Bush?s ulterior motive
Is a three-letter word behind the Iraq war plans?
By Michael Kinsley
SLATE.COM
March 6 ? How has an attack on the United States by a terrorist group based in Afghanistan led us to war against Iraq? Why are nuclear weapons in Iraq worth a war but not nuclear weapons in North Korea? For most skeptics about Gulf War II (including me), the Bush administration?s failure to answer these two questions sincerely or even plausibly, let alone convincingly, is central to our doubts.
THIS ISN?T entirely reasonable. The battle could be worth joining even though George W. is unable to explain why. The 9/11 pretext may be phony without necessarily invalidating the whole exercise. As for Iraq vs. North Korea, following the right policy in one place is better than following the wrong policy in both. There are worse things in this world than logical inconsistency.
Furthermore, it is hard to dismiss the official reasons for this war as disingenuous without some theory about what the ulterior motive or unspoken war aim might be. George W. Bush is not taking the nation into war to avenge his father or as a ?wag the dog? strategy to win re-election, as Bush?s more cynical opponents have charged. He deserves more credit than that. Nor is he planning to conquer and occupy Iraq in order to bring human rights to the Iraqi people or start a chain reaction of democracy throughout the Middle East, as he and his supporters have lately augmented the official war aims. He doesn?t deserve that much credit.
The one ulterior motive everyone seems to agree on is ?oil.? But what does it mean? This three-letter word covers a variety of contradictory arguments. Some supporters of the war say that our dependence on oil from the Middle East is what makes the removal of a madman in Baghdad more pressing than the removal of a madman in Pyongyang. Some opponents make essentially the same argument, but with a negative spin: Because of America?s insatiable appetite for Middle East oil, untold thousands will die so that SUVs can keep sucking gas.
While these two oil variations assume that conquering Iraq serves at least the short-term interests of the United States, another set of conspiracy theories has it that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, oilmen both, are betraying America?s national interest for the benefit of the oil industry. Here, too, the details cover a conflicting variety of sins (or rather, conflicting variations on the single sin of greed).
As a seller, does the oil industry want higher prices for its product? Or as a buyer and importer, does it want lower prices? Does it long for stability, or hunger for new opportunities that might emerge from the chaos? And how will the war affect the price of oil anyhow? That price has been going up in anticipation. But when the war is successfully over, Iraqi oil will probably reduce prices, unless Saddam destroys his own oilfields, which will have the opposite effect. General stability in the Middle East, if it is achieved, will guarantee steady supply and reduce prices even further. But if the war sets off a chain reaction of chaos and instability in the Middle East, that will raise prices even higher. So, what do oilmen want?
msnbc.com |
