Was the Iraq War a "war for oil"?

What has the currency to do with it? The charge was that the United States would grab the oil. It didn't It is Iraq's oid, and Iraq is selling it. (I think you may mean, "else", not "less").

My feeling about it - OK this is subjective - is that after 9/11, Afghanistan just wasn't a big enough target. The US wanted revenge: it had to show the world, and 'the terrorists' in particular, that the kind of attack that had been made had real consequences. It saw this attack as an act of war; although the problem is, in the 21st Century, the very definition of 'war' is much less clear cut. But anyway, there had to be a military response. The only question was, against whom? Afghanistan is just a bunch of hill tribes in a mountanous desert; you could go in an blow the Taliban to smithereens, but so what? Afghanistan is always at war. It doesn't make much difference.

Blair has just said, come right out and said, OK the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' were just a pretext. If we had known they weren't there, we would have found another reason.

Don't get me wrong. Sadam Hussein was a merciless evil tyrant and if anyone deserved to be shot, it was him and his odious sons. But it is perfectly clear now, if it wasn't before, that the rationale that was given for the invasion was a falsehood. There were no nuclear stockpiles or chemical weapons factories. But the US was itching for a fight, so who was it going to be?

I think everything else was just a footnote to the main rationale.

It was a revenge attack, pure and simple.

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 05:32 PM ----------

The reasoning was, if we don't find the weapons, people will forget that it was the reason that was given. And then, the oil fields will be liberated, and the economic benefits will be so great, we will be able to justify it in hindsight by saying 'We didn't go to war for the oil, but look at the benefits...'

Which is exactly what Hitchens is saying. I think he is sticking to the script.

One of my favourite words, which I learned from Tenessee Williams plays - and I like it for its connotations of both deceipt and menace - is 'mendacity'. And I think the then US administration engaged in a considerable amount of it in order to embark on that adventure. I never demonstrated on the streets, or argued against it. But I think as history is witness now, there was considerable mendacity, and duplicity, involved in it.

The problem with Blair cedeing that he would have wanted to go to war were it not for WMD is that it speaks to him ignoring the letter and spirit of treaties and legal processes he claimed to uphold at the time (still does, as far as I know).

Whilst no particular reason given for the invasion of Iraq ammounts to "THE Reason" it probably was - at brass tacks - a resource war.

However - it can't be admitted that it was a resource war - because the key belligerants claim not to see resource wars as legitimate.

Hence or "neutralise WMD" are given as the official line for THE reason, generally, because "punch Middle East", "secure resources" and/or "get rid of tyrant" are not recognised as legitimate reasons to invade a sovereign state in the eyes of international laws the key belligerants claim to uphold.

Blair's admission that "even if there were no WMDs" he would "still have argued for Saddam's removal" are pretty moot - as there is no way he could have gathered support for a clearly illegal invasion. He had to sell it on the legal reason - the apparent/supposed/fabricated refusal to obey UN resolutions to decommission WMDs.

Of course it was mainly what you call a "resource war" if that means that we went to war because we wanted to safeguard and preserve "the free flow of oil at reasonable prices" (the formulaic phrase) which we believed was in danger. There is nothing secret about that. And neither is there anything disreputable about it. Nations have to protect their vital economic interests just as they have to protect their territory and sovereignty. That is a given. What would you expect? Why aren't what ou call "resource wars" if that means protecting vital resources seen as legitimate, if that is true, I don't understand.

To be fair, even someone like me, who thought the war lacked a coherent cassus beli and was generally pessimistic, could have been surprised at the vehemence of the insurgency.

I don't think the rebuilding effort was predicted to be as expensive as it turned out by those who proposed the war. By and large I think westerners did genuinely think the Iraqis wanted their style of government.

Though I still say pottery barn rules should apply. Otherwise the lesson of "a tyrant might be better than a vaccuum" won't be learned.

The US and it's allies thought they were breaking an earthernware jug, turned out it was an ebony bathtub.

The treaties that Britain and the US are signatories to tend to stress that the sovereignty and liberty (such as it is) of people living in a given place are more important than the rights of foreign nations to interfere with them in order to get their resources for any price - fair or not.

Such things are against the Geneva Convention, and are antithetical to being a member of the UN.

So if country A are sat on masses of oil and they don't want to distribute it to country B - that's their right. Take Brazil, for an example, they've recently struck oil. Should they be invaded if they decide not to sell it?

If so, should anyone be able to invade them - or is such a thing merely the privilidge of the USA do you reckon?

For the record - yes, I would find such an invasion disreputable.

In fact - prior to Gulf War 2 Iraq were trading with France and the US. That oil wasn't at risk. It embarrassed the US to deal with a tyrant in Iraq (the US prefers friendlier tyrants - like the house of Saud) - but that wasn't stopping trade, really.

In fact - prior to Gulf War 2 Iraq were trading with France and the US. That oil wasn't at risk. It embarrassed the US to deal with a tyrant in Iraq (the US prefers friendlier tyrants - like the house of Saud) - but that wasn't stopping trade, really.

Again, not really the point. The question still stands: Who do you want controlling your future oil resources? A tyrant you went to war with, or a government you practically installed? It concerns the future, not the past.

Bones

Who do you want controlling your future oil resources? A tyrant you went to war with, or a government you practically installed? It concerns the future, not the past.

(Necessity knows no law) Oliver Cromwell.

Unfortunately, the world could not long endure such a restriction, let alone a cut off.

Who says Cromwell spoke Latin??? The guy was Round Head, a Protestant and Anti Papist...As far as I can tell he never had a classical education...Maybe a later generation is stuffing words in his mouth...

If he were a visionary he would have had the American Revolution in England...Instead, he bagan the counter revolution before the revolution was finished all to have the status quo all over again...So muuch death and hope for so little gain is the tragedy of history...