I do not usually respond to comments because I think it is important to let the readers of the site have "the last word." But today, because I am in an exceptionally foul mood (and this is the reason why), I decided to break my own rules. Hey, I can do this if I want. So here goes.
Jay Reding says (and Oedipus agrees) that our involvement in Iraq is not about oil, that it is about "preventing Sadaam Hussein from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. It's about removing Hussein's boot from the necks of the Iraqi people, and only after those considerations does oil come into play."
To a certain extent they are both right. And I support this endeavor (however tentatively). But in a larger sense they are wrong, very, very wrong.
What is the underlying rationale and need for removing Sadaam Hussein and his weapons from the Middle East? So that he cannot dominate the Middle East and threaten our vital interests, right?
And what are our vital interests?
Any guesses?
Our vital interest is that the free flow of OIL through the Strait of Hormuz remains just that, free.
Now, what I am not saying is that this war is about "getting or stealing Sadaam's oil" in particular. It is not, regardless of what the knee-jerk pacifist left says.
What I am saying is that this war is about insuring that the oil, all the oil from the Middle East without which our economies go down the tubes, continues to flow. And anyone who says differently is wilfully ignorant or cannot admit the truth. Or both.
We rely on this oil--it is a vital necessity for our economy. Our allies rely on this oil. The gloabl economic order relies on this oil. What better definition of vital is there?
So, now that we have this argument summed up, will some one please answer the question I asked earlier?
If wars demand sacrifice, why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
Any takers now that I have clarified the question?
If I can be honest so can you.
Posted by Sean-Paul @ 11/22/2002 10:43 PM
| TrackBack
Comments:
Well, I don't think I'm either willfully ignorant or in denial.
Oil is by far the least important reason we're fighting. Period.
That oil is not vital for our economy. And to whatever extent oil matters, it's almost entirely due to the money Saddam gets for having it, rather than anything to do with our economy.
I further believe that not one single effort at raising mileage standards will do so much as reduce our oil consumption by 1%.
I believe oil is a triviality in this discussion.
I'll write more about this on my blog when I have time. Maybe this weekend. :-)
Dean
Posted by: Dean Esmay on November 23, 2002 12:00 AM
"Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?"
To be blunt - we aren't asking our military to die we are asking them to do their job. Unfortunately, sometimes it means death. Many jobs are high risk: police, firefighters, FBI, etc. Goes with the territory.
Raising mileage standards will negatively impact our economy and won't happen before Saddam does serious damage. Also, you are suggesting restricting our freedom of choice. Curbing gas usage during a shortage would be a sacrifice for war time. Not eliminating our freedoms.
You're all right. We will be going to war to keep Hussein from getting nukes, but the only reason we care is his location (note our unwillingness to confront North Korea on the same issue). If Hussein wasn't sitting in the middle of most of the world's oil supply, then we really wouldn't care if he dominated the area or not. Since he is, we care a lot.
While conserving gas wouldn't make much of a short-term difference, it would mean a lot long term. Not only would it make the middle east less important to our economy, but it would reduce the amount of oil money available to support terrorism.
Oil is not a justification to intervene in Iraq. Neither is intervention merely based on the fact that Iraq is seeking and eventually will have nuclear weapons. For other countries that seek nuclear weapons, we uusually resort to other means to convince them that they do not need them. Diplomacy and economic methods are effective tools.
The problem with Iraq is that they do not negotiate in good faith. They said they would abandon their nuclear weapons program, and then, a few years later, we have defectors telling us they're right back at it.
Any state that has a nuke is dangerous. What makes Iraq special is its devotion to terrorism. We know Iraq has sponsored many acts of terrorism. We know that they continue to sponsor terrorism up until the present day. We know that Iraq trained Al Qaeda agents. We know Al Qaeda has units in Iraq. We know an Al Qaeda commander received medical treatment in Iraq after the Afghanistan campaign. We know that Al Qaeda has been especially active this autumn, while the world debated the merits of intervening against the Saddam Hussein regime.
The evidence is enough to go to war today. For reasons of international security, it is preferable that international organization such as the UN, NATO, and the Arab League endorse or at least do not condemn any intervention. Thus, Iraq must be given a final chance to disarm itself. For any reasonable leader, it would be an offer worth considering. Saddam Hussein can't consider it, however, because his regime rests on rule by fear. Based on their previous behavior, we know they will try to deceive the inspectors. Saddam believes he must have his WMD, and he will never give them up.
If Saddam Hussein does turn over all his weapons, it's likely that his regime will be destabilized. If Saddam Hussein does not turn them over, he will be deposed by the US Army. In other words, the people of Iraq should now be preparing to liberate themselves.
Russia and France will each have input on how to handle Iraq's existing resources. The bottom line is, however, that Iraq has been producing only a fraction of the oil that it could be. In other words, after liberation, Iraq will be pumping a lot more oil. A lot of oil companies from a lot of countries will benefit.
Some left-wingers have said that this intervention in Iraq is designed to limit the influence of OPEC. Well, no, it isn't, but if that was one side-effect, would that be so bad? I think not.
Posted by: Andrew Hagen on November 23, 2002 01:00 PM
We're going to war against Iraq for oil, and that's all there is to it.
If we were concerned about those fabled weapons of mass destruction, we'd be making war on a country more likely to be developing them, like North Korea.
If our government cared at all about the lives and freedoms of Middle-Eastern people, we'd be intervening in a dozen countries where the government oppresses the citizens.
We picked Iraq because they're vulnerable and oil rich.
Take a look at the people who contributed the most money to put Bush/Cheney into office. Take a look at Bush/Cheney's networks of oil company interests.
North Korea has shown a willingness to negotiate. Iraq has not. Bush's policy toward North Korea is not yet coherent. I believe Bush will eventually be forced to improve upon the Agreed Framework.
So, yes, it is about WMD, and particularly nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Andrew Hagen on November 26, 2002 02:46 PM
It's no question that there is a varying degree of US ambition for engagement between the NK and Iraq. No current links between extremist groups and North Korean diplomats have surfaced thus far in the events unfolding in the farther east. The fact alone that an actiive muslim terror organization is allegedly in contact with Iraq in 2003 is the number 1 reason why the white house feels that time is more of the essence in the Middle East than South Korea...not solely because of Texas Tea. It is certainly enough to put this crisis at the friont burner of the US defense hotstove.
