Friday, June 13, 2008

Saddam - Dictator or Deceived?


Standpoint
Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963.

Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 1960s and 1970s. His first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with ousting then Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Growth
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.

After the Baathists took power in 1968, Saddam focused on attaining stability in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the administration of state welfare and development programs. At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.

Reforms
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq”, and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.

Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country invested much of its oil profits into industrial expansion.

Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers. The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agricultural development in 1974-1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.

Rise to leadership
In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces, and rapidly became the strongman of the government. Saddam took on an increasingly prominent role as the face of the government both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de-facto leader of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon accumulated a powerful circle of support within the party.

In 1979 al-Bakr started to make treaties with Syria, also under Ba'athist leadership, that would lead to unification between the two countries. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad would become deputy leader in a union, and this would drive Saddam to obscurity. Saddam acted to secure his grip on power. He forced the ailing al-Bakr to resign on July 16, 1979, and formally assumed the presidency.

Shortly afterwards, he convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped, Saddam claimed to have found spies and conspirators within the Ba'ath Party and read out the names of 68 members that he alleged to be such fifth columnists. These members were labelled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one and taken into custody. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. The 68 people arrested at the meeting were subsequently put on trial, and 22 were sentenced to execution for treason.

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.

Consolidation of Power
Domestic conflict impeded Saddam's modernizing projects. Iraqi society is divided along lines of language, religion and ethnicity; Saddam's government rested on the support of the 20% minority of largely working class, peasant, and lower middle class Sunnis, continuing a pattern that dates back at least to the British mandate authority's reliance on them as administrators.

The Shi'a majority were long a source of opposition to the government's secular policies, and the Ba'ath Party was increasingly concerned about potential Sh'ia Islamist influence following the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Kurds of northern Iraq (who are Sunni Muslims but not Arabs) were also permanently hostile to the Ba'athist party's pan-Arabism. To maintain power Saddam tended either to provide them with benefits so as to co-opt them into the regime, or to take repressive measures against them. The major instruments for accomplishing this control were the paramilitary and police organizations. Beginning in 1974, Taha Yassin Ramadan, a close associate of Saddam, commanded the People's Army, which was responsible for internal security. In addition to the People's Army, the Department of General Intelligence (Mukhabarat) was the most notorious arm of the state security system, feared for its use of torture and assassination. Since 1982, foreign observers believed that this department operated both at home and abroad in their mission to seek out and eliminate Saddam's perceived opponents.

Saddam justified Iraqi nationalism by claiming a unique role of Iraq in the history of the Arab world. As president, Saddam made frequent references to the Abbasid period, when Baghdad was the political, cultural, and economic capital of the Arab world. He also promoted Iraq's pre-Islamic role as Mesopotamia, the ancient cradle of civilization, alluding to such historical figures as Nebuchadrezzar II and Hammurabi. He devoted resources to archaeological explorations. In effect, Saddam sought to combine pan-Arabism and Iraqi nationalism, by promoting the vision of an Arab world united and led by Iraq.

As a sign of his consolidation of power, Saddam's personality cult pervaded Iraqi society. Thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals were erected in his honor all over Iraq. His face could be seen on the sides of office buildings, schools, airports, and shops, as well as on Iraqi currency. Saddam's personality cult reflected his efforts to appeal to the various elements in Iraqi society. He appeared in the costumes of the Bedouin, the traditional clothes of the Iraqi peasant (which he essentially wore during his childhood), and even Kurdish clothing, but also appeared in Western suits, projecting the image of an urbane and modern leader. Sometimes he would also be portrayed as a devout Muslim, wearing full headdress and robe, praying toward Mecca.

Foreign Affairs
In foreign affairs, Saddam sought to have Iraq play a leading role in the Middle East. Iraq signed an aid pact with the Soviet Union in 1972, and arms were sent along with several thousand advisers. However, the 1978 crackdown on Iraqi Communists and a shift of trade toward the West strained Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union; Iraq then took on a more Western orientation until the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

In 1975 Saddam negotiated an accord with Iran that contained Iraqi concessions on border disputes. In return, Iran agreed to stop supporting opposition Kurds in Iraq.

Saddam initiated Iraq's nuclear enrichment project in the 1980s, with French assistance. The first Iraqi nuclear reactor was named by the French Osirak. Osirak was destroyed on June 7, 1981 by an Israeli air strike (Operation Opera).

Nearly from its founding as a modern state in 1920, Iraq has had to deal with Kurdish separatists in the northern part of the country. Saddam did negotiate an agreement in 1970 with separatist Kurdish leaders, giving them autonomy, but the agreement broke down. The result was brutal fighting between the government and Kurdish groups and even Iraqi bombing of Kurdish villages in Iran, which caused Iraqi relations with Iran to deteriorate. However, after Saddam had negotiated the 1975 treaty with Iran, the Shah withdrew support for the Kurds, who suffered a total defeat.

In 1979 Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, thus giving way to an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The influence of revolutionary Shi'ite Islam grew apace in the region, particularly in countries with large Shi'ite populations, especially Iraq. Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas—hostile to his secular rule—were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority Shi'ite population.

There had also been bitter enmity between Saddam and Khomeini since the 1970s. Khomeini, having been exiled from Iran in 1964, took up residence in Iraq, at the Shi'ite holy city of An Najaf. There he involved himself with Iraqi Shi'ites and developed a strong, worldwide religious and political following. Under pressure from the Shah, who had agreed to a rapprochement between Iraq and Iran in 1975, Saddam agreed to expel Khomeini in 1978.

The War
After Khomeini gained power, skirmishes between Iraq and revolutionary Iran occurred for ten months over the sovereignty of the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, which divides the two countries. During this period, Saddam Hussein publicly maintained that it was in Iraq's interest not to engage with Iran, and that it was in the interests of both nations to maintain peaceful relations. However, in a private meeting with Salah Omar Al-Ali, Iraq's permanent ambassador to the United Nations, he revealed that he intended to invade and occupy a large part of Iran within months. Iraq invaded Iran, entering the oil-rich Iranian land of Khuzestan, which also has a sizeable Arab minority, on September 22, 1980 and declared it a new province of Iraq.

With the support of the Arab states, the United States, the Soviet Union, and Europe, and heavily financed by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein had become "the defender of the Arab world" against a revolutionary Iran.

Consequently, many viewed Iraq as 'an agent of the civilized world'.

The blatant disregard of international law and violations of international borders were ignored. Instead Iraq received economic and military support from its allies, who conveniently overlooked Saddam's use of chemical warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians and Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

In the first days of the war, there was heavy ground fighting around strategic ports as Iraq launched an attack on Khuzestan. After making some initial gains, Iraq's troops began to suffer losses from human wave attacks by Iran. By 1982, Iraq was on the defensive and looking for ways to end the war. At this point, Saddam asked his ministers for candid advice. Health Minister Riyadh Ibrahim suggested that Saddam temporarily step down to promote peace negotiations. Pieces of Ibrahim’s dismembered body were delivered to his wife the next day.

Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century. During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran. These chemical weapons were developed by Iraq from materials and technology supplied primarily by West German companies.

Saddam reached out to other Arab governments for cash and political support during the war, particularly after Iraq's oil industry severely suffered at the hands of the Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. Iraq successfully gained some military and financial aid, as well as diplomatic and moral support, from the Soviet Union, China, France, and the United States, which together feared the prospects of the expansion of revolutionary Iran's influence in the region. The Iranians, demanding that the international community should force Iraq to pay war reparations to Iran, refused any suggestions for a cease-fire. Despite several calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988.

On March 16, 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more. The United States now maintains that Saddam ordered the attack to terrorize the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, but Saddam's regime claimed at the time that Iran was responsible for the attack and US analysts supported the claim until several years later.

The bloody eight-year war ended in a stalemate. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties with estimates of up to one million dead for both sides total. Both economies, previously healthy and expanding, were left in ruins.

Post-War effects
Iraq was stuck with a war debt of roughly $75 billion. Borrowing money from the U.S. was making Iraq dependent on outside loans, embarrassing a leader who had sought to define Arab nationalism. Saddam also borrowed a tremendous amount of money from other Arab states during the 1980s to fight Iran. Faced with rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, Saddam desperately sought out cash once again, this time for postwar reconstruction.

The end of the war with Iran served to deepen tensions between Iraq and its wealthy neighbor Kuwait. Saddam saw his war with Iran as having spared Kuwait from the imminent threat of Iranian domination.

Since the struggle with Iran had been fought for the benefit of the other Persian Gulf Arab states as much as for Iraq, he argued, a share of Iraqi debt should be forgiven. Saddam urged the Kuwaitis to forgive the Iraqi debt accumulated in the war, some $30 billion, but the Kuwaitis refused.

Also to raise money for postwar reconstruction, Saddam pushed oil-exporting countries to raise oil prices by cutting back oil production. Kuwait refused to cut production. In addition, Kuwait spearheaded the opposition in OPEC to the cuts that Saddam had requested. Kuwait was pumping large amounts of oil, and thus keeping prices low, when Iraq needed to sell high-priced oil from its wells to pay off a huge debt.

On another compelling level, Saddam Hussein and many Iraqis considered the boundary line between Iraq and Kuwait, cutting Iraq off from the sea, a historical wrong imposed by British imperial officials in 1922. Saddam was not alone in this belief. For at least half a century, Iraqi nationalists were espousing emphatically the belief that Kuwait was historically an integral part of Iraq, and that Kuwait had only come into being through the maneuverings of British imperialism.

This belief was one of the few articles of faith uniting the political scene in a nation rife with sharp social, ethnic, religious, and ideological divides.

The colossal extent of Kuwaiti oil reserves also intensified tensions in the region. The oil reserves of Kuwait (with a population of a mere 2 million next to Iraq's 25) were roughly equal to those of Iraq. Taken together Iraq and Kuwait sat on top of some 20 percent of the world's known oil reserves; as an article of comparison, Saudi Arabia holds 25 percent.

Furthermore Saddam argued that the Kuwaiti monarchy had slant drilled oil out of wells that Iraq considered to be within its disputed border with Kuwait. Given that at the time Iraq was not regarded as a pariah state, Saddam was able to complain about the slant drilling to the U.S. State Department. Although this had continued for years, Saddam now needed oil money to stem a looming economic crisis. Saddam still had an experienced and well-equipped army, which he used to influence regional affairs. He later ordered troops to the Iraq–Kuwait border.

As Iraq-Kuwait relations rapidly deteriorated, Saddam was receiving conflicting information about how the U.S. would respond to the prospects of an invasion. For one, Washington had been taking measures to cultivate a constructive relationship with Iraq for roughly a decade. The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets. Saddam's Iraq became "the third-largest recipient of US assistance".

U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Saddam in an emergency meeting on July 25, where the Iraqi leader stated his intention to continue talks. U.S. officials attempted to maintain a conciliatory line with Iraq, indicating that while George H. W. Bush and James Baker did not want force used, they would not take any position on the Iraq–Kuwait boundary dispute and did not want to become involved. Whatever Glapsie did or did not say in her interview with Saddam, the Iraqis assumed that the United States had invested too much in building relations with Iraq over the 1980s to sacrifice them for Kuwait. Later, Iraq and Kuwait then met for a final negotiation session, which failed. Saddam then sent his troops into Kuwait.

Although no reliable first-hand information on Saddam's appraisal of the situation exists, we can surmise from the prewar standpoint of the Iraqi leader and his interests and the conflicting prewar signals from Washington that the invasion was likely born out of Iraq's postwar debt problem and faltering attempts to gain the resources needed for postwar reconstruction, rebuild the devastated Iraqi economy, and stabilize the domestic political situation.

The Gulf War
On August 2, 1990, Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait, thus sparking an international crisis.

The ability for Saddam Hussein to pursue such military aggression was from a 'military machine paid for in large part by the tens of billions of dollars Kuwait and the Gulf states had poured into Iraq and the weapons and technology provided by the Soviet Union, Germany, and France.'

Just two years after the 1988 Iraq and Iran truce 'Saddam Hussein did what his Gulf patrons had earlier paid him to prevent.' Having removed the threat of Iranian fundamentalism, he 'overran Kuwait and confronted his Gulf neighbors in the name of Arab nationalism and Islam.'

The U.S. had provided assistance to Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran, but with Iraq's seizure of the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990 the United States led a United Nations coalition that drove Iraq's troops from Kuwait in February 1991.

U.S. President George H. W. Bush responded cautiously for the first several days. On one hand, Kuwait, prior to this point, had been a virulent enemy of Israel and was the Persian Gulf monarchy that had had the friendliest relations with the Soviets. On the other hand, Washington foreign policymakers, along with Middle East experts, military critics, and firms heavily invested in the region, were extremely concerned with stability in this region.

The invasion immediately triggered fears that the world's price of oil, and therefore control of the world economy, was at stake. Britain profited heavily from billions of dollars of Kuwaiti investments and bank deposits. President Bush was perhaps swayed while meeting with the tough British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who happened to be in the U.S. at the time.

Co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union made possible the passage of resolutions in the United Nations Security Council giving Iraq a deadline to leave Kuwait and approving the use of force if Saddam did not comply with the timetable.

Drift in Policy
During the period of negotiations and threats following the invasion, Saddam focused renewed attention on the Palestinian problem by promising to withdraw his forces from Kuwait if Israel would relinquish the occupied territories in the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. Saddam's proposal further split the Arab world, pitting U.S.- and Western-supported Arab states against the Palestinians. The allies ultimately rejected any linkage between the Kuwait crisis and Palestinian issues.

Saddam ignored the Security Council deadline. Backed by the Security Council, a U.S.-led coalition launched round-the-clock missile and aerial attacks on Iraq, beginning January 16, 1991. Israel, though subjected to attack by Iraqi missiles, refrained from retaliating in order not to provoke Arab states into leaving the coalition. A ground force comprised largely of U.S. and British armored and infantry divisions ejected Saddam's army from Kuwait in February 1991.

As part of the cease-fire agreement, Iraq agreed to scrap all poison gas and germ weapons and allow UN observers to inspect the sites. UN trade sanctions would remain in effect until Iraq complied with all terms. Saddam publicly claimed victory at the end of the war.

Postwar period
Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions, together with the brutality of the conflict that this had engendered, laid the groundwork for postwar rebellions. In the aftermath of the fighting, social and ethnic unrest among Shi'ite Muslims, Kurds, and dissident military units threatened the stability of Saddam's government. Uprisings erupted in the Kurdish north and Shi'a southern and central parts of the Iraq, but were ruthlessly repressed.

The United States, which had urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, did nothing to assist the rebellions.

Saddam, having survived the immediate crisis in the wake of defeat, was left firmly in control of Iraq, although the country never recovered either economically or militarily from the Gulf War. Saddam routinely cited his survival as "proof" that Iraq had in fact won the war against America. This message earned Saddam a great deal of popularity in many sectors of the Arab world. The issues that Saddam proclaimed: Arab unity, self-sufficiency, and social justice.' As a result, Saddam Hussein appealed to many people for the same reasons that attracted more and more followers to Islamic revivalism and also for the same reasons that fueled anti-Western feelings.

As one U.S. Muslim observer noted:

“People forgot about Saddam's record and concentrated on America...Saddam Hussein might be wrong, but it is not America who should correct him.'

‘A shift was, therefore, clearly visible among many Islamic movements in the post war period 'from an initial Islamic ideological rejection of Saddam Hussein, the secular persecutor of Islamic movements, and his invasion of Kuwait to a more populist Arab nationalist, anti-imperialist support for Saddam (or more precisely those issues he represented or championed) and the condemnation of foreign intervention and occupation.'

The U.S. launched a missile attack aimed at Iraq's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad June 26, 1993, citing evidence of repeated Iraqi violations of the "no fly zones" imposed after the Gulf War and for incursions into Kuwait. Some speculated that it was in retaliation for Iraq's sponsorship of a plot to kill former President George H. W. Bush.

The UN sanctions placed upon Iraq when it invaded Kuwait were not lifted, blocking Iraqi oil exports. This caused immense hardship in Iraq and virtually destroyed the Iraqi economy and state infrastructure. Only smuggling across the Syrian border and humanitarian aid ameliorated the humanitarian crisis. On December 9, 1996 the United Nations allowed Saddam's government to begin selling limited amounts of oil for food and medicine. Limited amounts of income from the United Nations started flowing into Iraq through the UN Oil for Food program.

U.S. officials continued to accuse Saddam of violating the terms of the Gulf War's cease fire, by developing weapons of mass destruction and other banned weaponry, and violating the UN-imposed sanctions and "no-fly zones." Isolated military strikes by U.S. and British forces continued on Iraq sporadically.

Saddam's support base was divided after the war, and in the following years, contributing to the government's increasingly repressive and arbitrary nature. Domestic repression inside Iraq grew worse, and Saddam's sons, Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein, became increasingly powerful and carried out a private reign of terror. They likely had a leading hand when, in August 1995, two of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law (Hussein Kamel and Saddam Kamel), who held high positions in the Iraqi military, defected to Jordan. Both were killed after returning to Iraq the following February.

Operation Iraqi Freedom
The U.S. continued to view Hussein as a bellicose tyrant who was a threat to the stability of the region. Saddam, meanwhile, was embittered by the aftermath of the Gulf War, which he viewed as a betrayal by a nation that once considered him an indispensable ally.

The domestic political equation changed in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In his January 2002 state of the union address to Congress, George W. Bush spoke of an "axis of evil" consisting of Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. Moreover, Bush announced that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government, because of the alleged threat of its "weapons of mass destruction." Bush claimed, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror," said Bush.

The Iraqi government and military collapsed within three weeks of the beginning of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq on March 20. The United States made at least two attempts to kill Saddam with targeted air strikes, but both failed to hit their target, killing civilians instead.

On December 14, 2003, U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer announced that Saddam Hussein had been captured at a farmhouse in ad-Dawr near Tikrit. Following his capture by U.S. forces on December 13, Saddam was trasported to a U.S. base near Tikrit, and later taken to the U.S. base near Baghdad.

On June 30, 2004, Saddam Hussein, held in custody by U.S. forces at the U.S. base "Camp Cropper," along with 11 other senior Baathist leaders, were handed over legally (though not physically) to the interim Iraqi government to stand trial for alleged "crimes against humanity" and other offences. A few weeks later, he was charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal with crimes committed against residents of Dujail in 1982, following a failed assassination attempt against him. Specific charges included the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others.

On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging. The verdict and sentencing were both appealed but subsequently affirmed by Iraq's Supreme Court of Appeals.

On December 30, 2006, Saddam was hanged.

Not long before the execution, Saddam's lawyers released his last letter:

“To the great nation, to the people of our country, and humanity,
Many of you have known the writer of this letter to be faithful, honest, caring for others, wise, of sound judgment, just, decisive, careful with the wealth of the people and the state ... and that his heart is big enough to embrace all without discrimination.

You have known your brother and leader very well and he never bowed to the despots and, in accordance with the wishes of those who loved him, remained a sword and a banner.

This is how you want your brother, son or leader to be ... and those who will lead you (in the future) should have the same qualifications.

Here, I offer my soul to God as a sacrifice, and if He wants, He will send it to heaven with the martyrs, or, He will postpone that ... so let us be patient and depend on Him against the unjust nations.

Remember that God has enabled you to become an example of love, forgiveness and brotherly coexistence ... I call on you not to hate because hate does not leave a space for a person to be fair and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking and keeps away one from balanced thinking and making the right choice.

I also call on you not to hate the peoples of the other countries that attacked us and differentiate between the decision-makers and peoples. Anyone who repents - whether in Iraq or abroad - you must forgive him.

You should know that among the aggressors, there are people who support your struggle against the invaders, and some of them volunteered for the legal defence of prisoners, including Saddam Hussein ... some of these people wept profusely when they said goodbye to me.

Dear faithful people, I say goodbye to you, but I will be with the merciful God who helps those who take refuge in him and who will never disappoint any faithful, honest believer ... God is Great ... God is great ... Long live our nation ... Long live our great struggling people ... Long live Iraq, long live Iraq ... Long live Palestine ... Long live jihad and the mujahedeen (the insurgency).

Saddam Hussein
President and Commander in Chief of Iraqi Mujahed Armed Forces

Additional clarification note:

"I have written this letter because the lawyers told me that the so-called criminal court — established and named by the invaders — will allow the so-called defendants the chance for a last word. But that court and its chief judge did not give us the chance to say a word, and issued its verdict without explanation and read out the sentence — dictated by the invaders — without presenting the evidence. I wanted the people to know this. ”
— Letter by Saddam Hussein

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
Iraqi co-operation with UN weapons inspection teams was intermittent throughout the 1990s. It now appears more likely that Iraq was playing a game of bluff, hoping to convince the Western powers and the other Arab states that Iraq was still a power to be reckoned with, than that Iraq was hiding significant stockpiles of prohibited materials.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Source of Petroleum

Crude situation

The crude oil price had reached its all time high of (higher then that of during the 1971 oil crises) US$135 per barrel on 22 May 2008. The oil industrial analysts forecasted that it may reach to levels of US$150 to US$200 per barrel in due course of time.

The causes for this price hike is widely speculated for various reasons like production loss in recent years (post 2003 middle-east political situation), depleting oil reserves, drastic increase in fuel consumption in recent years, increasing demand, from expanding economies, mainly in China and India.


But till what period we are assured of getting the oil even if we are ready to pay higher price for it?

Oil depletion is the inescapable result of extracting and consuming oil faster than it is naturally produced, because the formation of new natural petroleum is a continuous geologic process which takes millions of years. No one knows for sure when the long-term decline of oil reserves will begin, or what the consequences will be. The Hubbert peak is an influential theory concerning the long-term rate of conventional Petroleum (and other fossil fuel) extraction and depletion.

United States geophysicist M. King Hubbert, created a model from known oil reserves world-wide, and proposed the theory. The concept of passing the peak-point, so that society is on the downward side of the oil supply curve, is also referred to as Peak oil or the end of cheap oil. By most projections, this point has already been passed or is about to be at some point between the years 2007 and 2010, although by United States government prediction, world consumption of oil will increase to 98.3 million barrels a day in 2015 and 118 million barrels a day in 2030.

Oil depletion occurs in a predictable fashion based on geological principles and engineering practices which apply in varying degrees to all oil fields. The shape of the decline curves can vary depending on particular circumstances and government policies, but all oil fields decline over time, and the geological and operational mechanisms involved ensure the fields will decline in a relatively predictable manner.

In theory, Oil wells would follow an exponential decline curve. Produced at their natural rates, oil wells will start off by producing at a high rate and then will decline rapidly from that rate and eventually level off at a low rate of slow decline. There are many exceptions to this, some dictated by operational procedures at the surface (the typical Saudi Arabia well does not decline in this manner for example) and others dictated by allowable restrictions, such as oil wells in Louisiana.

Example of US
Oil production in the United States has followed the theoretical Hubbert Curve in a general fashion. U.S. oil production reached its peak in 1970 and by the mid-2000s it had fallen half way down the production curve to a level last seen in the 1940s. In 1950, the United States produced over half the world's oil, but by 2005 that proportion had dropped to about 8%.

World oil production has followed a typical exponential growth curve, which has continued to grow for over a century with only a few dips, but the experience of the United States decline has caused many people to question how long the world can continue to produce steadily increasing amounts of oil. As of the mid-2000s, all of the world's oil producing countries except Saudi Arabia was producing at maximum capacity.

Industry observers and proponents of the peak oil theory have pointed to the similarities between the global production curve in mid-2000s and that of the United States in the 1970s, which peaked without warning and started to decline.

Results of oil depletion
The effects of such a oil shortage would depend on the rate of decline and the development and adoption of effective alternatives, ongoing as you read this. If alternatives were not forthcoming, it has been speculated that the numerous products produced with oil would become scarcer, leading to at the very least lower living standards in developed and developing countries alike, and possibly in the worst case to the collapse of the entire international banking system, which could not hope to sustain itself without the prospect of growth[citation needed]. The political situation may change dramatically, with potential wars between countries over access to dwindling supplies. Accordingly, inequalities between various countries and regions of the world may become exacerbated.

Economic growth and prosperity since the industrial revolution have, in large part, been due to increased efficiencies in the use of better and higher concentrations of energy in fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels allows humans to participate in takedown, which is the consumption of energy at a greater rate than it is being replaced. Some believe that decreasing oil production portends a drastic impact on human culture and modern technological society, which is currently heavily dependent on oil as a fuel and chemical feedstock. For example, over 90% of transportation in the United States relies on oil.

Since the 1940s, agriculture has dramatically increased its productivity, due largely to the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and increased mechanisation. Pesticides rely upon oil as a critical ingredient, and fertilizers require natural gas. Farm machinery also requires oil. Arguing that in today's world every joule one eats requires 5-15 joules to produce and deliver, some have speculated that decreasing supply of oil will cause modern industrial agriculture to collapse, leading to a drastic decline in food production, food shortages and possibly even mass starvation.

A more modest scenario, assuming a slower rate of depletion and a smooth transition to alternative energy sources could cause substantial economic hardship such as a recession or depression due to higher energy prices.

But the oil reserves of our planet will vanish suddenly?
Let’s get to the basics first.

Petroleum Oil is a naturally occurring, flammable liquid found in rock formations in the Earth consisting of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights, plus other organic compounds. It is found in porous rock formations in the upper strata of some areas of the Earth's crust. There is also petroleum in oil sands (tar sands).

Formation of petroleum occurs from kerogen pyrolysis, in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.

Biogenic theory
Most geologists view crude oil and natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over geological time. Oil is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have been settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tend to form coal. Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.

Geologists often refer to an "oil window" which is the temperature range that oil forms in—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Though this happens at different depths in different locations around the world, a typical depth for the oil window might be 4–6 km. Note that even if oil is formed at extreme depths, it may be trapped at much shallower depths where it was not formed (the Athabasca Oil Sands is one example).

Because most hydrocarbons are lighter than rock or water, these often migrate upward through adjacent rock layers until they either reach the surface or become trapped beneath impermeable rocks, within porous rocks called reservoirs. However, the process is not straightforward since it is influenced by underground water flows, and oil may migrate hundreds of kilometres horizontally or even short distances downward before becoming trapped in a reservoir. Concentration of hydrocarbons in a trap forms an oil field from which the liquid can be extracted by drilling and pumping.

Three conditions must be present for oil reservoirs to form: a source rock rich in organic material buried deep enough for subterranean heat to cook it into oil; a porous and permeable reservoir rock for it to accumulate in; and a cap rock (seal) or other mechanism that prevents it from escaping to the surface. Within these reservoirs, fluids will typically organize themselves like a three-layer cake with a layer of water below the oil layer and a layer of gas above it, although the different layers vary in size between reservoirs.

The vast majority of oil that has been produced by the earth has long ago escaped to the surface and been biodegraded by oil-eating bacteria. Oil companies are looking for the small fraction that has been trapped by this rare combination of circumstances. Oil sands are reservoirs of partially biodegraded oil still in the process of escaping, but contain so much migrating oil that, although most of it has escaped, vast amounts are still present—more than can be found in conventional oil reservoirs.

On the other hand, oil shales are source rocks that have not been exposed to heat or pressure long enough to convert their trapped kerogen into oil.

The biogenic origin of petroleum (liquid hydrocarbon oils) has recently been reviewed in detail by a few eminents who raise a number of objections.

Now comes the revolutionary theory…

Eugene Island is a submerged mountain 70-85 miles off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico. The nearby oil field Eugene Island 330 is best known for its unusual depletion profile.

A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late ’60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels per day of high-quality crude oil. By the late ’80s, the platform’s production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels per day.

However, the speculative figures are as: Production from Eugene Island had achieved 20,000 barrels per day by 1989; by 1992 it had slipped to 15,000 bbl/d, but recovered to reach a peak of 30,000 bbl/d in 1996. Production from the reservoir has dropped steadily since then.

The source of additional oil was analyzed as migrating through faults from deeper and older formations below. The oil contains biomarkers similar to those in other oils in the area.

Eugene Island 330 is often cited as a key example of something called as Abiogenic petroleum origin theory, which holds that petroleum reservoirs are continuously replenished from inorganic sources deep within the Earth.

Abiogenic theory
The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle.

Various abiogenic hypotheses were first proposed after advances in science in the nineteenth century.

Within the mantle, carbon may exist as hydrocarbon molecules, chiefly methane, and as elemental carbon, carbon dioxide and carbonates. The abiotic hypothesis is that a full suite of hydrocarbons found in petroleum can be generated in the mantle by abiogenic processes, and these hydrocarbons can migrate out of the mantle, into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.

Meteorites are believed to suggest the major composition of material from which the Earth was formed. Some meteorites, such as carbonaceous chondrites, contain carbonaceous material. If a large amount of this material is still within the Earth, it could have been leaking upward for billions of years.

Russian researchers performed the calculations of thermodynamic equilibrium and concluded that hydrocarbon mixes would be created within the mantle. Experiments under high temperatures and pressures produced many hydrocarbons.

Hydrogen gas and water have been found more than 6 kilometers deep in the upper crust. There is data in the western United States that aquifers from near the surface may extend to depths of 10 to 20 km. Hydrogen gas can be created by water reacting with silicates, quartz and feldspar, in temperatures in the 25° to 270 °C range. These minerals are common in crustal rocks such as granite. Hydrogen may react with dissolved carbon compounds in water to form methane and higher carbon compounds.

One proposed mechanism by which abiogenic petroleum is formed was first proposed by the Ukrainian scientist, Prof. Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk in 1967. He proposed that petroleum could be formed at high temperatures and pressures from inorganic carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, hydrogen and/or methane.

This mechanism is supported by several lines of evidence which are accepted by modern scientific literature. This involves synthesis of oil within the crust via catalysis by chemically reductive rocks. A proposed mechanism for the formation of inorganic hydrocarbons is via natural analogs of the Fischer-Tropsch process known as the serpentinite mechanism or the serpentinite process.

Abiogenic theories reject the supposition that certain molecules found within petroleum, known as "biomarkers," are indicative of the biological origin of petroleum. They contend that some of these molecules could have come from the microbes that the petroleum encounters in its upward migration through the crust, and that some of them are found in meteorites, which have presumably never contacted living material, and that some can be generated by plausible reactions in petroleum abiogenically.

The hypothesis is founded primarily upon:
- The ubiquity of methane within the solar system
- The presence of hydrocarbons in extraterrestrial bodies including meteors, moons and comets
- Plausible mechanisms of abiotically chemically synthesizing hydrocarbons within the mantle
- Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels
- Petroleum and methane deposits are found in large patterns related to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust rather than to the patchwork of sedimentary deposits
- Interpretations of the chemical and isotopic composition of natural petroleum
- The presence of oil and methane within non-sedimentary rocks upon the Earth
- The existence of methane hydrate deposits
- Perceived ambiguity in some assumptions and key evidence used in the orthodox biogenic petroleum theories
- Bituminous coal creation is based upon deep hydrocarbon seeps
- Inability to create petroleum-like material from organic material at the time the theories were created
- Surface carbon budget and oxygen levels stable over geologic time scales
- Biogenic theories do not explain some hydrocarbon deposit characteristics
- The distribution of metals in crude oils fits better with upper serpentinized mantle, primitive mantle and chondrite patterns than oceanic and continental crust, and show no correlation with sea water
- The association of hydrocarbons with helium, a noble gas
- Deep microbial hypothesis of hydrocarbon generation

And, more…
Biotic (microbial) hydrocarbons
The deep biotic petroleum theory, is similar to the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis.
This theory is different from biogenic oil in that the role of deep-dwelling microbes is a biological source for oil which is not of a sedimentary origin and is not sourced from surface carbon. Deep biotic oil is considered to be formed as a byproduct of the life cycle of deep microbes. Shallow biotic oil is considered to be formed as a byproduct of the life cycles of shallow microbes.

The Law of thermodynamics prohibits petroleum formation at low pressure and temperature. Petroleum is stable within earth's mantle at depths around 150-200 km. At low pressure levels (for instance sedimentary basins) may occur bacterial contamination that leave their fingerprints in oil. It's impossible to form petroleum from biogenic detritus.

Microbial life has been discovered 4.2 kilometers deep in Alaska and 5.2 kilometers deep in Sweden. Proponents of abiogenic petroleum origin contend that deep microbial life is responsible for the biomarkers (see below) that are generally cited as evidence of biogenic origin. A community of Archaea bacteria is thriving deep in the subsurface source of a hot spring in Idaho. Geothermal hydrogen, not organic carbon, is the primary energy source for this methanogen-dominated microbial community. This is the first documented case of a microbial community completely dominated by Archaea.

The presence of biomarkers in the extremely rare examples of Proterozoic oils and within oils found in Mesozoic and younger crystalline reservoirs, could be explained as coming from deep-dwelling bacteria.

The abiogenic theory of oil sees the role of deep microbes as providing these biomarkers as contaminants of abiogenic petroleum accumulations, not as products of plant and plankton detritus which have been converted to petroleum via orthodox biogenic processes.

The case for shallow bacterial life creating petroleum is apparent from circumstantial evidence at "tar seeps" in sandstone outcrops where live oil is encountered down-dip (e.g. Midway-Sunset field, San Joaquin Valley, California). Bacteria are considered to have "degraded" higher gravity oil to bitumens.

Extrapolation of bacterial degradation to still higher gravity oils and finally to methane leads to the suggestion that all petroleum up to tar and most of the carbon in coal are derivatives of methane, which is progressively stripped of its hydrogen by bacteria and archaea.


Conclusion
Currently there is little direct research on abiogenic petroleum or experimental studies into the synthesis of abiogenic methane. However, several research areas, mostly related to astrobiology and the deep microbial biosphere and serpentinite reactions, continue to provide insight into the contribution of abiogenic hydrocarbons into petroleum accumulations.


Similarly, research into the deep microbial hypothesis of hydrocarbon generation is advancing as part of the attempt to investigate the concept of panspermia and astrobiology, specifically using deep microbial life as an analog for life on Mars.

Let's hope that these researches gives some clear picture about the formation of the fuel, hence we all can decide upon using cars or carts in the future - till then happy travelling.