In an article I wrote earlier, I cited crude oil as one factor behind the Iraq War. I received the following criticism, so I looked into the matter a little.
This is a popular conspiracy theory about oil interests. I believe such a thing is impossible. Keiko Sakai, as written, also repeatedly denies in an Iwanami Shinsho book that Iraq could have been attacked for oil, and oil experts at the IEE offer a similar analysis.
The neoconservatives never made acquiring oil their objective. Their aim was to eliminate the mad dog Saddam Hussein and remove the grave threat to global security that would arise if that mad dog joined forces with terrorists. Finally, there was the democratization of the Middle East. The neoconservatives, active believers in democracy fired by their ideals, scoff at such a vulgar purpose for war.
(From JFN-15:2067)
Since it was the middle of the night, I could hardly go out to buy Iraq: War and Occupation, an Iwanami Shinsho book by Keiko Sakai, so I started with Google. What I found makes it clear that the theory is not particularly outlandish. (It is not a theory I discovered; I merely wrote about it because it often appears in news reports and elsewhere.) Here are 2 or 3 examples.
The real reasons Bush went to war — An article in the leading British newspaper The Guardian by a former assistant secretary in the Civil Service. It argues that the motive was to prevent the dollar from falling as a result of crude oil and a shift to the euro as the currency used to trade it.
Bogus Reasons for the Iraq War, by Michael Klare (Professor at Hampshire College in the United States) — Examines why none of the stated reasons—eliminating WMD, fighting terrorism, or spreading liberalism—holds up. (Original text)
Most decisive of all is this statement by Wolfowitz himself, a leading neoconservative figure:
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz – who has already undermined Tony Blair’s position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a “bureaucratic” excuse for war – has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is “swimming” in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”
Well, since he said it himself, it seems safe to conclude that oil was one of the reasons. At the very least, denying that appears difficult.
Links
I will add more below as they become available.
The U.S. Attack on Iraq Without Legitimacy (Teiichi Aoyama) January 4, 2003.
Bogus Reasons for War on Iraq (Michael Klare) January 30, 2003.
The Oil Strategy That Moves the World (Akira Ishii)January, 2003.
Iraqi Oil Exports Denominated in Euros That Terrify the United States (Hiroshi Minoguchi)March 5, 2003
America’s Elusive Intentions: Oil April 13, 2003
Wolfowitz: \”Iraq War Was About Oil\” (George Wright, The Guardian) June 4, 2003.
The Public and Private Faces of the Neoconservatives (Sakai Tanaka)December 14, 2003.
The real reasons Bush went to war (John Chapman, The Guardian) July 28, 2004.
Related posts
Pipeline Blaze Shuts Down Iraq’s Largest Oil Refinery
Pipeline Blaze Shuts Down Iraq's Largest Oil Refinery UN Also Suspends Operations in Afghanistan Following Staff Member's Murder As I have repeatedly said before, conventional military…
The Iraq War Is Not Over Yet
America Caught in a Trap [田中 宇 2003/11/11] As I also wrote on April 11, the war in Iraq is not over. The American side calls…
UN Secretary-General Points Out Risk of Civil War in Iraq
I want to say that this was visible from the beginning... Or are the world's leaders unable to see even this? No, they surely see it.…