Alan Greenspan: Iraq war largely about oil

[bascule]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

 

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”

 

Wow look, it's a Milton Friedman protege agreeing with all those long haired Alex Jones worshiping hippie freaks...

 

Worlds are colliding...

 

Perhaps this will even convince those who despite past protestations continue to deny that oil played a major role in the Iraq War (hint hint: Pangloss)

[Pangloss]

Alan Greenspan obviously hasn't looked at the actual arguments waging in the Bush administration between participants in the decision to go to war, which are well-documented by independent authors like Bob Woodward (the only liberal journalist who's actually brought down a Republican administration).

 

And maybe he could also read up on how correlation does not imply causation.

[iNow]

Alan Greenspan obviously hasn't looked at the actual arguments waging in the Bush administration between participants in the decision to go to war

Well, I think we can pretty much reject that assertion squarely on it's face.

 

 

And maybe he could also read up on how correlation does not imply causation.

And, he should do this... why exactly? Do you care to tell us all what statistics Greenspan has used, and where he has suggested that a correlation proved a causative relationship? Also, what data was it that was correlated when he proffered this?

 

 

If you have some facts we don't, please share them. Until then, your character attacks and belittling comments do nothing to negate reality.

[ParanoiA]

Well oversimplification does serve the simple minded.

[Sisyphus]

It would be interesting to see his explanation. From an economic standpoint, you could certainly say that that war, along with most of the last 50 years of American and European (and Soviet, and Chinese) interaction with the Middle East has largely been about oil. (And the rest has been about Israel.) Was it the only, or even the primary, direct cause of this particular conflict? I doubt it. But come on. Does anyone really believe it wasn't a factor at all?

[iNow]

It would be interesting to see his explanation.

 

I propose it may have something to do with his being the chairman of the Fed for so long, and having an incredible understanding of economics and leveraging factors in this country, but I'm just guessing, since Greenspan didn't really elaborate.

 

 

He did, however, discuss it on Charlie Rose. That episode is available here:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8342614253746711839&q=greenspan+charlie+rose&ei=f7daSKm9MYnQwgPxnOCsCg

[ParanoiA]

I believe it was factored in, more than anything else. How was our access to oil in more jeopardy before the war than after? Assuming access is the premise. What is it that we have secured? It's not like we can steal the oil, just look at the price per barrel for crying out loud.

 

I'm just ignorant really. I keep hearing 'War for Oil', 'Blood for Oil' but I'm not seeing the actual connection, just regurgitation of popular rhetoric.

[SkepticLance]

As a non American, I can say that the Iraq war was a source of utter disgust to us here in NZ. Another factor substantially reducing the already poor reputation of the US administration as a 'responsible' group.

 

Back when Bush was talking about invading Iraq, we had newspaper columns already detailing his TRUE motives. They were :

1. Oil

2. Political advantage (his popularity rose when the Afghanistan invasion looked successful)

3. Finishing off the work Daddy had begun - an entirely personal and emotional reason.

 

The rationalisations Bush gave at that stage were already recognised as being such, rather than real reasons. That has been shown to be correct since. There were no signs of the infamous 'weapons of mass destruction' even before the invasion, and no signs Al Qaeda were present in Iraq (though they have taken advantage of the subsequent anti-American feelings since, big time), and no signs that Saddam Hussein had ambitions outside Iraq, subsequent to the Iran/Iraq war. Because of these factors, the invasion had nothing at all to do with the "War on Terror.'

 

Quite simply, the invasion was for mean and unworthy motives, and the results have reflected that, making the world a more dangerous place for Westerners, and killing over a million innocent citizens of Iraq.

[ParanoiA]

I'm thinking number 3 more than 1 or 2. I also strongly believe the ideas of PNAC were the largest factor, coupled with american resolve to create chaos out of the middle east - to stop the Muslim state gaining ground in the region.

 

Remember, terrorism is a multi-national fruit. I believe the idea was to fracture the Muslim resolve to unify as a strong opposition to the West, thereby crippling terror activities and support. Iraq was perfect for that.

[Sisyphus]

I believe it was factored in, more than anything else. How was our access to oil in more jeopardy before the war than after?

 

It hasn't improved the situation. But there is a difference between what actually happened and what they thought would happen, which is that we would have a happy, oil-producing, stable, obedient ally in Iraq a year or so after the invasion. (As opposed to the hostile, closed-bordered Iraq that had already once tried to take over Kuwait.)

 

I'm thinking number 3 more than 1 or 2. I also strongly believe the ideas of PNAC were the largest factor, coupled with american resolve to create chaos out of the middle east - to stop the Muslim state gaining ground in the region.

 

Remember, terrorism is a multi-national fruit. I believe the idea was to fracture the Muslim resolve to unify as a strong opposition to the West, thereby crippling terror activities and support. Iraq was perfect for that.

 

This I don't understand. If anything, Saddam in power guaranteed a fractured Middle East - keeping Islamists down politically in Iraq and acting as a check to Iranian power. (Which I guess is why we had been propping up his regime in the first place.)

[ParanoiA]

It hasn't improved the situation. But there is a difference between what actually happened and what they thought would happen, which is that we would have a happy, oil-producing, stable, obedient ally in Iraq a year or so after the invasion. (As opposed to the hostile, closed-bordered Iraq that had already once tried to take over Kuwait.)

 

Ok, that's certainly plausible. So how would that have improved our access to oil from before the war then? What shape were we in that we thought security with our military was necessary? They still sell us oil even after we invaded one of their countries.

 

I'm only challenging the "oil" concept. Well, not really challenging as much as trying to understand the tangibles in "War for Oil" rhetoric.

 

This I don't understand. If anything, Saddam in power guaranteed a fractured Middle East - keeping Islamists down politically in Iraq and acting as a check to Iranian power. (Which I guess is why we had been propping up his regime in the first place.)

 

But Saddam didn't cause a chaotic fracture. And he only had Iraq. Splitting up Iraq, our first stage <shiver>, polarizes the region. After that the idea is to use pressure, military presence and so forth to keep the region from unifying. All this to keep terrorism from refinement.

 

I have to give credit for this idea to Stratfor. It makes sense to me, but probably only because I'm not real knowledgable on the region myself. I believe it, but I could easily change my mind upon better evidence, logic.

[Pangloss]

And, he should do this... why exactly? Do you care to tell us all what statistics Greenspan has used, and where he has suggested that a correlation proved a causative relationship? Also, what data was it that was correlated when he proffered this?

 

From what I've seen from these articles he doesn't even PRESENT an argument. He just makes the statement that Iraq was "largely about oil", end of story. So correlation would seem to be the entire basis of his argument, and it's the simplest one possible: Oil drives the economy, therefore the war in Iraq must be about oil.

 

Do you think he meant something else? If so, what would that be?

 

His insider status means nothing when it comes to Iraq -- as the article says, he was not part of those policy decisions (why would he be? the idiots believed it was gonna cost $50 billion tops, remember?). There are probably people who work in the GAO who have more inside information about the run-up to war than Alan Greenspan.

 

Perhaps he's trying to deflect the history books from giving him a bad accounting for his mistakes leading to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

 

For all the chatty observations about politicians and events he encountered in 19 years at the Fed, for today’s turbulent financial markets it is his account of monetary policy in the past few years that is of most interest. To the growing number of Greenspan critics, the former Fed Chairman, who once enjoyed godlike status on Wall Street, is largely to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis that is behind today’s turmoil.

 

But hey, another nice try at framing the argument.

[iNow]

Way to back peddle.

 

I quoted exactly what I was asking you about, and you haven't answered, and instead you've now made another speculative, unsupported, credibility attacking assertion.

[Pangloss]

Do you think he meant something else? If so, what would that be?

[iNow]

I'm not sure I follow what you are asking.

 

Who meant something other than what, exactly?

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I follow what you are asking.

 

Who meant something other than what' date=' exactly? [/quote']

 

Ok, from what I've seen Greenspan isn't presenting an argument that the US invaded Iraq because of oil, he's presenting an opinion to that effect. And it's already well known that HIS position (his personal opinion at the time) was that the US needed to invade Iraq because of oil, as demonstrated in this interview with the New York Times from late 2007:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/business/17greenspan.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=greenspan+iraq&st=nyt&oref=slogin

 

Mr. Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East’s oil fields.

 

“I supported taking out Saddam, because he was moving inexorably toward taking the world’s oil resources,” he said. “Iraq was a far greater threat than Iran to the world scene.”

 

So what I'm suggesting is that Greenspan, who was not involved in this policy decision, is simply extrapolating his own opinion. In other words, he's simply saying "Well of course it's about oil, oil is what drives the economy, what else could it be about?"

 

Do you think he might have meant something else? If so, what would that be?

[iNow]

Thank you for clarifying. I agree that what you mention is part of it, yes. However, I do think Greenspan meant something else. I think he was implying more than "of course oil is a part of it since oil is a part of so many things in our society."

 

I think he was implying that oil was the primary driver toward the decision to go in.

 

 

Either way, neither of us can say for sure. I preficed with "I think," but it would seem rather strange for him to make the comment at all if it were simply an acknowledgement of some background issue not implicated in the ultimate decision.

[Pangloss]

I agree, he's stating his opinion that oil was a primary driver toward the decision to go in.

 

But he has no particular standing on that issue. None. He wasn't involved in the decision, and he has no evidence to shine on the subject. Therefore his opinion on this subject is no more valuable than yours or mine.

 

Well, aside from the fact that he's a brilliant individual with many decades of public service in Washington under his belt. I'll stipulate that.

[Mr Skeptic]

Remember, terrorism is a multi-national fruit. I believe the idea was to fracture the Muslim resolve to unify as a strong opposition to the West, thereby crippling terror activities and support. Iraq was perfect for that.

 

But Saddam didn't cause a chaotic fracture. And he only had Iraq. Splitting up Iraq, our first stage <shiver>, polarizes the region. After that the idea is to use pressure, military presence and so forth to keep the region from unifying. All this to keep terrorism from refinement.

 

I have to give credit for this idea to Stratfor. It makes sense to me, but probably only because I'm not real knowledgable on the region myself. I believe it, but I could easily change my mind upon better evidence, logic.

 

That seems like an incredibly evil and counterproductive strategy. I thought terrorists thrive on chaos. Meanwhile, causing such a fracture could be seen as an attack, providing a reason for those people to get together to launch a counterattack (overtly or covertly). Forming stable, prosperous, democratic societies and having cultural exchange seems like a better idea to me.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

Thank you for that comment. It is really nice to see that someone, at least, has a decent idea. Your suggestion is the best and soundest to appear on this thread so far.

[bascule]

He wasn't involved in the decision, and he has no evidence to shine on the subject

 

Since you ignored me the last time, let me take this opportunity to reiterate the facts:

 

Halliburtion was awarded $7 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. This included not only rebuilding the infrastructure, but operating it too.

 

Yes, operating it too. Halliburton makes money off Iraqi oil, not just US government contracts for rebuilding the infrastructure

[ParanoiA]

That seems like an incredibly evil and counterproductive strategy. I thought terrorists thrive on chaos. Meanwhile, causing such a fracture could be seen as an attack, providing a reason for those people to get together to launch a counterattack (overtly or covertly). Forming stable, prosperous, democratic societies and having cultural exchange seems like a better idea to me.

 

Stratfor is short for Strategic Forecasting. It's a group dedicated to forecasting the strategy of governments and politics. They don't provide value judgements or report news, rather they size up the US and the rest of the world as if they were external to it. They don't write about what should be done, they write about they think is being done.

 

The article I read on this was long, (all of their articles are long) and drawn out and I guess I don't remember the details. When I get to work this morning, I'll scan it again and see where I've gone wrong trying to describe and share it.

 

Forming stable, prosperous, democratic socieities and cultural exchange obviously seems like a better idea. But that's not the discussion and my post is not an endorsement.

[Pangloss]

Since you ignored me the last time, let me take this opportunity to reiterate the facts:

 

Halliburtion was awarded $7 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. This included not only rebuilding the infrastructure, but operating it too.

 

Yes, operating it too. Halliburton makes money off Iraqi oil, not just US government contracts for rebuilding the infrastructure

 

I responded to you on that subject in that earlier thread. What we're talking about here is Alan Greenspan, and what you've posted above has nothing to do with him.

 

And frankly that's just another example of correlation implying causation. Bob Woodward spent years and three books and never saw a shred of evidence that oil played a part in the decision. You throw up one correlation and call it a done deal, berating us for not seeing the obvious. Well I'm sorry, reverend, but I need more than that.

[SkepticLance]

Interesting to note from today's newspaper that Exxon and other oil companies have just been invited back into Iraq, from which they were excluded by Saddam.

[Pangloss]

Meanwhile Obama has announced plans to have the Iraqis pay for American defense with their oil revenues, a simple and obvious thing that, had it been announced by a Republican, would have been instantly met with world outcry and denunciation.