iraqi people, and presumably succeeding, would influence the surrounding areas to choose the successful route of democracy until it left Iran, who were a known enemy country of the US, until they all were under US influence, therefore giving the US more access to oil supply, as Iran, according to the BP Energy Statistics, controlled 10.3% of the oil reserves in the world, the same amount of all European and Eurasian countries combined. This kind of oil supply would ensure the power for US, both through oil supply, but also for the US fight for democracy.
ReplyDeletePower most definitely comes from control, and without the control of oil, the US lacks in a definite criteria to be hegemon, especially from the consideration of opposing nations such as Russia and France. With the possibility of oil power, motive for invasion not only means that they would be in charge of Iraq’s oil supply as well as the other imported oil from countries in the top 3 such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but that they would possibly be able to introduce democracy into Iraq and further on, other countries from the Middle East, and eventually Iran, despite being an enemy. There is endless evidence to suggest that the US had motive to invade Iraq because of their oil supply rather than in doing what’s best for the Iraqi and American people, and furthermore supplying the demand for not only oil, but hegemon status.
In your introduction, maybe first introduce the topic of the essay – the Iraq War / oil. Then come in with your argument… of which, you need to specify what type of consumption rate, i.e. “oil consumption”. However, your argument is strong.SS - “This was evident through the level of importance oil was classified to the US”.
DeleteBody paragraph 1:
The topic sentence is awkwardly phrased;
I would begin by establishing the importance of oil to the industrialised world as a background context;
Excellent use of statistics to support your thesis argument/hypothesis, but maintain chronology – the first source needs to adhere to a time to give it relevance in the context of your argument;
I wouldn’t say France is competing for hegemon status, just a bigger slice of the ‘economic oil cake’;
“corroborates which previous hegemon beliefs” this statement isn’t clear in what you are trying to say – evidence corroborates with evidence. Are you saying that the source supports an specific argument?
Body Paragraph 2:
The topic sentence again is awkwardly phrased – keep it simple to start!;
Be careful with the term ‘corroborate’ as you are using it synonymously with ‘support’. It does not fit here: “there is even more heavy evidence to corroborate US motive.”;
You focus heavily on statistical evidence (quantitative) but lack and source evidence from voices of authoritative figures (qualitative) to show a variety of evidence in support of your argument. Be sure to include ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ reference to other sources from the source sheet in corroboration with the statistics to address the ‘diversity’ of sources as per the criteria.
Body paragraph 3:
DEPTH OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE - When discussing the idea of a ‘reverse domino theory’, be sure to establish that neo-conservatives were strong believers in the Domino Theory throughout Vietnam – the very same neocons that were supporting war in Iraq (democratisation is a clear example of neoconservative foreign policy thought Tenet 1);
You need to better explain the relationship between the US and Iran. And, the surrounding countries would not be ‘under US influence’ so much as governed by the political ideology of liberal-democracy and all that this would entail – security (liber-democracies are less likely to go to war against each other) and mutual economic prosperity (free trade agreements between like-minded capitalist governments);
At this point it really addresses a high ‘Silver’ medal in terms of the success criteria
Mr S.
Oil motivated the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 due to their increasing need for oil and their crusade for ideological supremacy of democracy, specifically in the Middle East. Oil is an incredibly valuable commodity; hence why the US as the most powerful nation were in desperate need and want for it.
ReplyDeleteBefore exploring US’s possible motivation in invading Iraq for purposes of oil, it is first essential to understand the high value of oil. Without oil, the world would not be able to function. Hence, oil automatically equates to power. This sentiment can be seen explicitly in the International Energy Outlook 2003, published by the US Department of Energy, where it states “Complete US control of oil would preserve the rule of the dollar…the dollar’s international standing would increase and hurt the credibility of the euro.” This statement equates control of oil to the strength of a country’s economy. This connection between oil and power can be corroborated through a statement made by credible source Professor Maizar Rahman, Secretary General of OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) in 2004 where he says “Oil [is] the engine of the world economy”. Again, this shows that oil is an incredibly important and powerful commodity. Hence, it can be seen why the US, as the recognised world hegemon, would have wanted to advance their own power through the pursuit of oil. The US, as one of the largest countries in the world, also had an essential need for oil.
As the US’s consumption of oil far outweighs their own supply, it would be only natural for them to seek alternative sources of oil. According to a graph produced by the Energy Information Administration in 2004, it can be seen that in the early 2000’s, US oil consumption approximately doubles that of oil production. This obvious need for oil can be further corroborated in a source produced by the Energy Information Administration of BP, where it can be seen from another graph that the amount of oil the US imports is not enough to support their consumption needs. These secondary statistics can be corroborated through a statement made by Senior Researcher Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute where he states “US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-OPEC fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region”. Not only does this primary statement support that fact that the US had a genuine need for oil, but it also suggests that this oil will have to come from the Middle East. According to BP Energy Statistics, the Middle East holds in their reserves more than 50% of the world’s oil; therefore it makes sense that the US would seek alternative sources of oil in that area of the world. Also according to these statistics, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq hold the largest amount of oil in the Middle East. However, according to Christopher Blanchard, who offers an objective perspective on the issue of US-Saudi oil trade, Saudi Arabia is the second largest supplier of oil to the US behind Canada. Implicitly this suggests that the US was most probably not willing to risk their relationship with Saudi Arabia to start any conflict regarding control of their oil reserves. Control over Iran’s sources of oil was also not an option, as according to the US Department of State ‘The United States has long-standing concerns over Iran’s nuclear program…’ and hence were most probably not willing to engage in conflict over fear of nuclear war. By default, this meant that the only remaining source of oil in the Middle East was in fact Iraq. Not only can it be justified that the US were in need of oil, it can also be argued that through regime change in Iraq and control of Iraq’s oil reserves, America’s quest for democratic change in the Middle East could be realised.
The second paragraph is really good :) You used a lot of sources and in a really succinct way. I think that you could just use the word motivation a little more to really exploit the words from the criteria. For example, "According to BP Energy Statistics, the Middle East holds in their reserves more than 50% of the world’s oil; therefore it makes sense that the US would seek alternative sources of oil in that area of the world." Could be changed to
Delete"According to BP Energy Statistics, the Middle East holds in their reserves more than 50% of the world’s oil; therefore it makes sense that the US would be motivated seek alternative sources of oil in that area of the world."
Similar to that of the domino theory that operated during the Cold War, it can be argued that the US sought through the control of Iraqi oil the spread of democracy or rather US dominance in the Middle East. As can be seen in a source produced by reputable Harvard University, the US presence in the Middle East is very prevalent which can be seen by the stationing of groups of troops on the map. This could mean that implicitly, the US is attempting to assert its international authority over the region. This sentiment can be corroborated through a statement made by President George Bush in November 2003 “We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East.” The key word Bush uses is the word heart, implying that it is the intention that Iraq becomes the central springboard for democracy in the Middle East. It can then be argued that through creating a democratic Middle East, the US would have greater access or rather control over the world’s major oil reserves. This is reflected in a comment made by Alan Greenspan after his career, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time of the Iraqi invasion, “The removal of Saddam Hussein has been essential to secure world oil supplies.” As can be seen, the US not only had a major interest in oil in Iraq, but also in the pursuit of democracy.
ReplyDeleteYour hypothesis is great! It uses all of the three factors and is succinct. You used a diversity of primary and secondary sources and corroborated them together well to support your hypothesis. You referred to perspective once, but to make this more explicit maybe try to include it again somewhere. Your evaluations were good, but you could go into more detail of how they are credible sources rather than just who they are and when it was published. The structure of your essay is really good - it flows well from one idea to the next and you made excellent links between the three body paragraphs! In the last paragraph you could make specific reference to the idea of ‘band wagoning’ and what it involves. Still needs a conclusion!
DeleteReally good work!
- Great explanation of oil equating to power.
Delete- You could say "This statement explicitly equates control of oil to the strength of a sountry's ecnonmy" just to use the words of the criteria.
- Punctuation Errors
- Great corroboration between primary and secondary sources
- There is no linking sentence between the 2nd and final paragraph
- Great evaluation of sources
- As Maggie said, refer to 'bandwagoning' in final paragraph
- Needs a conclusion
I thought you did this paragraph really well :) However, President Bush was a really important guy in the whole thing and he only gets one really quick mention. Perhaps try and introduce him along with some of the key points about this part of his career. E.g. President George W Bush, who pushed the necessity of the Iraq War through with determination stated "..."
DeleteIn your introduction you could introduce the topic before jumping straight into the argument.
DeleteBody paragraph 1:
Excellent topic to start body of essay. You equate oil with power well. But you could discuss the point in the source about ‘hurt the credibility of the Euro’. Why might this be important for the US? Consider the US’s industrialised rivals;
Body Paragraph 2:
What a wonderfully argued paragraph. You draw conclusions from the analysis, corroboration and cohesive discussion of primary and secondary evidence – Congratulations! However, the only time you refer to chronology and give the evidence presented a temporal context is with the first source presented. This needs addressing! If you don’t establish a time and place consistently, you can’t expect the reader to believe that the information is actually relevant.
Body Paragraph 3:
Again, you argue this well and support with evidence. However, you have a good opportunity to demonstrate your evaluation of evidence capability with the Greenspan quote. You allude to it, but more discussion would be good – as discussed in class: out of office and with no political agenda nor need to be overly biased etc.
Also, you don’t conclude! Where is the conclusion… your writing abruptly stops. At present your writing exhibits a lot of ‘Gold’ attributes with some ‘silver’… make amendments as per this feedback and I think it will be Gold all the way!
Mr S.
Whilst the American public believed that their government was going to war in Iraq in the name of terrorism, the truth was that the U.S. government had other motives for invading Iraq. The United State of America invaded Iraq in 2003 in order to gain control of Iraq’s oil and therefore achieve further economic and political power as the hegemon. Oil holds a great deal of power in the industrial world. There was a clear need for oil in American due to problems with supply and demand and if the U.S. invaded Iraq, they could have control of major oil reserves. America hoped to achieve this power by democratising Iraq and surrounding Middle Eastern countries in the hope that countries like Iran would join the ‘bandwagon’. Oil played a major role in not only American affairs, but international affairs.
ReplyDeleteThe industrial world very much depended on oil to survive economically and whoever produced and sold the most oil had the most power. Robert E. Ebel of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies stated in 2002 that, “Oil fuels more than automobiles and airplanes. Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics.” This quote explicit lists the importance of oil in the modern, industrial world and also proves that this was a discussion that was taking place within the U.S government prior to the US invading Iraq. This source corroborates with the US Department of Energy (2003) when it stated that the US depended on oil and was receiving imports from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. It went on to say that if imperialist powers such as France were to over-take the US, then the US dollar would be negatively affected. Therefore complete control of the oil industry would not only preserve the US dollar but hurt the Euro. This source corroborates with Ebel as it too agrees that the oil in Iraq would aid in America’s strength and power in the international economy. The Department of Energy also implicitly mentions the tension and competition between America and Europe. This proves that oil was of international importance and the control of oil is in direct correlation with world power and domination. The US government however, was having a problem with supply and demand of oil which had to be fixed in order to maintain their control as the hegemon.
During the 2000s the US was having a severe problem with supply and consumption and it was only increasing. A graph created by the Energy Information Administration in 2004 illustrated the U.S’s use of oil from 1970 to what is predicted up until 2025. From 2000 the consumption of oil rapidly inclined and continued to increase with no declines at all. The graph was labelled, “U.S. Dependence on Imported Oil”, which clearly shows that the U.S. purely depended on imported oil to maintain its economy. This is corroborated with a graphic by NG Oil and Gas called “Oil Imports to the US” (2009). It depicts how many barrels of oil per day is imported to the US from different countries around the world. The greatest import is from Canada with 2001 barrels per day. However, nine other countries contribute to the US with the lowest being 269 barrels. This also shows the U.S.’s need for oil. Even though so much oil is imported, the US still has a supply and demand problem. With the US wanting to remain as the hegemon and their need for oil for basic consumption, the US is left desperate for more oil. If the US invaded one of the countries with the top number of oil reserves, they would not only have control of the country and its oil industry but also the international oil industry and economy. The US chose to invade Iraq because it was the fourth highest number of oil proved reserves in 2003 (BP, 2009) and because it had a government that could be overthrown in order to allow the US to democratise it. This democratisation was not only a political strategy but a genuine ideology at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe American government believed that if they democratised Iraq and created it as a ‘beacon’ of liberal ‘democracy’ in the Middle East, then other countries would “join the band-wagon” which would again give the US more control and power. This is clearly demonstrated in a map from the Christian Science Monitor (2002), called “Oil and military presence in Caspian and Middle East region”. In the map, no US troops, bases or ports were in Iran. This is because Iran was the ‘thorn’ in the US’s side. If the US surrounded Iran with democratic countries, the Iran would have no choice but to change because their people would be seeing the success of democracy. The US could not touch Iran but they could strategically surround it and have its own people turn on their government. Iraq was in the perfect position to this as it was in the heart of the Middle East and right next to Iran. It was therefore the perfect spot to begin democratisation as it was in the perfect position and had many oil reserves. If the US invaded Iraq, they would have international political and economic control, and could comfortably remain as the hegemon.
Oil played a huge role in the international and US economy and whoever had the oil, had the power. The United State of America invaded Iraq in 2003 in order to gain control of Iraq’s oil and therefore achieve further economic and political power as the hegemon. The US used democratisation and strategy to gain control of Iraq’s oil in order to democratise the rest of the Middle East and therefore control it. The US was willing to do anything to guarantee its position as the hegemon.
Feedback from Natalie:
Delete• Your hypothesis is well written and incorporates all the necessary pieces of information
• Your evaluation of sources in paragraphs one and two are well done and it flows without disrupting the argument.
• Grammar error in paragraph one beginning of fourth sentence *explicitly
• Corroboration of sources in P1 is well done
• Good concluding sentence for P1 and P2, tie together all the sources and you make insightful conclusions, well done :)
• In P3 you use a good explanation as to why Iraq is the best country to democratise to gain control of Iran
• More sources could be used in paragraph three, maybe quotes from president bush, showing his underlying motives were to democratise the Middle East through the control of oil reserves.
• Your very last conclusion sentence bring your whole argument together
Overall a really good job, just maybe add some more sources in the last paragraph to make it more justified
Good Job! :)
Nice opening, but where does your introduction end and Body Paragraph1 begin? Also, your other paragraphs all roll into one too – not very succinct and organised. Your paragraph structure was in need of correction in the last writing task… it seems you are not adhering to the TEECL structure again here. This is a major part of Criterion 3!
DeleteYou have some grammatical errors in this paragraph – proof reading needed;
You state that the first source, proves that this was a discussion that was taking place within the U.S government but this does not represent a government perspective – it is from a ‘strategic and International Studies Institute – a university’;
You state that France might “over-take the US” But you are not clear on what you mean by this … Do you mean invade the US? Or become more economically powerful than the US? Or other? Be clear in your discussion. Then relate back to your hypothesis;
I think you are on the right track with this paragraph, but you could include further evidence from the source sheet to support the idea that control of world oil supplies equates to power in world politics and the global economy.
In your final paragraph you present a good argument, but it is poorly supported with historical evidence. You need to read more widely and use elements of the sources provided (or others you find) to support your claims. Overall, you present a ‘Silver’ standard of writing here – minus the evaluation of evidence for reliability etc.
Mr S.
- Excellent hypothesis as it incorporate all aspects of the inquiry.
Delete- I like the first source used as it demonstrates the first paragraph perfectly
- Good use of language for example motive, implicit, explicit and corroboration however the motives of the US are implied but not explicitly mentioned motives of the US.
- Good use of corroboration on the first paragraph.
- First line of second para can you be more specific with the times just to improve your mark on Historical events and chronology.
- Paragraph three maybe mention the geo-political factors which would allow the US to gain more control in the Middle East.
- Good evaluation in the third paragraph and introduction of the source
- Maybe add more sources into the third paragraph to validate your point
- Really good job just need to add more sources to validate your point
- Love the last sentence of your essay
After the events of 9/11 and under the threat of WMD, the Bush Administration made the decision to invade Iraq. The United States’ motive of invading Iraq in 2003 was primarily to control Iraqi oil reserves. However, as well as securing control of one of the top four oil reserves in the world, democratisation in the Middle East was another motive which will aid the US as hegemon and maintain US power in the Middle East. The consumption of oil in the US had always been more than they produced so they relied heavily on oil imports from other countries. By invading Iraq, US would not only be able to control Iraqi oil reserves but also be able to democratise the country and influence surrounding nations to join the ‘bandwagon’. This will ultimately result in the US to gain access to all the capitalist’s oil productions.
ReplyDeleteThe motive of the US to invade Iraq was primarily to control the Iraqi oil reserves. This can be seen in a political cartoon by Australian cartoonist, Peter Nicholson (2003), that was published in The Australian newspaper which is tend to be for a more conservative audience. The cartoon explicitly shows people cheering after a statue of Saddam has fallen with oil flowing out of it. The implicit message is that the US’s intentions of removing Saddam is to have access to Iraq’s oil while the Iraqi public will welcome their ideologies with open arms. Oil is a precious resource for US as their country has the largest consumption percentage in the world. This can be seen in the BP Energy Statistics which shows, from 2009 data, that U.S. consumes 21.7% of the world’s oil supplies. This can be corroborated by a graph from the Energy Information Administration (Source I), where the consumption of oil in US has been, since 1970, double the amount of their production so they rely significantly on imported oil. It was predicted in this source that the consumption will increase dramatically while the US production will decrease by 2025. This can also be corroborated with an article from The Independent (2003), which is a British newspaper that claims to have contrasting political opinions with typical readers who are Liberal Democrats or Labor voters. This source states that US oil imports was 55% of the total US domestic demand however by 2025, it would increase to 70%. BP Energy Statistics also show that, while US has the largest consumption percentage, US in not in the top 5 countries with most oil reserves as they only have 2.1%. The top 4 countries are Saudi Arabia (19.8%), Venezuela (12.9%), Iran (10.3%) and Iraq (8.6%). Even though Saudi Arabia and Venezuela imports oil to the US, however, US has no control over the prices and the terms of importation. If US is successful in controlling Iraqi oil than they control production levels and prices which ensures that the wealth comes back to US. This control equates to a lever of power and world control. All deals in the oil industry will be done with US dollars which, with time, will raise the value of US currency. The US’s motive of invading Iraq was primarily to control Iraqi oil as controlling Iraqi oil reserves lead to the US controlling the world’s oil production/market, prices then the world’s finance.
You could maybe explain why it is important to consider that the newspaper that the Peter Nicholson cartoon came from is conservative, and what effect it may have regarding the bias of the source. But the fact you mentioned it was good. You could use some evidence to back up the claim you make about the US having access to and control of prices of oil. For example you could use source H from the prezi which talks about how control of oil will preserve the US dollar.
DeleteUS’s motive was not all about securing Iraq’s oil but also about democratisation. The Neoconservatives believed in a theory called ,‘Bandwagoning’, which is the reverse of the ‘Domino Theory’, where instead of countries inevitably invaded by an ideology, the countries jump on the ‘bandwagon’. The Neoconservatives believed in the ‘Domino Theory’ in Vietnam, therefore they believed that in 2003, they can apply the ‘Bandwagoning’ theory to Democracy in the Middle East. If the US can democratise Iraq and show success of democracy in that country, then the other countries surrounding it (Saudi Arabia) will see the success and join it. If countries with the largest oil reserves are Capitalist then the US can access their oil as an exchange within capitalist systems. As seen in a map of Oil and Military presence in Caspian and Middle East Region (Source N), there are US troops and military bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan, everywhere except Iran. This is because at that time, Iran is in the middle of the area and was the US’s biggest threat as Iran has nuclear weapons so US cannot fight face to face. The US plan was to surround Iran with so the Iranian public will want democracy. However, this was a flawed plan and did not succeed. Even though this plan did not succeed back than with Iran, similar events did occur in 2010, the Arab Spring Revolution where Tunisia/Egypt/Libya overthrew the dictatorship one by one.
ReplyDeleteBy invading and democratising Iraq,and using a theory called ‘bandwagoning’, the reverse of the domino theory, US wanted to influence the surrounding nations to join the bandwagon. This way, US will have access to all the country’s oil but by controlling Iraqi oil reserves, the world’s oil market and then the world’s finances. Controlling Iraqi oil reserves will also aid US’ consumption of oil as US consumed more than they produced and relied heavily on imports for other countries. Therefore US’ motive of invading Iraq in 2003 was primarily to control Iraqi oil reserves. However, as well as securing control of one of the top four oil reserves in the world, democratisation in the Middle East was another motive which will aid the US as hegemon and maintain US power in the Middle East.
- Really good intro
Delete- Good use of motive, explicit and implicit in the first paragraph
- Maybe in the first para corroborate the image with a secondary source
- Excellent use of data to make conclusions
- Maybe in the first paragraph mention the economy as a whole, how does oil impact society? the US, France, Russia and the Middle East.
- Could use a primary source (Alan(i think) (the importance of oil)
- For paragraph two mention that it is a geopolitical advantage for the US and not for Iran.
- Maybe mention the US hegemon earlier in the second paragraph and maybe put in a primary source or secondary source needed to show synthesis between sources
- Overall it was a fantastic paragraph
Louise - I like how you ended your paragraphs by drawing conclusions and relating it back to your hypothesis. However you incorporate an element of democratization in your hypothesis. You should also consider breaking up 1st body paragraph. You could have the first half discuss the importance of oil and then the second about the US’s need for oil. You should also discuss the credibility and accuracy and even perspective of sources when you introduce them by incorporating those specific words which will address the criteria. Need another source in last body paragraph to corroborate the idea. Good work Steph :)
DeleteBe sure to clearly separate your paragraphs. I good introduction with a strong hypothesis.
DeleteBody Paragraph 1:
BP Stats should reflect the time of the event – 2003, not later 2009. You can use later statistics in comparison to discuss trends etc. but for your claim here, you need to keep to the time of the event;
Excellent corroboration with the following source, “US oil imports was 55% of the total US domestic demand however by 2025, it would increase to 70%.” But you need to discuss it and explain how it relates to your overall hypothesis;
You have confused import with export: “though Saudi Arabia and Venezuela imports oil to the US…”;
Remember to use ‘the’ with US: ‘the US’;
Excellent discussion at the end of the paragraph and you draw insightful conclusions based on the evidence that you present and analyse – well done!
Body Paragraph 2:
In your topic sentence, you should note that the motives are indirectly related, i.e. two sides of the on coin of power: oil = economic power, democratisation = geo-political/ideological power (and security as capitalist liberal-democracies are less likely to go to war against each other in the modern world);
Don’t just state/introduce ‘neoconservatives’ without discussing who they were, i.e. a small group of intellectuals and politicians connected to the Bush administration… You could name some of them too if you can (Criterion 3 – descriptor 1);
This is unclear and awkward, “where instead of countries inevitably invaded by an ideology, the countries jump on the ‘bandwagon’”;
This paragraph is quite weak and shows a lack of historical knowledge and reading. It seems that you have just put down your notes from class discussion without any further research and thought. You could extrapolate further on the relationships between the other 3 top oil countries and the US, discount the need to invade the others but balance the power of a nuclear Iran in the Middle East etc., and then move into the democratisation discussion. Research and read more on this! Discuss with me if you need further clarification.
Overall, the first half os of a Gold standard, but the last paragraph on democratisation is really only a Sliver standard.
Mr S.
You could comment on the credibility of source n, especially since it is from Harvard University, a reputable source. You could also use more sources for your second paragraph, as you only use one to back up the things that you say. But you explain events, people and concepts well in this paragraph too.
DeleteYou have given some clear points in your intro
DeleteYou have examined the sources really well, especially in the first paragraph as you have state both implicit and explicit meanings, but maybe you can corroborate this source with another and go into more depth.
Good use of statistics which help build you argument
LOUISE - “A century ago, petroleum - what we call oil - was just an obscure commodity; today it is almost as vital to human existence as water,” (Buchan, J.). The United State of America’s primary motive for invading Iraq in 2003 was largely attributed to their desire of extending their power as hegemon through gaining control of the fourth largest oil reserves in the world to satisfy its significant demand for oil, whilst bringing democracy to the Middle East. Oil, specifically crude oil, is one of the most important natural resources in industrialised nations; it has the ability to generate heat and fuel vehicles, in fact, the world would almost come to a stop without it. As the United States (US) has one of the largest populations in the world, they undoubtedly have one of the world’s highest dependencies on oil. Due to the relationships the US held at the time with other nations with large oil reserves, Iraq was deemed the most suitable nation. Not only did this venture seek to bring economic benefit to the US, but it also presented the opportunity to reintroduce the ‘Domino Theory’ which was, however in reverse, to instead bring about democracy in the region.
ReplyDeleteWhy oil is so important in the modern world
Everything in the modern first world relies extensively on oil, and as the demand for oil increases whilst supply decreases, there is immense pressure placed on nations to secure their supplies. Whilst research for alternative forms of energy are in the midst of being developed, oil remains the world’s most important and valuable source of energy in the modern world. This is explicitly demonstrated in BP statistics from 1965-2009, which accurately display the world’s oil demand. According to the data, the US’s oil consumption in 2009 was 21.7% of total available oil – in comparison to other nations; it is almost the equivalent to the total of Europe’s which was 23.5%. The nation that is the closet to the oil consumption of the US was China at 10.4% which was less than half than that of America. This source also illustrated the top four countries as a percentage share of the world’s known oil reserves: 1. Saudi Arabia 19.8%, 2. Venezuela 12.9%, 3. Iran 10.3 and 4. Iraq 8.6%. The US percentage share of the world’s known oil reserves were on 2.1% which was 4 times less than Iraq, which had the fourth largest share. This data is corroborated by secondary evidence by Michael Klare, college Professor in Peace and World Security Studies (2004), who stated, “Time and again, my search for the cause of a protracted war turned up a struggle over scarce or valuable materials: diamonds, gold… oil.” When viewed in conjunction with, “Oil fuels more than automobiles and airplanes…. Oil fuels military power, national treasuries and international politics… it is a determinant of well-being, of national security, and international power for those who possess this vital resource and the converse for those who do not,” (Ebel, E.E, 2002), and then again when the US Department of Energy in 2003 who mentioned that over half of the US’s daily oil consumption was imported, it is explicit that oil as a natural resource in high demand, especially by the US. As the last three sources are from an American perspective, it can be inferred that the gaining access to these reserves meant more to the US than simply oil; as Klare said, it had the power to further secure America’s place as hegemon and provide numerous economic benefit. Together, these sources imply that the control of oil equated to power. It can be concluded that oil sought to provide many benefits to the US, and hence was likely a strong motive for the US’s involvement in Iraq in 2003.
Good in depth hypothesis that goes into all aspects of the essay. Words of the criteria used including explicit and implicit, motive when using evidence to support your claim. You could incorporate the evaluation of evidence when you are introducing it; more specifically, when you introduce the BP statistics, all you say is that it is accurate, you do not say why or how, or whether it is a primary or secondary source. For example, you could say, "This is explicitly demonstrated in BP statistics from 1965-2009, a secondary source which accurately display the world’s oil demand as it... (blah blah why its accurate and reliable)." Good corroboration with secondary information! :) You include perspective which is fabulous!
DeleteLOUISE, PART 2 - Not only did the United States seek oil to ease the pressure for supplies in their country but also sought to advance their status as hegemon, through the pursuit of oil. This is illustrated in a cartoon by Australian Peter Nicholson, 2003. It presents Australian, outsider, perspective on the issue which explicitly depicts Iraqi people rejoicing over the fall of Saddam Hussein. It can be implied that under Suddam’s repressive regime, the access to oil supplies in Iraq was restricted and tightly controlled. When viewed in corroboration with by another Nicholson cartoon titled, “Road Map to Peace,” where Iraqi landmarks were destroyed, the was a large number of Iraqi graves and orphaned children, but the oil rig is guarded by a number of US soldiers, it becomes clear that the US’s true motives in Iraq was oil. It implies that the main reason for the US invasion of Iraq was oil as they left everything else destroyed and open to attack, except for the oil. It is also representative of the fact the US were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to secure this. Despite the fact that Bush had earlier stated, “We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people...” Evidence from The Independent (UK), another outsider source, stated in 2003, “US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-OPEC fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region.” This source further reiterates the US’s genuine need for a new oil supplier, which suggests is in the Middle East. This implies the US need to form some sort of relationship with a country in the Middle East to meet this excess demand of oil. This sentiment is depicted in a Washington post which stated getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of, “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continue to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies]…” (Woodward, B., 2007). This in many ways implies that Iraq became the pinnacle of hope for the US to secure oil, which synonymously equated to both economic strength and hegemony and that effectively, the war in Iraq was not simply just a ‘war against terrorism’ but a war for power and control for the US. The war in Iraq ensured the US control of the oil market which not only sought to ease pressures in the US, but also aided in their quest for power and desire to bring about democracy in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteThe US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was primarily due to the need for oil, however, the process of democratising the region through application of reversed “Domino Theory”, also aided the motive to invade. The US dominance of oil reserves in Iraq not only sought to bring benefits back to the US, it also inherently meant extending the US’s power over the region. This sentiment is displayed explicitly in a map reproduced by Christian Science Monitor titled, “Oil and military presence in Caspian and Middle East region.” It depicts the only country in the Middle East without US military presence as Iran; the ‘thorn in their side’. Implicitly this map depicts a double-edged motive of the US’s in Iraq which was to surround arch-enemy, Iran with, functioning liberal democracies. With the application of the reverse Domino Theory, the US believed Iran would have no choice but to follow, most naturally occur through a revolution of the people.
Lots of evidence - this gives a variety of perspectives! YAY! Implicit and explicit meaning are incorporated throughout which is fabulous! You could have more of an evaluation in both paragraphs, mainly the last paragraph though. Good definitions that have been incorporated well along with the evaluation in the third paragraph. Corroboration has been done really well in the third paragraph, however only one source has been used in the last paragraph and it needs to be corroborated and evaluated if you want to support your claim further.
DeleteYou need a conclusion too.
Overall, good job! You can certainly improve this further though, to make it even better. :)
Nice opening quote. And, a fantastically strong thesis statement/hypothesis – temporal, geographical and argumentative, and well-structured introduction. Great work!
DeleteBody Paragraph 1:
It is better to use the term ‘developed world’ as opposed to ‘first world’;
This is not quite accurate, “This data is corroborated by secondary evidence by Michael Klare,…” because the data is not corroborated so much as the idea/conclusion you draw from its analysis;
This phrase is awkward, it does not read succinctly, “When viewed in conjunction with, “Oil fuels…” The evidence is best just introduced and then discussed or compared. I think when introducing this source you need to make the link between the significance of oil, those that control its reserves and power. Actually, the whole sentence is too long and needs breaking up;
Whilst the evidence used is good, the first half of the paragraph is cohesive and succinct, the second half needs restructuring.
Body Paragraph 2:
Good use of perspective for the author of the political cartoon, and wonderful analysis that includes a contrast with the Bush speech – Excellent work Louise!;
I’m not so sure about the use of the term ‘outsider’, especially as Australia and the UK were part of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’… maybe you could use something like, ‘an Australian/UK perspective, despite a member of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’, was critical of the US’s motive…’????;
Body Paragraph 3:
This is a good start for this paragraph… but seems rushed. You have almost enough here, but maybe one more source in order to bolster your argument. You could use a critical source to demonstrate this as Osama Bin Laden (first page of Blog – Source 8v) states that the biggest terrorist is corporate capitalism and liberal democracy. Or draw something from the Rice quote on US national Interest and relate to Tenet 1 and 2 of Neo-conservatism as the justification for the democratisation of the Middle East.
Overall, it is a GOLD standard IF YOU INCLUDE A CONCLUSION. Where is it? But you still have a few things to consider to raise the standard and secure a strong GOLD standard.
Mr S.
While the believed motive for the United States’ involvement and invading Iraq in the 2000’s was because of Saddam Hussein and fears of safety for the American public from terrorist scares, the underlying motive was actually oil. The United States was motivated to invade Iraq in 2003 to extend their power as hegemony, gain control of one of the top four valuable oil reserves in the world and democratise the Middle East. This can be seen through the US’ need for oil, supply and consumption, and democratisation as a motive as an ideological justification.
ReplyDeleteOil has great importance and significance in the industrialised world as it was largely consumed and supplied by many countries. When you supply oil, you gain power, and the US’ need for oil came with the fact that they wanted to extend their power as hegemon. According to the secondary source BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2009 there were 84077 thousand barrels per day consumed by the world in total. This explicitly demonstrates how oil is in such high demand around the world. Therefore, if one was to be able to supply oil, they would not only grow in power around the world, but gain value from the oil. This essentially, was what the United States wanted to do through invading Iraq and taking control of their oil supply. However, it was not only the fact that the US wanted to gain power as hegemon and have supply of oil, but the evidence that suggests that the US consumed one of the highest amounts of oil than any country in the world. This further reiterates the idea that the US’ main motive to invade Iraq in 2003 was because of oil.
It is clear that the US consumed much more oil than they produced, which demonstrates that the US’s invasion in Iraq in 2003 was motivated by oil. In 2009, according the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the US as a country consumed 18686 thousand barrels of oil per day – significantly higher than any other country, while they only had 28.40 thousand million barrels of oil reserves. This explicitly demonstrates that the US’ need for oil was the motivation for their presence in the Middle East in 2003, as the Middle East had supplies of oil that the US felt they could be in control of. This is further reiterated from US’ oil consumption in 2009, which sat at 21.7% of the world, showing that they are the closet single nation of oil consumption. These secondary statistics from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy in 2009, corroborate that the motive for the US invading Iraq was because of oil. After the defeat of Saddam Hussein, the US still invaded Iraq, however while the public believed it was for war, it was actually for oil. This is corroborated by a primary cartoon drawn in 2003 by Peter Nicholson, an Australian cartoonist who publishes extensively in the Australian newspaper. This cartoon has Saddam Hussein fallen onto the ground with oil spraying out of his legs. This primary source corroborates with the US’ consumption statistics as it suggests that the US prime motive was to invade Iraq, defeat their main source of power and take control of their oil. By doing this, it creates the illusion that the US was the heroes and defeated the evil, when actually, it was to become even more powerful and gain control. While Iraq was not one of the top three countries in terms of oil supply, they were the only eligible country at the time. Saudi Arabia was already a trading partner of the US, Venezuela was a communist country, which was out of bounds, and Iran was totally off limits because they hated each other, therefore Iran was the only possible country and with the defeat of their leader, they would be easy to manipulate and take control of their oil. This would be used through the US’ strategy of democratisation and the reverse of the domino theory.
- your hypothesis could be stronger and more explicit in the intro
Delete- there is oppotunity to corroborate your stats in the first body paragraph
- you link to your argument really well in the first body paragraph
- you're corroboration of sources if good
- you could use words from the criteria such as explicit and implicit when explaining the meaning of sources - especially when you talk about the cartoon about hussain
overall a good start :)))))
While oil was the main reason for invading Iraq, having a geo-political advantage in the Middle East was also a large factor. For the US, the democratisation of Iraq would mean that they would have a geo-political advantage of having Iraq as a ‘beacon’ of liberal ‘democracy’ in the Middle East. This ideal of the reverse of the domino theory, or “band wagoning”, came into play as the US believed that if they cracked Iraq and their oil, they could crack countries surrounding Iraq like Iran and therefore spread their power as hegemon and gain control of more and more oil reserves, making the US the most powerful country in the world in terms of oil, which is in high demand from every country. This idea of liberal democratisation meant that if America could liberalise Iraq, Iran would follow, and therefore a chain of country would follow suit like a domino. Primary Source N suggests this reverse of the domino theory by showing American troops and combat in every country except Iran. The US’ theory was that if they strategically surround Iran, Iran doesn’t have anything else to do but conform and therefore America can then gain control of their oil and country, who has the third highest oil supply rate in the world. From this, it can be seen that America’s motive was purely for oil and power as France and Russia were also powerful industrial countries that thrived for power as well.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the 2000’s, it can be seen that America’s motive for invading Iraq was actually for oil, not terrorist attacks and scares like the American public originally believed. The United States was motivated to invade Iraq in 2003 to extend their power as hegemony, gain control of one of the top four valuable oil reserves in the world and democratise the Middle East. The US had a strong need for oil, as it was a valuable resource and the US’ supply rate was much lower than their consumption rate. Therefore, in order to the US to gain control of the Middle East’s oil supplies, the US used democratisation as an ideological justification and motive to invade Iraq in 2003, using the Domino Theory. The US’s underlying motive for invading Iraq throughout the 2000’s was largely for oil and to extend their power as hegemon.
You have constructed a good hypothesis and selection of sources support you argument well. However, you need to include more sources in you 1st and 3rd body paragraphs which will help you to further support your hypothesis. You should also evaluate the implicit meaning from sources – you could perhaps do this in the cartoon you use in your third paragraph. In the last body paragraph, instead of using ‘source N’ should instead name the author which will help with the evaluation of relevance, credibility and perspective of the source. You also established US relations with Middle Eastern countries in your 2nd body paragraph well. Good work Eleanor
Delete- instead of referring to source "N" you could use the authors name and reference it as you would in an assignment
Delete- a second source would be needed to corroborate source N in your last body paragraph in order to give you argument reliablility.
- you dont evaluate your sources at all - this would help establish credibility etc
- yay for a conclusion :)))
INTRODUCTION:
DeleteBe specific with your chronology: ‘…invading Iraq in 2003…’;
Incorrect grammatical use of hegemony.
Overall, a strong argument and good guidance with the key points in introduction.
Body Paragraph 1:
Good opening paragraph and your ideas are succinctly sequenced and argued. However, you only use one piece of evidence to support it – neither GOLD nor SILVER. You have references to the importance of oil on your source sheet that you could use e.g. Source J. Note though that you will have other UNSEEN sources on your exam source sheet that you will be able to use too ;
Body Paragraph 2:
Excellent demonstration of EXPLICIT/IMPLICIT meaning in evidence with strong conclusions drawn, but be careful to keep within the chronological context – oil consumption figures in 2009 are not at the time of invasion in 2003!;
You have used the term ‘corroborate’ incorrectly – evidence corroborates with evidence, and evidence ‘supports’ an argument/motive;
‘eligible’??? What do you mean by this. Its not clear;
This paragraph covers more than one topic – not cohesive. The final section of this paragraph is another topic all together – new paragraph, or is it a long-winded linking sentence??? It could be more succinct. Try to condense and tighten.
Body Paragraph 3:
Source ‘N’ will be on the exam source sheet, but be sure to reference properly;
Not compelling in the way you discuss the strategy of democratisation in a geo-political sense. You need to describe the countries that have a US military presence from the map, then that Afghanistan AND Iraq will be the first US ‘projects’ for democratisation, which will then in theory influence others, ultimately leaving the people of Iran with no other option >>> perhaps a revolution against their authoritarian government to replace with liberal-democracy??? You need to read more on this as it seems you don’t have enough knowledge of US/Iranian relations. Otherwise, leave this section out of your essay and focus solely on the oil motive.
Mr S.
In 2003 the Bush administration made the decision to invade the nation of Iraq. This decision was the first step in beginning a conflict that would be known as the Iraq war and be a critical issue for the world throughout the 2000’s. The US’s motive for invading Iraq in 2003 was primarily to extend their power as hegemon through gaining control of Iraq’s oil reserves. In order to justify this however it is integral to establish; why oil was important to the world, the US’s need for oil and the social political reasons for why the US identified Iraq as a target.
ReplyDeleteIn order to justify that oil was a key motive for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 it is integral to understand why oil was so important in the modern world. Along with water oil is one of the most important natural resources on the planet. Without oil the industrialised world would not be able to function. The vital commodity is responsible for but not limited to, fuelling transports, heating spaces, running machinery and without it there would be no military power. According the United States Energy Information Administration, the total consumption of oil in the world in 2003 was 79,708,27, and according to BP statistics from 2009, in 2003, 24050 thousand barrels of oil per day were utilised by the USA. The statistics made credible in the authors credentials explicitly demonstrates the strong demand for oil within the world along with the increased demand for oil in the US. The strong demand for oil validates that control of oil is paired with holding great power. Therefore invading Iraq and taking control of their oil supply presented the US with a prime opportunity to further their power in the world and continue to be a hegemon.
You could improve this paragraph by being specific when you give the amount of oil used in the world in 2003. You say 79,708,27, but not what of. For example 79,708,27, barrels of oil. Other than that, my only other thought would be to perhaps corroborate your source, so your claim about power at the end is a bit stronger. You could use Source C from the Prezi, where it states that control of an oil reserve would be a major asset and implies that would in turn give a power boost. Other than that, I thought the way you describe the importance of oil was really comprehensive and very, very good :)
DeleteGood evaluation of the BP source, however you could corroborate it to strengthen your argument further. Your hypothesis is good but you could go even further with it and state why. You make your own conclusions well throughout the first paragraph but you need to back it up with more evidence, which will then bring in more perspectives you can use.
DeleteSince the US at the time had little sources of oil within their own country, invading Iraq provided them with an increased supply to support their increasing demand for oil. This is made explicitly evident in a graph produced by the Energy Information Administration in 2004 which shows that between 2000 and 2005 the US only produced 10 million barrels of oil per day but in comparison consumed double this with 20 million barrels a day being utilised. This explicitly demonstrates that the US needed to import oil in order to meet demand and preserve their power. Being dependent on other countries imports to fuel their power does would not ensure stability for the US and in turn implicitly displays to other nations that there is a flaw in their hegemon status – oil. In 2009 BP revealed that in 2003 the top four oil reserves were; Saudi Arabia who held 19% of the world’s oil supply, Venezuela who held 12% , Iran who held 10.3% and Iraq who held 8.6%. However To meet oil demand it was not as simple for the US to just go to a neighbouring country and demand access to their reserves as there is a range of political issues to consider. Saudi Arabia was not an option to the US as it would disrupt extensive trading agreements and Venezuela was a communist country which eliminated any involvement between them and the US. Iran had zero relationship with the US, with them once referring to the US as the devil, (reference). Therefore Iraq was the key to unlock the oil reserves and increased power. This is corroborated by a cartoon by Peter Nicholson in which it displays the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein with oil flowing out of him. The cartoon explicitly shows that breaking down the Iraqi power by takin out Hussain will lead directly to oil reserves. The people rejoicing around the statue suggest that the US invasion liberated them however the cartoon highlights that there was in fact a hidden agenda to suggest that the invasion was based upon the need for oil not out of pure concern for the Iraqi people. It can therefore be seen that the invasion of Iraq was based on the need to meet oil demand as it gave the US the opportunity to gain access to the 4th largest oil reserve in the world which would equate to huge economic gain for the United States as well as the opportunity to democratise what was a “troubled” nation through the eyes of the US.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the primary motive of the US for invading Iraq was their oil but in addition to this there was also the geopolitical gain of democratising Iraq. Strong believers in the domino theories as seen during the cold war in regards to communism, the US also believed that if they could democratise Iraq then surrounding countries would jump on the “band wagon” and become democratised too. The articulation of this theory can be seen in a map by Harvard University 2002, called oil and military presence in Caspian and Middle East region. The source made reliable from its university level status illustrates the huge presence of US military in Iraq and around surrounding countries. It can be implicitly concluded from this source that the US believed that having a strong presence in the Middle East would implicitly encourage the people to take on their democratic ideals. By planting the seed of democracy within the heart of the Middle East, Iraq then it has the potential to blossom within neighbouring countries such as Iran without the US having to invade. The ulterior motive of democratisation further allowed the US to expand upon their power, gain easier access to Iraqi oil and create “liberated” societies within countries such as Iran in order to reap further economic and political gain.
I thought the first paragraph in this post was really good, and I don't really have any criticisms apart from that I think it would be good for you to exploit the word 'motivate/motivation' a little further. For example, "Being dependent on other countries imports to fuel their power does would not ensure stability for the US and in turn implicitly displays to other nations that there is a flaw in their hegemon status – oil." You could then add on the end, "which motivated the US to inavde Iraq for their oil reserves." I really like how you added that oil was their weakness though, I hadn't thought of that before :) In your second paragraph you probably need another piece of evidence to solidify your claim (I realise it was really hard to find) but it's probably necessary in order to be able to make such a claim. I suggest doing a little extra research on the topic to find something though, as the whole situation may become more clear. http://thestateofthecentury.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/knowing-ones-enem/
DeleteI used this to help me, I found it easier to construct an argument with this information because I understood why the US liked the whole band wagon idea so much afterwards.
You use the words of the criteria really well in your third paragraph, however you could use the word motive a little more to help justify your claims. You use evidence really well in your second paragraph. You need evidence to support your claim in the third paragraph.
DeleteGood, clear intro with strong thesis statement/hypothesis. Well done.
DeleteBody Paragraph 1:
A very good background paragraph that establishes the significance of oil in the industrialised world. Good use of evidence, concise and clear with evaluation. Well done!
Body paragraph 2:
You build your argument well in this paragraph discussing the US relationships with countries with oil reserves – just look a little more at Venezuela: yes, socialist, but still exports extensively to the US. (look at Source J on the Prezi);
Could you include a BRIEF phrase of evaluation on the cartoonist (part of the criteria for success)??? Overall, an excellent paragraph in terms of all the criteria though
Body Paragraph 3:
Be clear in who were the strong believers in the Domino Theory – the Neoconservatives…;
You could make reference to the prestige of the university in assessing credibility – Harvard
No conclusion????
Overall, a strong essay start – probably displays more elements of GOLD than SILVER at present, but needs some work. The first half of your essay contains much more GOLD, while as it progresses it starts to show more SILVER attributes, especially around the ‘democratisation’ section.
Mr S.
The Iraq war is one of the most recent examples of the concept of power, and the influence that power nations such as America have over the rest of the world. The US’s motive of invading Iraq in 2003 was primarily to extend their power as hegemon through gaining control of Iraq’s oil reserves. Because oil is seen as such a vital and precious resource, most countries are significantly affected by developments in the oil market, either as producers, consumers, or both. For this reason it can be argued that the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 with the motivation of securing and controlling oil reserves in Iraq, which would lead to the US gaining economic power worldwide and geopolitical control in the Middle East. This motive can be explicitly validated through the exploration of the economic benefits of the US control of Iraqi oil reserves, the unbalanced consumption and production of oil in the United States, and lastly the geo-political reasons for identifying Iraq as a target.
ReplyDeleteOil is a highly valued resource in the world today and as a result, having access and control over it can assist a nation in becoming powerful. Oil is a vital source of energy for the world, in 2008, oil provided about 34% of the world’s energy needs, on a further note, according to the BP statistical review of World Energy, 2009 the world’s total consumption of oil was approximately 84,077 thousand barrels per day. These secondary sources explicitly demonstrate the large demand for oil worldwide. Further displaying the fact that with dominant control over majority of the world’s oil supply the economic benefits and power dominance will increase dramatically. It is with these statistics that the link can be made between oil and the US’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. This is further corroborated in a secondary source an extract from ‘Iraq and Our Energy Future’ published in 2003 “The 2003 war was not only about Saddam’s regime and weapons of mass destruction, but about who will control the second-largest oil reserve in the world. Iraqi oil reserves represent a major asset that could quickly add capacity to world oil markets…” This source explicitly states the importance of controlling Iraqi oil, as it would put the country in a very powerful and convenient economic situation, further showing power and economic benefit to be a motive for the US to invade Iraq in 2003. Further corroborated in a primary source published in 2003 by The US Department of Energy in the ‘International Energy Outlook’, “Complete US control of oil would preserve the rule of the dollar, not only would oil producers continue to use the dollar for their international trade, but the dollars international standing would increase…”. This source explicitly makes the connection between the control of oil with power and economic benefit, two factors that are very precious to the developing hegemon. This further supports the argument that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 with a motive of controlling oil in Iraq.
At the beginning of your paragraph you use statistics for oil from 2008 and 2009 - they probably wouldn't have changed much but since the US invaded Iraq in 2003 you could use some statistics from that time period to strengthen your argument slightly. You corroborate primary and secondary evidence very well.
DeleteI love your first introduction sentence, it really ties in the whole power idea very well, such a great idea!
DeleteThe factors of power and economic benefit were not the only factors influencing the US’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. According to BP statistics from 1965-2009, in which accurately display the world’s oil demand. According to the data displayed in these statistics, the US’s oil consumption in 2009 was 21.7% of total available oil. When comparing to other nations, there is a considerable difference in the consumption rates, considering the US’s oil consumption is almost the equivalent to the total of Europe’s which was 23.5%. The unbalanced consumption and production of oil in the US was an imminent issue. Explicitly displayed in a primary source produced by the Energy Information Administration in 2004, the graph clearly demonstrates the inadequate production of oil in contrast with the consumption rates in the US. The graph takes statistics from the years 1970 to 2004 and assumes that the consumption rates will only increase more so in the future. As a result of this, it was necessary for the US to guarantee more oil imports for the future, thus giving them more reason to invade Iraq. However, also illustrated in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy was the top four countries share of the world’s known oil reserves: 1. Saudi Arabia 19.8%, 2. Venezuela 12.9%, 3. Iran 10.3 and 4. Iraq 8.6%. The US percentage share of the world’s known oil reserves were on 2.1% in 2009. When the US’ relationships with these countries are examined, the reasons as to why Iraq was targeted are very clear. Considering Saudi Arabia had the highest percentage of oil reserves in the world, it would seem to be the most likely target of the US. However, the US and Saudi Arabia were already on very good terms due to their joint fight against Communism in Afghanistan, they were already strong trading partners in oil. The US was receiving 902 000 barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia, similar to Venezuela in which were providing 1 119 000 barrels to the US , as shown in a diagram produced by the Energy Information Administration and NG Oil and Gas (2009). The third highest oil reserves in Iran were also out of the picture as after the Iranian Revolution they became enemies as a result of their clash of cultures. As to why Iraq was the next best option, with this gained access to oil power would be ensured for the US, both through oil supply, but also for the US fight for democracy.
ReplyDeleteAs well as the oil motive, the US had ideological justification for invading Iraq in 2003. An advantage of the US invading Iraq, besides the power and economic benefit that comes gaining control of oil reserves, is the potential democratisation of the middle east, through a method referred to as ‘band wagoning’, a reverse domino theory. If the US were to successfully introduce liberal democracy into Iraq, the result would be that all the surrounding areas would follow the path to democratisation, working from the people up. Eventually surrounding Iran with successful democratic nations, it would soon ‘jump on the bandwagon’ and change their ways. This sentiment is explicitly corroborated through a quote from President George Bush in November of 2003 “We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East.” From this, it can be argued that through democratising the Middle East, the US would have greater access and control over the world’s major oil reserves. This sentiment is further displayed in a statement made by former chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time of the Iraqi invasion, Alan Greenspan, “The removal of Saddam Hussein has been essential to secure world oil supplies.” As explicitly displayed through the evaluation and corroboration of the above sources the US not only had a major interest in Iraqi oil reserves, but also in the pursuit of democracy throughout the Middle East.
I like how you compare the US's oil consumption to Europe's - it strengthens your argument a lot. When you introduce Alan Greenspan as a source, you could comment on how reliable he is as a source or how representative he is of a particular perspective. When you talk about the US's need for oil in your second paragraph, you could use a section of source H "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-OPEC fields are beginning to run dry" to back up the claims you make with the statistics you use. You identify the implicit messages of the sources of your last paragraph very well.
DeleteExcellent Introduction and wonderful argument
DeleteBody Paragraph 1:
Be sure to keep to the chronological context of this historical event, i.e. your statistics offer information after the invasion of 2003, well into the war. Be clear about what you are presenting. Are you wanting to discuss the 2003 background context or later mid-war historical context???;
Excellent use of corroboration to build your argument – well done! But, if a source was published in 2003, it is a primary source as the invasion occurred in 2003!;
I wouldn’t call the US a ‘developing’ hegemon, they already are
A wonderfully argued paragraph Maggie, you use the evidence to really convince the reader well with nice reference to EXPLICIT/IMPLICIT meaning within historical evidence – GOLD!
Body Paragraph 2:
You get the chronological context PERFECT here! Good job. Overall, this again is well argued and well supported. A fantastic blend of primary and secondary evidence in support of your argument, which is always present in your writing >>> GOLD!
Brilliant Maggie, just be sure to include a brief conclusion in the exam
Mr S.
The citizens in the United States were informed that American was going to war to face the terrorism threats however the United States motives in 2003 were to increase power in an economic sense therefore increasing the access to oil. The United States has the highest consumption rate of oil in 2009 it had 84,077 thousand barrels per day however the United States cannot produce this much therefore it can create a plausible motive to have interest in Iraq’s oil in 2003.
ReplyDeleteOil is a crucial part of everyday life in developed parts of the world, the supply and demand in the United State identifies that oil is what keeps developed countries running for example our cars and military equipment. Oil is considered important as it not only allows us to continue our everyday lives but it provides certain countries with economic powers. For examples Middle Eastern countries have more economic power than countries such as the United States as these developing countries do not use as much and sell the oil onto larger nations due to their supply needs. This shows the Unites States of America’s motive was to gain more oil as the US is quite reliant on oil and as they are the hegemon state the US do not like to not have military and economic power over others. However if the United States were to gain control of this oil it would allow simple things such as the dollar to change to US currency making it harder for other nations such as the French and Russia to gain this economic power. All industrial societies are based on power it is evident that the US already have military power and if they can sell more oil than they can gain economic power.
As this is needed world-wide the country that holds the largest supply can be considered to have economic power, the largest oil reserve are in the Middle East. This played a major factor in the decision to invade Iraq and not countries that produced more oil. For example Saudi Arabia has 19 percent which the United States has access to through trade therefore the United States would not want to jeopardise this. Venezuela has the next highest amount of supply which is valued at 12 percent however the United States did not want to start a war as there was speculation that the Venezuela government was investing into Chemical and Nuclear warfare. The third highest oil supply is Iran, even though Iran was an enemy of the United States they did not want to start a war as Iran had nuclear weapons and had more economic power than the United States. The fourth highest was Iraq which held 8.6 per cent of the world’s oil, the United States Government, the Bush Administration believed that the government of Iraq was corrupt for the democracy that could flourish if under the right leadership (World Energy, 2009).
ReplyDeleteThe United States believed strongly in the domino theory in a geological sense, therefore in order to secure the oil permanently the Bush Administration believed that if Iraq was democratised then continue the same process with surrounding countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and then finally Iran it would allow the United States to have the strongest economic power. The main motive shown is oil however in order to obtain the oil the US must democratise all Middle eastern countries, however Iran at the time was considered to be a nuclear threat to the United States therefore the United States wanted to surround Iran and overtime allow any other alternatives to democratisation to be irradiated leaving Iran no choice but to democratise. This can identify a further motive which is implied in the US department of Energy in 2003 International Energy Outlook “Complete US control of oil would preserve the rule of the dollars international standing would increase…” This primary quote enhances the idea the US have a motive to invade Iraq which corroborates with a primary quote from the chairman of the Federal reserve out of office Alan Greenspan “Everyone knows the Iraq was is largely about oil”. If this invasion was successful the United States government would have ultimate hegemony as the United States would have Economic and Military power.
In Conclusion it is evident that the United States had a clear motive in 2003 to invade Iraq due to its economic status in oil consumption as it would also allow for democratisation of other near-by countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran which would allow the United States to have hegemon over all other countries.
- Puncuation and Grammatic Errors
Delete- Use either United States or US
- Source (BP Energy Statistics) could be used when talking about the consumption rate of oil in 2009 and can be corroborated with Source J.
- Source I (From Prezi) could be used to back up the fact that the US cannot produce the demand amount.
- Instead of intext referencing, use 'as seen in source.....' or 'The Energy Information shows that....'
- Good overall structure: Importance of Oil --> World's Top 4 Oil Reserves --> Domino Theory
- Great evaluation of ‘Iraq and Our Energy Future’
- Have used key words of the criteria: 'primary' and 'corroborate'
- More sources needed, especially secondary source if possible
- More implicit and explicit meaning, and the evaluation of sources needed
Good hypothesis but could be more succinct.
DeleteMore evaluation of sources is needed but I can see that you have attempted with the “US department of Energy in 2003 International Energy Outlook “…” This primary quote enhances…”
You’ve also used some criteria language but that could be used more.
Really good conclusion as it effectively sums up your argument.
Be careful and consistent with your description of the United States of America; Your introduction could be a clearer ‘road map’ for the subsequent essay;
DeleteBody Paragraph 1:
Middle Eastern countries do NOT have more economic power than the US, especially for the reasons you present. If you are confused about this, see me to discuss;
You state ‘ the dollar change to US currency…’ which does not make sense. The dollar is the US currency. Do you mean that the international oil market will continue to be based on the US dollar??? And not the Euro????;
Body Paragraph 2:
Where have you read this: “there was speculation that the Venezuela government was investing into Chemical and Nuclear warfare” , You need to reference this as it’s a big claim!;
When discussing the Domino Theory, be specific that the neoconservatives believed strongly in this and realte this back to the neoconservative clique which was in the White House at the time of the Iraq War too.;
The final sentence is unclear and is the information in this sentence from the source referenced???.
Body Paragraph 3:
Word Choice error: Geological;
Geography error: Venezuela;
You should note that the democratisation idea is a neoconservative foreign policy idea and not all supported it;
Overall, you have some major grammatical and punctuation errors that proofreading will sort out – get another to proof read too! Also, it displays more BRONZE attributes as there is little reliance of historical evidence from the sources.
Mr S.
The United States is the greatest hegemon in the world and sustaining power is key to their strength. The US was motivated to invade Iraq by 2003 because of a need to supply an unbalanced consumption rate of oil in the US and hence the control of Iraqi oil would lead to an increase in power in the Middle East. The US used oil for not only economic benefits but also as an ideological strategic plan to democratise the middle east, this will be explored through the analysis of both primary and secondary sources discussing the US oil motive.
ReplyDeleteOil is the most important commodity for any industrial country and the supply and demand for oil from western and European countries is great. Oil is a very important asset to a countries economy and countries that control large amounts of oil refineries hold a lot of power over the industrialised world. Secondary source the United States Energy Information Administration reveals that the world consumes over 87,356.29 barrels of crude oil per year, this has dramatically increased over the past 10 years, over 10 000 more barrels per year. Form this it can be concluded that the consumption of oil is only increasing, and with a lack of alternative affordable options, oil will continue to be the most important commodity for years to come.
The demand for oil from Iraq by the US is key to why they invaded Iraq as well as the possible domestication of Iraq. The US’s consumption in 2009, as posted by BP, a world leading Fuel Company, was 21.7%. This percent is larger than the next three highest consumption rates combined. These statistics clearly displays the large extent of oil that the US needs in order to fill its demand. A primary source from Energy Information Administration corroborates this sentiment as it shows the growing consumption rates of oil for the US leading up to 2025. The countries with the largest oil supplies include Saudi Arabia 19%, Venezuela 12%, Iran 10.3% and Iraq 8.6%. The US already had oil deposits in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and the US would not use oil reserves in Iran as they have no formal relationship as the Iranians do not agree with the democratic and liberal way the US is run. For this reason the US is left with no other choice but to attempt to utilise the Iraq oil supply to meet their increasing demand for oil. The US State Department describes the Middle East oil reserves as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”. This explicitly shows that the purpose of utilising oil from the Middle East is to gain strategic economic power, and implicitly shows that by having access to Iraqi oil, the US hegemon power would only grow stronger.
ReplyDeleteOil isn’t not the only benefit that the US would gain by invading Iraq, By gaining control of the Oil and Iraq itself the US has the opportunity to utilise the ‘Domino Theory’ against other Middle East countries. Meaning, if the US can gain control over Iraq making it a democratic state, other countries surrounding Iraq would, hopefully, fall to democratisation, Namely Iran. Iran, as seen on the geopolitical map by Christian Science Mentor, is completely surrounded by countries that have US intervention and troops. By having Iran, jump on the bandwagon for democratisation, the US would then too have access to its oil supply. A primary quote from President Bush in 2003 states “We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East.” This implicitly implies that the US wanted to establish a peaceful and democratic heart in the Middle East, as it is the heart that blood flows from. If Iraq became a democratised country, then democracy would, according to the domino theory, flow into the surrounding countries. Creating more allies with the US, which would provide the US with more sources, making them an even larger hegemon than they already are. It is clear through these pieces of evidence that the US’s underlying motive for invading Iraq by 2003 was to gain economic strength through its oil, and greater its hegemon power.
Good hypothesis.
DeleteEvaluation of sources is great however it could be more extensive. For example, you wrote “as seen on the geopolitical map by Christian Science Mentor” which doesn’t tell the reader too much about the credibility of the source. Why should I believe them? Other than that evaluation was good.
There was no clear conclusion. Your final sentence sums up the argument well but a concluding paragraph is needed.
Great use of the criteria language (i.e. implicit, motive, corroborates), however, in some places you mention only implicit or only explicit. E.g.” This implicitly implies that the US wanted to establish a peaceful and democratic heart in the Middle East, as it is the heart that blood flows from”. Great analysis but you could also add the explicit nature of that quote as well.
Not too much to really fix up, just little evaluations. Your writing was really good and you were able to clearly and succinctly argue you point. Great job!