Alan Greenspan: Iraq War Was About Oil
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
My reaction? Well of course the Iraq war was about oil. How can you begin a war in the region where the entire world gets most of its essential fuel supply without it being about oil, at least in part? The thing is that it isn’t as simple as the Bush-went-to-war-for-his-oil-buddies rhetoric the left spouts, and I’m sure Greenspan probably makes that point (though that will undoubtedly get lost in the shuffle over the gloating in anti-war circles about Greenspan “admitting” to a war for oil).
Would anyone care about the middle east were it not for the oil that’s there? Probably not. Nor would many countries in the middle east pose the threat they do to global security. Without the trillions of dollars that have flown into that region to buy oil much of the Islamic jihad we’re seeing today wouldn’t have funding. The middle east would be little more than desert interrupted occasionally by an oasis or two and the random roving band of goat herds. It is what it is today because of oil.
And with the entire free world dependent on that oil, can any responsible world leader be blamed for taking the security of that supply seriously? Self-righteous types can carp about “war for oil” in the middle east, but what do you think they’d be complaining about if they were suddenly denied all of the convenience oil provides us with?
Did Bush and/or Tony Blair talk about oil much when making their case for war? No. But who can blame them? It’s a practical standpoint to have (our economy would collapse if global markets were suddenly cut off from middle eastern oil), but not politically tenable given the widespread appeal of shallow “war for oil” arguments.
Let me put it this way: We’re in the middle east to stabilize the region. We want to stabilize the region because a) Islamic terrorism has its roots there and b) we’re dependent on the oil. We are stabilizing the region by opposing tyrannical and fundamentalist groups that would oppress the people and promote instability.
What’s so wrong with that?
