I am an
Ken Pollack convert. I don't agree with how the war in Iraq has been prosecuted, but I do understand the logical arguments that Ken lays out in 'The Threatening Storm'. With that said, I have a few bones to pick with Atrios over
this post. He should know by now not to trust what's coming out of the Bush Administration's mouth: "This is a war about WMD's, this is a war about Iraqi Freedom, this is a war on terror." Bullshit. This is a war about oil. Let me say that again, this is a war about oil.
To all of those righties and lefties that will bring out all kinds of alternatives reasons for war I'll say this. The United States, most of the 1st world, is dependent on cheap oil. We, the United States, may not be overly dependent on middle-eastern oil, we are however dependent on cheap oil. There are three countries that have (or could have) a LARGE influence on the price of oil. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Pollack lays out a very good case that past US middle-east policy has been constructed in such a way as to keep influence in the Persian Gulf, first with the Shah, then with Saddam, and always with the house of Saud.
The Lekudnicks that shape our foreign policy can come up with as many different reason for invading Iraq as they want, but the long term reason for doing so has always been to exact United States influence on the price of oil. (This may also have played a role in the administration's apparent support for the failed coup in Venezuela.) The health of the US Economy is tied to shipping costs, shipping costs are tied to oil prices, oil prices are tied to a few unstable governments in the Persian Gulf region.
The problem is that now that the Administration sees that stabilizing Iraq and exacting this influence is going to be difficult. With a presidential election cycle bearing down on them they're thrashing around trying to minimize the political fall out of what they've done. The 'reason-for-war-of-the-day' is just political spin. When you get to the bottom of it this was an issue that needed to be addressed sooner or later. I fully agree with pundits on both sides that say that the execution of this 'peace' is an almightily cluster fuck quickly spiraling into the same sort of depressingly self-evident catastrophe that was executed in Southeast Asia almost half a century ago, or any number of occupation/insurgent scenarios that have been seen through history.
What I don't agree with is commenting on every twist and turn in the Bush Administration's flailing attempts to frame the war. It's about oil. That's the response we need to keep harping on. It's a war to protect us from WMD. It's about oil. It's a war for Iraqi Freedom. It's about oil. It's the front line in the war on terror. It's about oil.
Ultimately it's the very reason that Bush won't include the UN. It is not in the US's interest to have the UN take the majority influence in Iraq. The whole point is US influence on oil prices, not UN influence on oil prices. It is quickly becoming evident that the Bush administration has bungled things so badly in it's ignorance and greed that the end, the whole US influence of oil prices goal, is unattainable. They have defeated the enemy and lost the war. Might want to trade in that SUV before too long.