A gripe by Maynard
**Scroll after the jump for an update**
Okay, this is one of my pet peeves, and I’d like to straighten it out for good.
Fox is reporting that:
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….
…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.
Is there something shocking or disreputable in this? Greenspan is stating an obvious truth that is acknowledged by all. No, he’s not saying we went to war to steal oil, or anything of the like. But the fact that Iraq sits on or perilously near the lion’s share of global oil reserves made Saddam Hussein’s adventures a threat to the entire world. Saddam aspired to become the region’s top military power, and his ruthless reputation would have effectively made him the world’s oil czar. Instead, thanks to George Bush, this genocidal maniac finished his miserable life at the end of a rope. Anyone that doesn’t see this as a good thing has a screw loose, morally speaking. (Feel free to question whether the war has been properly handled, or to express dismay at the troubled aftermath. These are important questions. But in asking them, never forget that Saddam was one of the biggest monsters on Earth.)
In the first Gulf War, President Bush Sr. was explicitly clear about the role oil played. In his speech of 9/11/90, Bush was quite candid:
Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors — neighbors who control the lion’s share of the world’s remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t (Applause.)
By the way, Fox also reports that…
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.
He is certainly referring to deficits and earmarks and the wobbly dollar. Greenspan is one of those rare straight-shooters in the political arena, and he’s garnered respect from both sides of the aisle.
Additional note from Tammy:
Greenspan has clarified his comments to the Bob Woodward in an article for Monday’s Washington Post. Read the whole article. It really sheds light on a few things.
Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
On Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, President Bush nominated Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, to succeed Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan when he retires in January. Learn more about Bernanke’s background and nomination.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.” […]
Though Greenspan’s book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president’s lack of fiscal discipline and the “dysfunctional government” he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. “They’re not surprised by my conclusions,” he said.
As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.” While he was “reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon,” he added, “my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon.”
I hope your take on this is correct. I have considered Greenspan a reasonable, thoughtful, free-market guy since the days when he put the sax aside and entered public service. The quote seems entirely out of character on first reading.I’m with you on Bush economics. He did one right thing by cutting taxes, the payoff on that was huge, but a cut in regulations, spending, and the power& size off the bureaucracy would have supercharged the economy of the world. Sad to say, debate over Iraq has trumped everything else in Washington. Entitlements may succeed where terrorism failed.
Maynard –
I have a minor but very significant disagreement with your analysis. I agree Sadam was a monster and the world is *much* better off with him dead. But you (like the MSM and lefties the world over) grossly over state the significance of OPEC oil. The key to world oil supply and prices is America. When Ronnie reversed Jimmy’s limits on the Elk Hill (out West) oil prices fell from $44 to $20 in 2 years and gas here in Cal fell from $1.72 in 81 to $0.85 in 89. We could drop the oil price to below $15 in 5 years if we did the same thing in Alaska. What is holding us back is the money OPEC pours into our “leaders†via lobbyists. I have mentioned Rudy’s close ties to one OPEC champion – Hugo Chavez – – but it needs to be mentioned again. Because we *can* control the significant marginal oil production of the world and thereby oil prices if only we can find the *will* to do so.
One of the major things that separated Ronnie from all of our leaders the last 100 years is that he had the will to do what was right for humans all over the world and not let OPEC control oil by pretending to be worried about the environment. ANWAR is not about the environment it is about OPEC and it control of oil prices. Check out who has been the biggest supporters of Jimmy’s ban on drilling in Alaska and you will see that they get money from lobbyists and groups that in turn get their money from OPEC. Start at the top with Jimmy but continue with my 2 senators (Boxer, Feinstein) go to Rudy and Teddy and Hillary…
America can control oil prices and keep the price under $20 if America will! We have done it for most of the last century and if we honestly want to we can do it again. Alaska drilling is not about the environment it is about “leaders†getting money from OPEC and selling out America and the rest of the world .
addendum – –
I had first thought this would go without saying but on second and third thoughts I decided it does not.
We can not and should not overlool the close ties the Bush Clan has and has had for 50 years with the Saudis!
It is not just Hillary and Rudy it is all liberal/progressive leaders that protect OPEC.
*** off topic – related to a post by Tammy a few days ago ***
I Just read that GWB will throw conservatives a bone in the new AG. Not Ted olson but a man highly recomended by the 2 CONSERVATIVE senators from NY. The man highly thought of by both Schumer and Clinton is Mukaskey. Like Hillary and Chuck he is from the conservative red state NY.
An you guys thought GWB was a liberal push over!
“NO WAR FOR OIL!!”
By the way, I work next door to my home, and I live in California.
Remember also that Greenspan is a fan of Ayn Rand. In her world the only thing that counts is economic man.
Yep, there’s been close ties between the Bushes and the Saudis. Along with every other President since the formation of the Kingdom. The original love the Saudi heads had for America dates back to the 19th Century, when American missionaries built schools and hospitals on the Arabian Penninsula. Then, when oil was found there, they refused offers from European companies and granted the exploration contracts to American companies.
Rod,
I couldn’t agree with you more.
“Geologists estimate that another 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 50 billion barrels of oil are waiting, yet to be discovered, off the “Lower 48” states. The American Petroleum Institute (API) notes that this is enough oil to replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 59 years. Overall, experts estimate that the undiscovered resources on the federal Outer Continental Shelf that could be recovered with today’s technology are some 420 trillion cubic feet of gas and 77 billion barrels of oil – as much oil as Canada and Mexico combined, and almost three times their gas resources. (Generally, the OCS begins three to nine nautical miles from shore, depending on the state, and extends 200 nautical miles outward.), wrote Mr. Owens in an article titled, “Americas Untapped Oil Supply.â€
http://tinyurl.com/2np4yb
Environmentalists rail against oil exploration in Alaska and off the coast of the U.S. but say nothing about China’s deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into the massive oil reserves less than 50 miles off the coast of Key West, Florida.
I’ve read that these Chinese firms plan to “slant drill†near the Florida Straits. If they are successful, they could tap into the U.S. oil reserves which are estimated at 4.8 billion to 9.3 billion barrels.
I wonder if his wife, Andrea Mitchell of NBC said, “honey you own me one.” 🙂
This seems like a blatently obvious point, but I must mention it: wouldn’t it make much more sense to marginalize these dictators sitting on most of the oil that is left in the world by weaning ourselves off of it? We are set to spend $1 trillion in Iraq. With that amount of money we could have set up an Apollo program for the development and implementation of alternative energy sources that work. Then those people would have no more money and no more power over their people. Not to mention the environmental benefits (believe it or not, but preserving the environment is one of the most important things we can do for our long term survival for a multitude of reasons).
I know people have arguments against current alternative energy sources, and those arguments are all very valid. That is why we need a program to find a viable, practical source or sources. We have the innovative strength and the technological ability, we just need the will to stand up to the oil lobby and politicians. Public financing of elections would help.
Incidentally, we are pretty much at peak oil on earth, meaning that there is less than half of the originalsupply left in the ground. So from this point forward, we can expect the situation between the oil companies, OPEC, Dictators, and our bought-off leaders to get much worse unless we put a stop to it. Drilling here is not going to change that. Even if you think that was a good idea, it would make more sense to leave it in the ground for strategic purposes when the world supply shrinks.
“Is there something shocking or disreputable in this? Greenspan is stating an obvious truth that is acknowledged by all.” No, he isn’t. Can you name a single administration official who’s acknowledged that oil was the prime motivator? How about any nationally known politician of either party? The conquering of Iraq was sold to Americans first by scaring them with Saddam’s WMDs. When that didn’t pan out the new pitch involoved Wilsonian adventurism, spreading freedom and democracy throughout the region. Acknowledging that our invasion was about strategic control of the region’s petroleum was, and is, largely unthinkable in the public realm. That is, in fact, why Mr. Greenspan’s new revelation is making such news today. Fans of what Republicans used to call “realism” (and what most of today’s Republicans call isolationism) were never on board with this bald, obvious power move. Thucydides, Machiavelli et al would be amazed that, for the first time in human history, one nation invaded another in order to help those people. Jesus.