Iraq: All about the Oil?

[Undesired Walrus]

Often, many of my friends cannot see anything past the Oil of Iraq as the main motive for this war.

I'm amazed. Should I be?

 

[Puppycow]

Stupidity and hubris. Oil comes a distant third.

 

[Oliver]

Often, many of my friends cannot see anything past the Oil of Iraq as the main motive for this war.

I'm amazed. Should I be?

1. "Machoism"
2. Strategic military influence
3. Lobby agendas
4. Oil
5. Saddam "pain in the ass" Hussein

.
.
.
.
.

6. WMWhat? / Terrorwhatism?

 

[Crossbow]

The only reason that I have found for this war that consistently makes sense is that Bush the younger wanted to firmly bond with his dad Bush the elder.

 

[Almo]

Oil is the main motive. Not the ONLY motive. But the main one.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

But... really? Is there a shred of evidence?

 

[Tricky]

Oil was certainly one motive, but I doubt that it was the main motive. I'm guessing Shrub's thinking went something like this:

"It's a no-lose proposition. We get to avenge Daddy, knock off a scary and brutal dictator, establish a friendly base in the Middle East, and the bonus is that the whole thing is paid for by the oil there. Oh yeah, and that terrorist thingie too."

 

[casebro]

Oil is a commodity that is traded on the world market. If the Iraqis wouldn't sell it to us- say they sold it to Russia instead- then the oil that the Russians didn't buy would be available to us. So Iraq's oil is not the point on that plane. And Saddam was selling his oil anyhow, via the crooked oil-for-food system.

However, desired stability in the region is a factor. Especially if one looks ahead to after the oil runs out. What are all those people going to do to participate in a world economy when that have no assets that the world will trade for?

It's the economy, Stupid. People with jobs and dreams, confidence in the future, don't become suicide bombers. It was the economy that was the root of Nazism, likewise Communism. Now Islamic Extremism.

Here in America, we have a large Islamic population. But no suicide bombers. Except for a couple exported from the mid-east. Hey, guys who make a good living running a convenience store don't see any need to end it all, regardless of the number of virgins promised in the afterlife.

 

[Oliver]

Well, my main question still is:


"How can it be possible that the public doesn't really know the answer???????????"


This is far beyond my democratic understanding - I can't find an answer that would explain it to me in terms of my countries democracy in which this would be the primary question BEFORE any military interventions.

 

[Segnosaur]

Oil is a commodity that is traded on the world market. If the Iraqis wouldn't sell it to us- say they sold it to Russia instead- then the oil that the Russians didn't buy would be available to us. So Iraq's oil is not the point on that plane. And Saddam was selling his oil anyhow, via the crooked oil-for-food system.

I do have to agree here...

I'd also add another point... if the main U.S. motivation was about oil, why didn't they just make a deal with Saddam? Tell him they'd get the sanctions lifted if he'd sell to them. After all, the U.S. certainly has had economic dealings with dictators before.

It's the economy, Stupid. People with jobs and dreams, confidence in the future, don't become suicide bombers.

Here's where I have to disagree...

Remember, bin Laden was not a poor person, and the hijackers involved in 9/11 were middle class people. (And while there may be various revolutions and oppressive governments in poorer areas like Latin America or Africa, they tend not to result in what we'd classify as 'terrorist' activity.)

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's the economy, Stupid. People with jobs and dreams, confidence in the future, don't become suicide bombers. It was the economy that was the root of Nazism, likewise Communism.

Whilst I agree with the majority of what you are saying, this is simply daft. The Attempted Glasgow and London bombers were NHS doctors. Most Islamists in extremists groups in Britain are bankers, CEOs, estate angents and so on. The alleged ringleader of the transatlantic liquid bomb plotters was the head of a group at the London Metropolitan University.

 

[Broes]

Well... the 3 main reasons I have heard were:

1) Saddam is a dictator
When you consider that there are at least 50+ other dictators out there, I fail to see why those other dictators are not removed from power.

2) Iraq has WMD
WMD... well probably a dead horse... Apart from the fact that Iraq did no have them, there are plenty dictatorships out there of whom we KNOW that they have access to WMD. Those countries are not invaded...

3) Iraq has ties with Al-Qaida
Again, this was never proven and only the white house seemed to have believed this.


I seriously doubt that there would have been any war if Iraq would have only produced bananas...

 

[Cain]

I know it will be tempting to vote "a bit more complicated," but other important motives are basically reducible to oil. For instance:

However, desired stability in the region is a factor.

And why is stability in that particular region so important? Oil. It's the life-blood of the world economy. The oil shocks of the 70s brought that home for most Americans. For those who want to glory in taking a more complicated and sophisticated stance, unlike the simpletons spouting oil, then feel free to cite all the other important reasons motivating the administration.

Especially if one looks ahead to after the oil runs out. What are all those people going to do to participate in a world economy when that have no assets that the world will trade for?

I highly, highly doubt this administration went in with that in mind. I doubt they have even imagined the possibility of a world without oil, let alone what the consequences would mean for the Middle East.

Let's be clear about what main motive means. If we were to construct a pie-chart (for example) would "main motive" translate into "more important than all other factors combined" (i.e., >50%)?

I suppose someone could make a compelling case that the Bush administration is SO incompetent that it was not even aware of its own motives. After all, claiming this is about control of oil (over the long term) suggests a rationally self-interested motive when elite opinion was strongly divided. Wasn't the first Gulf War mostly about oil and Bush Sr. (supposedly) and Sowcroft (definitely) opposed this misadventure. It's always possible that the best reason for doing something is not the main reason somebody actually does it. Documents from the State Department going back sixty years talk about how the oil in the Middle East constitutes a "stupendous material prize" that will empower whoever controls it. Cheney has talked about how other countries use oil to "intimidate" and "blackmail." Well, isn't it also true the U.S. could use oil in the same manner?

In the end I do not think it matters what the motivation(s) were apart from the increasingly recognizable fact that they were not in any sense noble. Whether their intentions were rationally self-interested or not, their execution was totally incompetent.

I like how Broes identifies and dismisses three reasons often cited. I would suggest people look up an op-ed Nixon wrote for the NYT during the first Gulf War. He quickly dispenses with morality, "next Hitler" and democracy building to say the U.S. needs to intimidate others into submission and get control of oil.

 

[Solitaire]

"How can it be possible that the public doesn't really know the answer?"

Hands Oliver this Transcript.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well... the 3 main reasons I have heard were:

1) Saddam is a dictator
When you consider that there are at least 50+ other dictators out there, I fail to see why those other dictators are not removed from power.

2) Iraq has WMD
WMD... well probably a dead horse... Apart from the fact that Iraq did no have them, there are plenty dictatorships out there of whom we KNOW that they have access to WMD. Those countries are not invaded...

It could be that Iraq was attacked (while other countries were left unaffected) due to pragmatic reasons. Some countries with dictatorships my not be invaded because they are too strong militarily (e.g. North Korea). Others may not be invaded because there is a good chance the dictator will loose power eventually (e.g. Iran). Or perhaps some dictators simply aren't "bad" enough to risk an invasion.

3) Iraq has ties with Al-Qaida
Again, this was never proven and only the white house seemed to have believed this.

Keep in mind that Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group around. Saddam publilcally gave financial support to Palistinians involved in suicide bombings, and also provided assistance to groups like Abu Nidal. In fact, one of the many U.N resolutions involving Iraq specifically pointed out their terrororist links.

Basically, the argument that "Saddam had no link to Al Qaeda" is a straw man... there is more than enough evidence to label Iraq (under Saddam) as a 'terror-supporting nation' without involving Al Qaeda.

I seriously doubt that there would have been any war if Iraq would have only produced bananas...

Probably not.. after all, with the price of Bananas, Saddam wouldn't have been able to afford all the weapons that he had.

 

[Badger]

I'd recommend Linda McQuaig's "It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil, and the Fight for the Planet"

It also helps me understand why Iran's next.

Oh, and why Rudi G will be your next president.

 

[Tumblehome]

"How can it be possible that the public doesn't really know the answer???????????"

If Bush had simply said he's invading Iraq for the oil, the American public probably wouldn't have supported it. It had to be made to look like something else, like "pre-emptive strike against terrorism", or "freeing an oppressed people", "spreading democracy", all those good things.

As Kissinger and Rove and Cheney will tell you, voters can't be trusted to make the right decisions.

 

[UserGoogol]

Well, my main question still is:

"How can it be possible that the public doesn't really know the answer???????????"

This is far beyond my democratic understanding - I can't find an answer that would explain it to me in terms of my countries democracy in which this would be the primary question BEFORE any military interventions.

Wars aren't "for" anything, they simply are. Some people want them for some reasons, and some people want them for other reasons. The question of why Bush wanted the war is frankly his business, and not relevant to the democratic process. Historically, it would be nice to know what the hell he was thinking, since it does seem profoundly plausible that the reasons initially given for the war (Saddam being a serious and immediate threat to the United States) were by all appearances used merely as a means to an end, but there's nothing undemocratic about not knowing what the real reasons were.

Politics is about persuasion. Every law ever passed is promoted for reasons that might not be the politicians own motives. Why should they mention their motives?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, and why Rudi G will be your next president.

The prospect of that coming to pass is reason enough for 49 other states to secede from the Union, or at least throw New York out on it arse and let it be its own country. It might also be catalyst for Connecticut and Mass to merge, and to then soak Rhode Island into them to form a state, instead of two oversized, and one average sized, counties.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Often, many of my friends cannot see anything past the Oil of Iraq as the main motive for this war.

I'm amazed. Should I be?

Sicily.

It's All About the (Olive) Oil
-- Thucydides, commenting to Athenian nobles on Alcibiades Expedition to Sicily during the Peloponnesian War.