An argument for the Iraq war vindicated

Opec fears that its grip on the global supply of oil is being threatened by the rising output of Iraq’s oilfields and the prospect of billions of dollars of multinational investment in the world’s leading untapped oil resource.

Shortly after the start of the Iraq war I was in Europe. While visiting a friend of my wife's in Neuchatel Switzerland talk inevitably turned toward Iraq. He claimed the US was there just to the oil. Of course this is a different argument than saying the US would not have interest in Iraq if not for the oil. Yes, I could agree Iraq would be of little strategic interest without oil.

But after a little more questioning I verified that he was arguing that the US wanted to control the oil for its own use. This is an argument that I generally reserved for the stupid. My friend was not stupid and I wondered where he was coming from, as the US did not have a history of acquiring territory through war even though many opportunities had presented themselves over the years. The US could militarily "take" any country at any time but didn't. Lastly such action would not be tolerated by the people of the US.

He didn't budge, though and I decided he was arguing from a European perspective of history colored by the experiences of colonialism and world war.

I argued, on the other hand, that one of the side benefits of the war in Iraq was that more oil would be freed to flow into the world markets thereby driving down the cost of oil for all. I would never have predicted it would take so long to be proven correct.




out