Greenspan: Iraq war was about oil

Full monty article.

Well, it's good to know that the entire water supply of Washington DC has not been replaced with neo-con kool aid.

Was it about obtaining oil, or destabilizing the oil markets, raising prices for oil without any extra effort (aka profit)?

Obtaining oil by invading Iraq seems like a terribly inefficient way to get oil, but using the military to raise prices seems like a good way to increase the profits of your oil buddies, if that's what you were trying to do

It was about securing a source of oil that would not have us pushed out of the market by China and at the tender mercies of Putin.

However, if we had put that trillion dollars into find alternative sources of energy we could have done the same things, secured our future and not killed an maimed thousands.

I would speculate, its more about an effort to obtain stable supplys at favorable terms. With a substantial portion of the world's energy supplies located within political rivals, it seems like a plausible explanation. Though I have not seen a copy, I have read elsewhere that the draft Iraqi 'oil law' is as much about privatizing the industry there (selling it to US investors) as it is about sharing the revenue.

On the narrower topic of Greenspan/Bush, I doubt the families will be gathering for tea anytime soon, George Sr. really blamed Greenspan for his downfall (not his own political ineptitude) and Greenspan really seems to believe the current crop are first class idjits'.

If I were to wager a guess, it was about protecting US economic interests by establishing a physical presence in the Middle East to influence the production, marketing, distribution, and sale of oil. A physical presence could have been deemed necessary to offset the universally adopted strategy that each country's reserves and production were to be treated as globally marketable assets, which may not favor US economic interests and objectives.

Setting aside my well-known objection to the war, this may go down as one of the great failed strategies of all time. While the US spent billions - perhaps as much as a trillion dollars in what may prove to be a failed effort, China silently took the diplomatic course and penned agreements with individual countries whose combined production is far greater than Iraq's and perhaps equal to Iraqi and Iranian production combined.

And not surprisingly , Greespan is right about Shrub & all his cronies .

Well, to some degree it would have to. That is, it is unrealistic to think that the US would convert to an altenative fuel without replacing the huge petroleum delivery infrastructure.

Coming up with a new fuel is easy. It is figuring out how to deliver it and not destroy an economy built around fossil fuels that is the hard part.

Sadly, not as easy as they thought.

Although Halliburton gets richer either way.

i need to print out this article and take it around to all the asshats who said "its not about oil, retard!" from oooh, about 2002-2007

Halliburton turned me down for a job.

It's okay I got a better one that doesn't involve evil mega-corporations.

If we were going to do that, why not Venezuala?

It would probably have even worked out better. Hire the CIA and ex-pat Venezualans put off by Chavez (they are fanatic in their hatred of Chavez, because of what he did to them) to create a massive conflagration, then send US "peacekeeping troops" in and establish a US-friendly government.

Of course, this has the effect of directly affecting oilflow during operations (as Venezuala is one of our major sources of oil).

But of course it was about oil! Our economy depends upon it. Why else would we invade a country?

Sadly, the dinosaurs have "won" this round, but the game is almost over. Peak oil. Coming soon, to a theater near you. Seriously though, we do need to nix the old petrol engine. The technology exists, but sadly it continues to be suppressed.

One thing that Greenspan failed to observe or mention is that neither this nor any other country can sustain its economy much longer at the current rate of resource consumption. While other countries continue to develop along with their growing economies, they've adopted the American model of excess consumerism. We take for granted that nearly everything we purchase has an enormous dependence upon the petroleum industry, but once the crunch occurs, it will rapidly become obvious. My advice, dust off the ol' wagon and brush up on your homespun skills 'cause you'd best be prepared fer famin' (so long as the water is available)...

It's been suggested that a private company could engineer this, using private intelligence contractors to destabilize (it could probably be done by giving money and armaments to anti-Chavez groups), and then use Blackwater to come in and stabilize the country. I know if I were Exxon's CEO, with the company pulling 100 million in pure profit per day, I would consider it.

And honestly, America doesn't really care about wars as long as they are short (at least the amount of time where a significant amount of troops are deployed) and don't involve much loss of life.

Christ! What are you? An Eisenhower era CIA guy?

Whoa... Blackwater for an entire country?!

I mean, I know they build their own armoured cars and shit, but is this really on the cards?

It's unsettling to see this written in a way, which suggests the effort would somehow be acceptable or vaguely interesting; as if we've become completely insulated from our actions where economic gain is the prize.

Blackwater is buying the equipment necessary to start offering brigade sized forces.

Also, if you hire the right people, a large army is not necessary. Just a small group of advisors necessary to arm and train the Venezualans who are pissed off about Chavez.

No matter the result, it will be really important and telling.

If the US overrides the Iraqi government and Blackwater stays, it will be illustrative of Iraq's lack of sovereignty.

On the other hand, US interest are heavily reliant on mercenaries.

So maybe the hippies were right, this time.

Wow, you really are an Eisenhower era CIA guy.

Does the Bay of Pigs mean anything to you?

It's time for you to go back to your cave there at Langley now.

I have the feeling if this doesn't catch too much press, that the Bush Administration might get al-Maliki to 'reconsider'.

+1