No War For Oil?
DAILY PUNDIT
By Bill Quick on Islamofascism
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil - Times Online
"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."
i hope he's right. And defending US energy supplies is not the worst reason to go to war I've ever heard. Keep in mind this is a bit different rationale than the leftist antiwarriors offer. It wasn't a matter of "stealing" Saddam's oil - there was no need to do that, since the US could simply have bought it from Saddam on the open market a hell of a lot more cheaply than invading Iraq for it. It was a matter of preventing Saddam from gaining nuclear weapons, and then taking control of Kuwaiti and Saudi oil, and conceivably Iranian oil as well. That would have precipitated an energy crisis for the entire western world, not just the US, although from the craven assumptions of the Euros - that they could deal with the devil Saddam even if he did have them simultaneously by the throat and the balls - made it seem as if they didn't think he was a threat.
That said, I've long assumed that Saudi fear of the Iraqi threat was a, if not the, prime mover behind Bush's decision to make Saddam target number one after Afghanistan. If that is the case, perhaps Saudi fear of a nuclear Iran in control of Iraq will lead them to pressure Bush to take out the Mullahs before he leaves office.
Then the next President can take on the Oilbags and the Wahabbist serpent they nurture in their, um, bosoms. |
