[HomeCheese]

Well it is good to see some honesty form one someone with respect. My only problem with his statement is; What took him so long?

[Foulsmeller]

It is clear that the Bush Admin touted WMD and then liberty and whatever as the reason for Iraq..but who cares? They did it because the limp wristed homo population of America doesn't have the stones to do what needs to be done...


WAR FOR OIL BROTHA!

[GermanBJJ]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

I find it difficult to reconcile the utter failure to gain a single ounce of oil, with the contention that the war "was about it".

If Greenspan had said, perhaps, "to raise the price of oil through war making the prospect of oil shortages a greater reality" then I'd agree (although I do not see that as an intention). However, the United States would have to lay claim to the oil in order for his theory to be correct, which so far we have not. In fact, Iraqi oil is a nationalized industry, if I recall properly.

Greenspan was also quite horrifically wrong baout the mortgage crisis. The man is not a God, despite seeing the possibility (and doing very little) to stop the collapse of the 90's Internet Bubble.

Some have even suggested that this Randian is making a mockery out of the Federal Reserve to demonstrate its undo influence in a capitalist economy which is supposed to be chosen freely through the invisible hand.

Four points:

(1) First, you are making the massively huge assumption that the Bush Admin could actually achieve it's plan. This is an administration that has failed at many tasks they have tried to accomplish. It wouldn't be that surprising if oil was a concern but the Bush Admin simply couldn't gain enough control of Iraq to implement their objective.

(2) The control of oil theory is one that even its proponents admit we wouldn't see come to fruition for quite some time, perhaps for decades. Securing oil through establishing a US puppet government in Iraq is a long-term plan. It is joke to believe that the US would gather enough oil during this war to cause a decrease in oil prices (which, for some reason, people are obsessed with correlating the fact that high oil prices means the war wasn't about oil -- which makes no sense even on its face.)

(3) Your points 2 and 3 are contradictory. On one hand, you criticize Greenspan for not intervening to stop the internet bubble (which if you actually read Greenspan's own views, he openly admits that he doesn't feel should or could have done anything to stop the bubble without stopping economic growth. The solution, in his mind, was worse than the problem) but then you do a 180 and claim his memoirs are a Randian attempt to lash out at the Fed for intervening too much in a capitalist markets.

(4) I actually find the suggestion that his critique of Bush, his views on the war, etc. can be dismissed because he is lashing out due to his belief in the free-market to be offensive and absurd. Every Head of the Fed Reserve understands their job is to wield influence on the free-market. That's the entire purpose of the Fed Reserve: to manipulate the behavior of the market through the discount window, fund-rates, and bond sales/purchases. And why would Greenspan make a point about the war and it's reasoning because of an over-intervening Fed that has nothing to do with Bush? That doesn't make any sense either.

[Ultrashogun]

Originally Posted by dylanransom

Nice rant, but I have to add that the shift away from liberty and the increased overseas presence of troops and corporations makes a damn strong case for a motive of US hegemony.

You mean hegemony of the US government, I still dont see how Joe Sixpack profits from any of this.

[Zankou]

Everyone knows it was largely about oil; it's interesting to see a prominent gov't official concede it. Next we'll have them conceding that other factors included defense industry profits and Israel, and the whole world will collapse in a paroxysm of governmental honesty.

That all said, I still have yet to see a convincing explanation of what "control of oil" is supposed to mean in terms of specific benefits to the US, rather than just nodding and glinting one's eyes darkly. Saddam was always selling, and always going to sell, as much oil as he possibly could. The man was desperate for money, which was one of the causes of the first Gulf War. Saying long-term doesn't resolve the issue. Fact is oil states do not commonly stop selling oil on the global market; it's basically a political impossibility. And the US was never going to get "free" oil. So the gains from oil are hard to explain.

I think it's got to be control of oil combined with a specific view of likely regional military conflict that makes a halt in oil sales plausible. It is difficult to imagine what that might be, other than perhaps Iran v. Israel, or something involving Saudi Arabia.

At bottom, I still think the best explanation is that the Neo-Cons actually believed, in their heart of hearts, in exactly what they were saying: Democracy could be installed in Iraq, and would make it into a peaceful capitalist bastion, friendly to Israel, which would exert a domino effect throughout the Middle East, spreading democracy and capitalism throughout the region and breaking it out of its fascist, totalitarian, and theocratic systems. Unfortunately the Neo-Cons were so convinced in the righteousness of that mission that they had no qualms about lying to achieve it, had no understanding of the depth of Iraqi factional strife, and were unacceptably lacking in self-criticism about the extent to which their project was corrupted by base political interests that were ostensibly supposed to be just side benefits.

These people actually believed they were the spearhead of Hegelian rationality, lancing through a primitive, religious, anti-Semitic, totalitarian, and impoverished world.

[LavrentiBeria]

Well of course he would claim it was about oil.

You wouldnt expect Greeenspan to say that the Iraq war was conceived by pro-Israeli neocon "intellectuals" would you?

[LavrentiBeria]

Originally Posted by GermanBJJ

F
Securing oil through establishing a US puppet government in Iraq is a long-term plan. .

That's absurd. Do you really think that the US can maintain a puppet government in Iraq for an extended period of time? The next adminstratition is going to pull out of Iraq completely. And after that, only Allah knows what will happen.

[Xenu]

All of this "War for Oil" business is news to Bush.

[texteditor]

War "for oil" is maybe a bit simplistic.

Why not believe in the neo-con's notion of democracy? New markets, new consumers, a privatized oil sector with privileged relations with the US, a way to boost the defense industry, privileged contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, a strategic base in the Middle East for the promotion of more democracy. And don't forget the neo-cons principle of foreign policy: hubris.

It was all to be a tremendous success story and ironically, it's working! For many of those that have initiated this war it has been a considerable source of profit. But was it good for America, you will ask? Some will simply not bother themselves with abstractions.

[kakashi]

Originally Posted by GermanBJJ

In Alan Greenspan's memoirs he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.