Greenspan: Oil the Prime Motive for Iraq War

[Eki]

And he calls himself a Republican?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.html

Greenspan: Oil the Prime Motive for Iraq War

Sunday, September 16, 2007

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.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, 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.

However, 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.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

[BrentJackson]

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.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, 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.

However, 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.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

Surprised, Eki? Or are you just doing that to throw mud at those who have been less vehemently anti-American than you?

As for Saddam and oil, Iraq has the world's third-largest oil reserves, and therefore it shouldn't surprise anybody that Saddam would be considered a threat to the world's energy reserves - because news flash, EVERY nation in the Middle East is a threat to some level, from their leaders, political instability, outside interference or other problems.

[leopard]

I heard democrat party urged the president to pull the troops out of Iraq, although it doesn't seem to be paid attention easily.

So war against terrorism was the right alibi for the temptation of the oil :)

[Flat.tyres]

Iraq was all about Oil? :s hock:

Why did nobody say anything at the time. I must say, this has come as news to me and I'm shocked and stunned. This would mean that Bush and Blair are guilty of lying to their representitive houses and the public. Oh my God, whatever next.

Surely this is some mistake. I mean, why would Bush do such a thing. It's not like he would personally benefit is it and as for Blair, he wouldn't get some cushy job in the Middle east and future seats on some high profile boards.

Surely there must be some mistake. This sort of thing only normally happens between Ferrari and the FIA ;)

[BDunnell]

There are also those of us who were/are against the Iraq conflict who believe that the 'it was all about oil' argument is too simplistic.

[jso1985]

:eek: :eek: ;)

so Bush is now going to get a 100m$ fine and get excluded from the president's championship?

[L5->R5/CR]

And he calls himself a Republican?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.html

Greenspan: Oil the Prime Motive for Iraq War

Sunday, September 16, 2007

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.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, 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.

However, 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.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.


Greeny can say what he wants.

I have no doubt about his credentials to wax on about interest rates, growth rates, and inflation rates BUT, his credentials talking about the oil market are not what he thinks they are.


Some of the top oil commentators, geo-politicians, and strategists have published volumes about how the Iraq war could not have been less about oil (ok, so the analysis focuses on how the war did nothing for the US regarding oil supplies or wealth, not that the US decision makers didn't think about oil, or want oil, just about how the decision couldn't have been worse to go to war for oil).


While Iraq has incredible reserves they also have hugely outdated, under maintained, and severely damaged oil infrastructure. The long and short of it is that until the price of oil exceeds $100.00 a barrel Iraqi oil is too expesnive to extract because of the damage the Allies, Saddam, and then the US did to the oil fields, wells, and refineries.

In fact, there is a very good argument to be made that the invasion of Iraq raised the price of oil beyond what natural market pressures would have done and the continued instability keeps prices $10-15/barrel higher than market pressures would have dictated due to the natural political speculation element that is built into oil pricing in the current environment.

To say the war was about oil is a foolish argument. Not one about Bush and his cronies, but to conclusively say it was about oil from an objective analytical standpoint is incredibly flawed.

Greenspan should stick to what he knows and stay away from the mysterious quagmire that is the oil market...

[leopard]

Oil wasn't the only motive of the war, but it has tempted the war and has caused the troops reluctant to go away. I think Greenspan has pointed it out correctly and sadly he deserves more trustworthy than the rest. :)

[rah]

But oils is being extracted from Iraq. Currently at around 2 million barrells a day. And the hydrocarbon laws that were forced on them by the US would indicate plenty of interest in Iraq's oil.

[Tomi]

The war was offcourse about WMD they found so much of, and that Saddam was involved in the terror attack in ny + a treth for the world, its just a coincidence that around 50% of the oil is shipped to usa, silly Greenspan ;)

[leopard]

embarrassing ! :)

[janneppi]

Some of the top oil commentators, geo-politicians, and strategists have published volumes about how the Iraq war could not have been less about oil (ok, so the analysis focuses on how the war did nothing for the US regarding oil supplies or wealth, not that the US decision makers didn't think about oil, or want oil, just about how the decision couldn't have been worse to go to war for oil).


While Iraq has incredible reserves they also have hugely outdated, under maintained, and severely damaged oil infrastructure. The long and short of it is that until the price of oil exceeds $100.00 a barrel Iraqi oil is too expesnive to extract because of the damage the Allies, Saddam, and then the US did to the oil fields, wells, and refineries.

In fact, there is a very good argument to be made that the invasion of Iraq raised the price of oil beyond what natural market pressures would have done and the continued instability keeps prices $10-15/barrel higher than market pressures would have dictated due to the natural political speculation element that is built into oil pricing in the current environment.

To say the war was about oil is a foolish argument. Not one about Bush and his cronies, but to conclusively say it was about oil from an objective analytical standpoint is incredibly flawed.

As you said, the analysis focuses on the results, not the premise of going to war and as such is in no way disagreeing with Greenspan's ideas.

[L5->R5/CR]

As you said, the analysis focuses on the results, not the premise of going to war and as such is in no way disagreeing with Greenspan's ideas.




I'll see if I still have a copy of the article but one of the articles was published in early March 2003 (so it was written before the war started for instance).

There simply was no case for oil to be a motivator. The infrastructure was too damaged to make a significant amount of oil available (this was widely known) and any reasonably decent oil commentator could have told you that the price of oil would jump 10-20+ per barrel with an invasion.

I'm not saying Bush and his merry band of idiots didn't think they'd get oil or oil security out of the deal but the economics of the oil market suggested from the very beginning that it wouldn't work no matter what they did. Perhaps it is naive but I would like to think that the decision makers in aggregate wouldn't consider the lives of nearly 4,000 US soldiers worth paying too much for a commodity that was hugely available on the open market...

See the problem in "analyzing" the decision to go to war is the fact that there was no objectively reasonable argument. Not to say personally there couldn't have been grounds for me to support and invasion, the US did after all put Saddam in power trying to clean up the mess we made of ME politics in the first place. There simply wasn't an empirically sound motivation, oil wouldn't work, WMDs wouldn't work, terrorism wouldn't work, and many other lesser causes simply wouldn't work/be good enough to justify an invasion.

[Eki]

There simply wasn't an empirically sound motivation, oil wouldn't work, WMDs wouldn't work, terrorism wouldn't work, and many other lesser causes simply wouldn't work/be good enough to justify an invasion.
Maybe they just wanted a war, any war, so that the US weapons industry could make money? Iraq was the weakest of the "Axis of Evil", so it was made a target. Iranians and North Koreans would likely have been more united and determined to resist an invasion than the Iraqis were.

[L5->R5/CR]

Maybe they just wanted a war, any war, so that the US weapons industry could make money? Iraq was the weakest of the "Axis of Evil", so it was made a target. Iranians and North Koreans would likely have been more united and determined to resist an invasion than the Iraqis were.



Or they were mentally impaired and never should have been elected in the first place.

Or they had over inflated egos and thought they could change the make up of the modern world with a self granted mandate in the after math of the 9/11 terrorist attacks...

[NoFender]

I could care less what reason we had to push past the U.N., now that we're there, we can kill off the bees surounding the pop can called Iraq. Good news for all free living people of the world.

[SOD]

I could care less what reason we had to push past the U.N., now that we're there, we can kill off the bees surounding the pop can called Iraq. Good news for all free living people of the world.

just make sure that pop can don't become your back yard, or worse MY back yard.

I do care, and maybe the families of the dead care, that the US used a pack of lies to push past the UN. However the UN did not buy into what Powell etc said.

[BDunnell]

Or they were mentally impaired and never should have been elected in the first place.

Or they had over inflated egos and thought they could change the make up of the modern world with a self granted mandate in the after math of the 9/11 terrorist attacks...

I think this is a far better assessment than the 'war for oil' one.

[pvtjoker]

And he calls himself a Republican?



Well, he is married to a prominent NBC reporter. I'm sure her liberal opinion/views has rubbed off on the old man.

[BDunnell]

Well, he is married to a prominent NBC reporter. I'm sure her liberal opinion/views has rubbed off on the old man.

Which doesn't disqualify him from having a valid opinion, whatever one thinks of it.

[pvtjoker]

Maybe they just wanted a war, any war, so that the US weapons industry could make money? Iraq was the weakest of the "Axis of Evil", so it was made a target. Iranians and North Koreans would likely have been more united and determined to resist an invasion than the Iraqis were.


Seeing the war first hand (twice!), I can say Iraq would be in alot better shape if Iran and Syria weren't providing weapons to the insurgents. The weapons they possess now are much more complex than what they had in '03 and '04.

[TOgoFASTER]

Well, he is married to a prominent NBC reporter. I'm sure her liberal opinion/views has rubbed off on the old man.

LOL

[rah]

Seeing the war first hand (twice!), I can say Iraq would be in alot better shape if Iran and Syria weren't providing weapons to the insurgents. The weapons they possess now are much more complex than what they had in '03 and '04.

And what about Saudi Arabia?

[SOD]

Well, he is married to a prominent NBC reporter. I'm sure her liberal opinion/views has rubbed off on the old man.


you mean that liberal company, General Electric. Are they making crappy weapons for the US miliitary, is it a liberal conspiracy?

[SOD]

Seeing the war first hand (twice!), I can say Iraq would be in alot better shape if Iran and Syria weren't providing weapons to the insurgents. The weapons they possess now are much more complex than what they had in '03 and '04.


keep going crybaby, remember the enemy has the right to fight back.

[SOD]

And what about Saudi Arabia?

that just doesn't fit the narrative

[rah]

that just doesn't fit the narrative

It was in response to the weapons coming out of Iran and Syria. I was just asking what affect the amount of fighters coming out of Saudi Arabia is having. There are many more Saudi fighters in Iraq than Iran or Syria has.

[SOD]

It was in response to the weapons coming out of Iran and Syria. I was just asking what affect the amount of fighters coming out of Saudi Arabia is having. There are many more Saudi fighters in Iraq than Iran or Syria has.


I was only being funny. ;)

[Schultz]

I think it was more a case of having a puppet democracy in the Middle East who would support America's interests and who could be counted on to maintain a supply of oil to America. I suppose with Saddaam, they never really trusted the guy from the mid 1980's and therefore there was never a real guarantee of their oil supply from Iraq. The Americans really had this Utopian idea of how things would work when they went into Iraq. They would instill a pro American regime (Democracy or not) who would guarantee oil supply, and who's system of government would inspire other nations in the region to follow on the same pro American pathway. Afterall, America is the worlds superpower. It's all about ego.

The oil thing is old news now. Our defence minister already said one of the factors leading to war in Iraq was the need to maintain 'energy stability' in the region.

[SOD]

more geenspin:

"FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- Former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said it is possible that the euro could replace the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of choice."

no doubt all thanks to Alan. he did get get the fed to run the dollar printing presses on for a long time.

[leopard]

I'd rather more focus on solution instead of digging up story behind any dispute, knowing how the problem initially arose up should be considered in frame finding the best solution but not to keep fueling the fire.

I think this is the bone of contention of any conflict particularly in the mid-east involving Islam and west, The bitter prolonged history from a nation called Israel has caused resentment over its neighbors and always disbelieve them and posing them in position of threatening its existence. And this sort of a priori has caused an obsession to divide those nations in the region to be under their control, and US and the cronies are the conveyance to perform their plan.

Israel has exerted massive campaign to the US and west creating bad image of the ice blooded dictator Saddam and could seriously destabilize the region and the resource of oil discontinuity with the evidence of gulf war and invasion made to Kuwait. You maybe true that the mass dismissal gas wasn't as danger as that of North Korean. But Saddam was the first target for their operation, they may also include some names in the queue like Syiria, Iran and even Egypt and Saudi.

That typical of paranoid isn't supposed to be maintained in this todays life, to gain more respect and admission from international Israel should be back to their own region as of 1967. Let's take any effort in more constructive live, while on the other hand Islam needs moderate substance to unify any radical under-stream which ready to talk to US and west and can accommodate interest of both parties. That's the wise thought for the meaning of peace of the world.

[L5->R5/CR]

I think it was more a case of having a puppet democracy in the Middle East who would support America's interests and who could be counted on to maintain a supply of oil to America. I suppose with Saddaam, they never really trusted the guy from the mid 1980's and therefore there was never a real guarantee of their oil supply from Iraq. The Americans really had this Utopian idea of how things would work when they went into Iraq. They would instill a pro American regime (Democracy or not) who would guarantee oil supply, and who's system of government would inspire other nations in the region to follow on the same pro American pathway. Afterall, America is the worlds superpower. It's all about ego.

The oil thing is old news now. Our defence minister already said one of the factors leading to war in Iraq was the need to maintain 'energy stability' in the region.



No offense but the US military is designed to do what you are saying the Iraq war was about (and no, I cannot name my source, I can however say he was a strategic planning advisor and analyst to numerous generals in the 80s and up through the late 90s and was involved in policy formation and forecasting for a 25 year military career which is continued in the private sector).

Think about it, 8+ active carrier groups, 2 almost always within 1 week of the Persian gulf... The ability to park two floating military bases within 200 miles of ones coats (there are no significant oil exporting countries that are land locked after all). Long range "strategic" and "surgical" strike weapons conviently all with the range if launched from naval vessels to hit just about any target of value in any oil exporting country.

In the late 70s the US shifted its policy strategy from focusing on the exporting source for oil (the Shah of Iran is a perfect example) due to the potentially uncontrollable domestic politics (mainly revolution and a US population unwilling to go to more wars to support friendly regimes against domestic uprisings). It was only too perfect timing wise that Regan wanted to spend the Soviets out of existence when the military wanted to morph itself into a new roll.

The US military has and continues to be a guarantor (one that most of the world free rides off of in this respect) of the world energy market. The US doesn't need a Middle Eastern proxy government for oil purposes. We have our relationship of mutually benefit/destruction with the Saudi's whose OPEC influence and huge oil exports is far more valuable then a proxy government with hostile neighbors. The US has as many, if not more, active aircraft carriers at any one time than all other nations combined.

I'm not saying our idiotic president and his narrow minded neo-conservative cronies weren't thinking differently than the above. But hell, they re-staffed and re-keyed departments and advisors until they got to hear what they wanted to hear. It didn't matter if 10 of the most experienced or previously trusted people said one thing, if they found someone that could support them that person got moved into more important roles.

[leopard]

It is human being that have tendency on being greedy, Iraq and Saddam was famous as a nation who have some heroic character, while Saudi as this far is able to show more cooperate and moderate attitude. Terrorism and weapon program issue of Iraq, were the right reason come in coincidence to convince international that the invasion was supposed to gain support.

At any rate to exploit the resource directly under our control is far easy and profitable than any mutually trade partnership, regardless that we have that sophisticated carrier system that could cover any regions at one.

Oil is an equivalent value to compensate all huge expense US has spent for the war. :)