Let me run this idea past ya’ll and then you can tell me why it doesn’t make sense.
First off, I’m extremely suspicious of the Bush administration for a boatload of reasons but I’m beginning to think my suspicions are pointing me towards the wrong conclusions.
The invasion of Iraq isn’t about WMD, it’s about oil. Iraq is the second largest oil reserve in OPEC and deterrence was good enough for Stalin (who was twice as crazy and a hundred times the threat Saddam is). That’s been pretty obvious from the beginning but my suspicions led me to assume this is soley for the benefit of the domestic oil industry. Maybe it’s not.
The Saudis are not our friends. Despite everything the administration may have claimed, this is pretty clearly true. The House of Saud may not be enemies either but they have created the conditions for global Islamicist extremism to thrive by funding Wahibism and by spreading anti-American sentiment throughout the Gulf region (with the goal of diverting discontent from themselves to Israel and her American patron). There are elements in the administration, public face aside, that seem to agree.
The combatting the root causes of terrorism (poor eduction, limited opportunities for advancement, dictatorial regimes, externalized blame, religious extremism) is the only way to defeat terrorism. The administration seems to hold the view that attacking any country with remote ties to terrorism, aside from useful friends, is the key to success (which would probably only generate more terrorists in the long run). As above, there may be more to this seeming divergence from reality than meets the eye.
Let’s say the policy makers in the Bush administration do, actually, understand the reality of the situation. If they confronted issues of democratization, modernization, and liberalization head on they would simply get nowhere, or possibly worse, trigger oil price hikes, and boycotts, by OPEC members as a hostile response. They’d probably also have to confront some embarrasing hypocrisy (such as social root causes actually contributing to behavior rather than just pure, good old, morality or our own very selective history of backing dictators and eliminating troublesome democracies that weren’t friendly) that wouldn’t help American political conservatives and vested business interests very much. Can’t alienate the base. Can’t let ourselves, or the world, be held hostage for oil either. And along these same lines a direct military confrontation with Saudi Arabia would also be disasterous.
So we have to say The Saudis are our friends while looking for another reserve. Say, how about Iraq? If we get ahold of those oil reserves we’ll be able to dictate the price of oil. Not only for our own commercial benefit (though we should be aware of the potential for abuse there) but as a weapon to influence our oil producing friends in the region. If they don’t behave and modernize we’ll simply jack production and lower the price of oil. Now we don’t have to admit anything politically unacceptable to our conservative base but we’ll really be in a position to demand regional democratization (along neoconservative lines). Perhaps not in Iraq, right away, for a host of reasons but elsewhere at first. If the Arab street hasn’t already exploded into an anti-American frenzy (and, frankly, we don’t know what will happen one way or the other - there was no frenzy after we took Afghanistan) they may well realize that their interests and ours coincide. A happy, content, middle east is a middle east that doesn’t need to feel insecure or hostile towards the rest of the world. Religious extremism and anti-American, anti-Israeli, sentiments and propoganda are simply pressure valves for deeper frustrations the Arab people feel towards their environment - even if they don’t realize it.
We are culpable here, in some ways, nearly as much as the Saudis and other regimes as we’ve supported them unquestioningly as long as the oil kept flowing. While I don’t expect any deep, public, introspection from this administration I’m beginning to think they might be on the right track. Unless I’m simply imagining things that aren’t there.
I’m not sure that oil is the primary mover here. I think that Bush has a personal grievance about Saddam (“He tried to kill my dad”) and sees a domestic constituency receptive to taking him out. WMD are an issue, though the imminent threat posed by Iraq is no greater than that posed by Pakistan, North Korea or Iran. Bush has been beating the Iraq drum in foreign policy for quite some time - it’s not really a “new” issue - but now he has a willing audience.
Your argument assumes that a new American sponsored regime in Iraq would be willing to accept US diktats on the price of oil. This is by no means clear - after all, other American sponsored regimes in the area (Kuwait, Qatar, etc.) set their oil production with no consultation with Washington. Considering the infrastructure damage that any war would inflict on the cities and industrial centers of Iraq, it could be some time before oil production would be significant enough to affect American prices.
Besides, until the UN says so, Iraq’s oil sales are restricted and any lifting of this embargo would send revenues straight back into reconstruction. Quicker reconstruction means shorter occupation, so there will an incentive not to disrupt oil prices too severely.
Oh come on now Rucker, there isn’t anyone in the administration with ties to the oil industry… is there?
FWIW I don’t believe this is entirely about oil. I think it’s a factor, but I think it’d be a factor for any administration. The suspiscion sticks, however, because of the administration’s bold moves regarding ANWR and other “energy” issues over the past couple years. This is also about oil, I think, because Saddam is not just a crazy dictator, he’s a crazy dictator with an unlimited cash reserve underneath his sandpile. Who knows how dangerous he would be right now had he not invaded Kuwait and inspired the sanctions?
I don’t think it’s about oil. I think it’s paranoia about WMD and a grudge.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re suggesting that the US wants to occupy or govern Iraq (how else would we have complete access to their oil?), but I really don’t think that the administration wants that. The US has come to fear, since Vietnam, casualties and long-term foreign commitments.
If the US believed it could easily and cheaply (in human life) control Iraq’s oil then sure, that scenario makes sense. But I just don’t think anyone in the military or government sees it that way–casualties are bad for ratings.
I think your argument is also too long term in its scope for a US administration. It’s something that would take years to implement, several office terms I would think, and I don’t believe that politicians think like that.
But it is a nice dream–peace in the middle east. I wonder if it will ever happen.
Warning, warning: Possible democrat, liberal, or libertarian detected.
All in the vicinity please evacuate immediately.[/quote]
If you think that anyone resembling a libertarian subscribes to that shit, I would like to ask you to check out our stance at http://www.lp.org/ and learn for yourself. We want government out of your lives more than your precious republican leaders do.
That was right out of the left field. Making personal attacks now, Jeff?
And yes, I am a Bush fan. But not in that sense. I want to keep him in office just to keep seeing him blunder. Strip him of the powers, but damn, is he good. Like a retarded version of Rodney Dangerfield who doesn’t realize everyone’s laughing -at- him.
Remember that America didn’t vote for Bush, he was sort of pushed onto us by the electoral college.
Either way, I could give a rats ass less what you’re anti or not, or whether he was elected or not. The guy’s a fucking moron. He shouldn’t be President. But is it just not fucking funny that he is? I find it so.
Two possible alternative motives are the boost in popularity that usually applies to a wartime president, and the economic recovery that historically follows on the heels of wartime. Iraq may indeed pose a valid threat, but I imagine the side-effects of war are as valuable to the administration as the actual result.
Why don’t you go and read what I said again, voltaic.
If you’ll notice, I was calling Sean one of the three because of his extreme anti-Bush sentiment.[/quote]
So by that rationale, you could have thrown in any old adjectives you wanted since you said “or”. Perhaps he is either democrat, liberal, libertarian, pink, hard-headed, ridden with cancer, or has balls of lightning shooting from his arse. Hey those last four choices may be basically completely retarded, but you did say “or” so we, as readers, ought to know you didn’t really mean them even though you wrote them plain as day.
You’re the only one choosing to make a big deal of it. Didn’t offend you, did I?[/quote]
You’re going to have to work very hard to offend me on anything. On the other hand, I was simply trying to forward some education onto you and other readers about who and what the libertarians really are. Does that offend you?
Not in the least. Just as long as you know I was just using examples off the top of my head, and that I know you were simply trying to educate. All is good in the world.
