"A threat to his neighbors", means a threat to US interests. And while a threat to Iraqis should not normally be definitive (we shouldn't and don't go around invading every country with severe human rights abuses, or even any country equal to or weaker than Iraq), it does provide additional justification for the invasion.
The Israelis bombed his reactor into rubble back in the early 80s and he did nothing to strike back. That wasn't the mark of dangerous military adventurer
But invading Iran, conquering Kuwait, and also the micro invasion of Saudi, are the mark of a dangerous military adventurer.
Moreover he wasn't an Islamic radical.
The majority of dangers to the US or its interests throughout history, have not been from Islamic radicals. And while he was apparently not an Islamic radical himself he did provide support to Islamic radical terrorists.
The justification for the first Gulf War was to defend access to ME oil.
1 - That wasn't the only justification.
2 - We would very likely have kicked Iraq out of Kuwait if we where not an oil importer
Therefore its not an externality of oil, at least not directly or to any great degree.
Also lets pretend that it was the only justification, and that we would not have intervened if we where not a large oil importer. Even under those circumstances the externality claim is somewhat questionable. By that same logic, the cost to catch, try, and imprison diamond thieves is an externality of diamonds, and the same would apply to all other law enforcement efforts. |
