This wasn't the best week to begin winter hibernation it seems. Given that this subject has been one of my longstanding gripes about our dysfunctional political landscape I can't really let it slide past without some brief comments.

According to The Age and The SMH, John Howard and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson have finally decided to adopt the realist position on the Iraq war and admit that it is about controlling the oil. As I've been moaning for many years, Iraq has the world's largest and cheapest to extract reserves of oil and is thus the biggest resource prize on the planet, with a lot of power accruing to those who can successfully control it (given current patterns of energy usage).

Leaving the morality of the situation aside, the debate should now focus on a full cost benefit analysis of whether or not the price we are currently paying (and will continue to pay for many years into the future) for this exercise in militant mercantilism is actually worth it. As an added side benefit, this would end up demonstrating the full cost of the petrol that goes into our tanks, not the ridiculous underestimate given by the price on the bowser.

A few line items to consider:

• the cost of military action in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east, including both regular and "contractor" forces in the region

• the cost of caring for and/or rehabilitating all the people damaged by the war
• the cost of all the "war on terror" apparatus we've constructed to deal with the blowback generated by our long term policies in the region
• including the surveillance state infrastructure, the massive expansion of the organisations supporting it in recent years and all the attendant hassles associated with air travel and other such red tape

• the long term cost to the international reputations of the countries involved in the war
• the long term cost of the massive public debt run up by the US government funding the war
• the long term cost of the reduction of civil liberties and the reduction in transparency of government actions
• etc etc

The alternative is switching our economies to alternative energy supplies. In the short term this simply involves increasing fuel efficiency enough to avoid any dependence on middle east oil - if you look at the relative inefficiency of the US and Australia compared to other developed nations demonstrated by the graph from the Economist below you'll see that this isn't as difficult a task as you would imagine. If we were as efficient as Japan (a much more heavily industrialised country than Australia), we wouldn't have any dependence on middle east oil at all. The US situation is the same.

In the longer term, switching away from oil use entirely by converting our transport systems to electric power (with the added side benefit of helping to solve our global warming problem by powering it all with clean energy) has the potential to spark the largest economic boom in history - particularly for the technology industry - so its not like the US as a whole will lose out from this transition (things might be a little trickier for Australia but I suspect we'll become the world's uranium mine anyway which will more than make up for it in financial terms).

When the sums are done, which option do you think will result in greater energy security and a better economic outcome for us ? I know which one I'd be putting money on - and its not the one that involves spending another 30 years fighting in Iraq and wherever else oil can be found.

Update: Apparently Johnny is now saying that oil has nothing to do with it after all. Oh well - for a brief moment I thought we might be able to consider what our options are in a reasoned way - once again I wasn't being cynical enough. Back to hibernating I go...

From The Age - "Nelson: Oil a factor in Iraq deployment".

The Howard Government has today admitted that securing oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq. Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war, as "energy security" and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future. Speaking ahead of today's key foreign policy speech by Prime Minister John Howard, Dr Nelson said defence was about protecting the economy as well as physical security.

Dr Nelson also said it was important to support the "prestige" of the US and UK. "The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them," he told ABC radio. "The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world. ...

Dr Nelson said the primary reason for Australian troops remaining in Iraq was to prevent violence between the Sunni and Shia population, and to bring stability to the region. "We're also there to support our key ally - that's the United States of America - and we're there to ensure that we don't have terrorism driven from Iraq which would destabilise our own region," he said. "For all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests... to make sure we leave the Middle East and leave Iraq in particular in a position of sustainable security." Isolationism would not make Australia safer, he said.

When Australia joined the US-led invasion force of Iraq in 2003, the Government said it was primarily because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could pose a threat to the US and its allies.

Mr Rudd, who spoke to journalists after delivering a speech to the Lowy Institute on tackling the root causes of terrorism, said it had been a mistake to send troops into Iraq. "Mr Howard should follow Labor's lead and have a clear cut exit strategy from Iraq," he said. "Australia's involvement in the Iraq war continues to make Australia a greater terrorism target than we'd otherwise be."

Charles Richardson at Crikey reports "The Iraq backflip theory takes a blow".

Remember how the Howard government's WorkChoices backflip worked earlier this year? First, a prominent newspaper story saying that a policy switch was being planned. Then a prompt government denial. Wait a couple of weeks, then the announcement of pretty much what the original story had alleged.

This week, speculation has been intense that a similar process was under way on Iraq. There were the stories of a government plan for troop withdrawal; first raised last week, then alleged more definitely in The Sunday Telegraph. Denials were prompt and unconvincing.

But today - assuming that this morning's reports of his speech on defence policy are correct - the Prime Minister will depart from the script by nailing his colors more firmly to the Iraqi mast. As The Age puts it, he will explain that "Australia must remain committed in Iraq for years to come."

It could of course be a magician's trick - the more the policy is built up beforehand, the more dramatic the eventual reversal will appear, and therefore the more electoral impact it might have. But for a prime minister whose negatives centre on the idea that he is tricky and calculating, that would seem a reckless, even foolhardy move.

More likely, in my view, today's announcement is genuine. Howard really does intend to "stay the course", a policy that has been abandoned by informed opinion in almost every corner of the world. Only the inner core of the Bush administration remains committed to the policy of strategic suicide in Iraq, but Howard promises to be loyal to the bitter end.

Since none of the previous justifications for this policy make any sense, Howard is throwing a new ingredient into the debate - "the need to safeguard the world's oil supplies." But not only does this confirm some of the arguments of the anti-war camp, it fails to add anything to the arguments about stability and terrorism. If the occupation is making things worse rather than better, then that goes for oil as much as anything else. ...

The Herald Sun report was "Greens slam PM for Iraq oil admission".

"Prime Minister John Howard's belated admission that the invasion of Iraq is linked to the major stake of energy dependency underlines his dishonesty in 2003,'' Senator Brown said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein's oil, not weapons of mass destruction, was in the Bush-Blair-Howard mindset in this monumental mistake which has cost a reported 67,000 civilian lives.

"It has boosted global terrorism and undermined Australia's homeland security. "Mr Howard has put oil corporations' interests ahead of Australians' domestic security.''

One more from Crikey (Crikey's Blogwatch also points to "An Onymous Lefty on "Oh, alright, it is about the oil") :

We cast our minds back to February 7, 2003. The Prime Minister, on the brink of Australia's commitment of forces to Iraq, is in conversation with 3AW host Neil Mitchell.

MITCHELL: Prime Minister, has oil got anything to do with this conflict?

PRIME MINISTER: No I don't believe for a moment it has.

What a difference three and a half years can make. This today from the online pages of The Australian:

Securing oil a factor for war in Iraq, says Nelson

The government has admitted the need to secure oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war, as "energy security" and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future.

Speaking ahead of a key foreign policy speech today by Prime Minister John Howard, Dr Nelson said defence was about protecting the economy as well as physical security, and it was important to support the "prestige" of the US and UK.

Best not to mention Weapons of Mass Destruction.

From Johnny's about face on the story - The Age reports "PM denies Iraq-oil link".

Prime Minister John Howard today denied he had admitted that oil was behind his decision to keep Australian troops in Iraq. Mr Howard said it was "stretching it a bit" to interpret comments by either himself or Defence Minister Brendan Nelson as meaning that the war on Iraq was about petrol prices.

But federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and minor parties said the government had finally admitted that oil was behind Australia's decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq - one of the world's largest producers of crude oil.

Dr Nelson told ABC Radio this morning that the Middle East was an important supplier of oil and Australians had to consider what would happen if troops withdrew prematurely. And Mr Howard told a strategic conference in Canberra that energy demand was one of the reasons for establishing a stable, democratic Iraq. He later denied that he or Dr Nelson had said troops were staying in Iraq to protect the western world's oil supply.

"I had a look at what Brendan said and I think in fairness to him he didn't quite say that," Mr Howard told Macquarie Radio. "I haven't said in my speech that the reason we went to Iraq is oil or the reason we're staying there is oil. "We are not there because of oil and we didn't go there because of oil. We don't remain there because of oil. Oil is not the reason."

The BBC reported "Australia 'has Iraq oil interest'" (the story seemed to get pretty wide coverage around the world in fact).

In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region. "Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said. "Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq. "It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security."

This is thought to be the first time the Australian government has admitted any link between troop deployment in Iraq and securing energy resources.

The BBC also reports that the prize itself may almost be within reach - claiming that the "Iraqi cabinet backs draft oil law", though there still seems to be a lot of resistance.

Iraq's government has approved an amended draft law on how to share the country's oil wealth, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said. Mr Maliki said the bill, which will now be passed to parliament to be debated, was the "most important law in Iraq".

However, the cabinet is yet to endorse deals such as revenue sharing and the creation of a national oil company. In addition, a parliamentary boycott by some Sunni and Shia factions is expected to slow the bill's passage.

The US has been pressing Iraq to pass an oil law, as part of efforts to promote reconciliation among the country's religious and ethnic groups.

But the BBC's Jim Muir, in Baghdad, says that Iraqi politics is in greater disarray than at any time since the 2003 invasion, and the bill's progress is unlikely to be smooth.

Despite assurances from Mr Maliki that the bill will be debated in parliament shortly, all Sunni factions and the 30 MPs allied to radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr are boycotting the chamber. In addition, rival groups - including Kurdish factions - also disagree on key elements of the bill.

Oil ministry spokesman Assim Jihad said different groups had "varied views on the role of the state-run oil company, the ministry, and on discovered and undiscovered oil fields"

Hmmm - about those "undiscovered" fields - who gets to define what is "undiscovered"...

In other oil news... [The rest of Big Gav's post is devoted to other subjects.]