[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That said, we didn’t go over there to get our hands on their oil, to control their oil, or any of that other crap that gets floated (not saying you floated it).
[/quote]
That’s right. We invaded Iraq not to take or control the oil, but just to free it up. It was sitting in the ground - the second largest proven reserves in the world - with Saddam on top of it and the sanctions on top of that. It couldn’t do anyone any good down there. It was vital that this oil find its way to market. If a bunch of American oil firms got first shot on a bunch of leases, so much the better. If the Saudis got second-sourced a bit, so much the better.
Petroleum price spikes are very bad for western-style economies. Such spikes come about because of interruptions in supply in one part of the world or another (e.g. Venezuela a little while back). About a year after one of these price spikes the blowback hits the automobile and aircraft industries, and all their suppliers in turn shortly after that. In the meantime the increased price of fuel works sort of like an extra tax on everything, but especially food. If your economy is already in a weakened state, an oil price spike is a real recovery killer.
At the current time, there is very little reserve petroleum production capacity to be thrown into any gap and make up for interruptions in production here or there around the world. In fact, we are right now in the middle of an oil price spike, although it may not have a distinct finishing downturn like previous spikes because it is superimposed on top of a continuing acceleration in global demand for oil.
Saddam, with a known track record for seeking WMDs, had a very large conventional army, even if it did get its ass kicked in ‘91 by Stormin’ Norman. It was enough to make the neighbors nervous. Speaking of interruptions in petroleum production, Saddam acted pretty crazed, so another Kuwait or worse could have been the result of not keeping the sanctions screwed down tight. But the sanctions were slipping because everybody, especially some Europeans, wanted to get rights to produce Iraqi oil. So there was a lot of talk about “smart sanctions”, which you can just tell from the name probably wouldn’t have worked too well. So it’s not exactly like the situation was long term stable.
This is how I see the wind-up to the war. Yes, it is about oil. That merely means it is about our very way of life itself. Yes, we’re a bunch of petroleum junkies. The way you can tell is by how much denial there is about it! Still, a year ago it would not have been possible to have this conversation here.
The interests are clear enough. After all, in the end the interests are supposed to map onto your interests, right? And it’s drop dead clear, isn’t it: you and I need cheap, abundant oil. Not to mention just at the moment the US economy needs a little stimulating (with real spending, unlike the tax cuts).
It’s only because of politics in this country that everything gets murky. Even if on the numbers the invasion was not such a bad trade-off, still you can’t tell a bunch of denial-sunken oil addicts you’re sending their troops over there to fight for cheaper oil (read: prosperity and avoiding global depression). Not if you or your mates ever want to get reelected. Hence the war is about everything and anything but oil.
So they tell horror stories about WMDs and terror tie-ins, and then fairy tales about spreading democracy. If Gore had won the 2000 election he would have had to do pretty much the same things, and tell similar lies to get the job done. Clinton did what he could to hasten Saddam’s demise short of sending the troops in. But all that prelude including the sanctions failed to do the job so it was time to get a larger hammer. We all do what we have to in order to survive.
It’s hilarious to me to watch the ditto-heads strut up and down mouthing platitudes about bringing democracy to the Middle East. If that had been our objective - after many decades of doing precisely the opposite - there were plenty better ways to do it than invading Iraq. After strutting they all climb back into their SUVs and head home.
I’m a realist, so I reserve my blaming not for the fact the Bushies started the war, but how badly they planned and executed the follow up. Disbanding the Iraqi army was such a cock-up, especially combined with low-balling the troop commitment. The one or the other might have flown, but both at the same time were a fatal mistake. The current situation and massive loss of life need not have happened.
The other thing I’m blaming them for is not leading the country toward energy conservation. That omission was very much against the national interest. Try squaring the energy bill giveaway extravaganza with US interests.
Point is, even a deeper understanding of US interests is not necessarily going to lead you toward a better understanding of the current administration’s policy choices.
As for Iran, let it go. Just redefine the triggers for mutual assured destruction: any suitcase bomb goes off anywhere and the mullahs and musharraf and dear leader all get the nuclear treatment on the same glorious day. We’ve lived with this scenario before.