BLOOD FOR OIL

U.S. TROOPS SHOULD NOT GUARD THESE OIL OPERATIONS

Congress voted before going into recess earlier this month to double
the number of U.S. forces in Colombia. The purpose, unfortunately, is
to make more areas of the country safe for exploration by American oil
companies including Harken Energy, President Bush's former firm.

U.S. military involvement in Colombia started years ago with the
objective of helping the government suppress narcotics production and
marketing, as part of the war on drugs in the United States. That
effort became inevitably involved with the Colombian government's own
40-year civil war with rebel forces.

The mission of the U.S. military was expanded two years ago to include
training, supporting and equipping the Colombian troops who are
protecting a 500-mile pipeline operated by Occidental Petroleum, based
in Los Angeles.

Now, under pressure from American oil companies wishing to expand
their production, U.S. forces will double from 400 to 800 and support
Colombian forces that protect the activities of U.S. companies. These
include not only Harken Energy, but also Argosy Energy International
of Houston, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco.

The United States will provide helicopters, training, planning and
surveillance; Colombian forces will supply most of the manpower.

The argument for expanding the role of the U.S. military is that
America needs to increase and diversify its foreign sources of oil. A
stabilized Colombia is beneficial to the United States because not
only does it keep the oil pipeline open but it also helps cut the flow
of narcotics.

But the argument against this Bush administration action is much more
compelling. It uses public funds to support the aims of private
companies. It is particularly questionable at a time when 135,000
American troops are fighting in Iraq and another 20,000 in
Afghanistan.

If one of the 800 U.S. soldiers in Colombia were to be killed, just to
increase the access of American companies to Colombian oil, it would
be impossible to justify the loss. The soldier's loved ones would not
be likely to buy the idea that the need for cheaper gas and profit for
U.S. oil companies is worth the life of an American soldier. They
would be entirely right.