Will blog for oil.....
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

So says Alan Greenspan.

To which I'd add:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the modern appearance and relentless growth of Saudi Wahhabism -- and its vicious offshoots like al Qaeda -- is largely about oil."

The fact is, if the damned Saudis didn't have the vast oil wealth, if we heard of Wahhabism at all, it would only be because we'd read about the quaint little religion as we looked at pictures of obscure goat and camel herders in the pages of the National Geographic.

So yes, it's all about oil. Without the oil, no one would care about this sickening, oil-soaked religion, or the fringe ideology that goes with it. Without oil, there'd have been no incentive and no money to train the Saudi bastards who flew the planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

So ultimately it's all about oil. So what?

Does that mean we weren't attacked?

Does that mean that Saddam Hussein didn't invade and annex Kuwait, thus setting the stage for al Qaeda's original declaration of war against the U.S.?

I expect Greenspan to be much cited in support of the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" meme, but I think most of the people who will do that forget an elementary principle: war is caused by undefended wealth. People tend to start wars over whatever they think they can get.

Oil is just one form of wealth, right? So, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" might as well be "NO BLOOD FOR UNDEFENDED WEALTH!" Or "NO BLOOD FOR SELF DEFENSE!" Or "NO BLOOD FOR WAR!"

On the other hand, considering that peace is desirable, and a lack of an adequate defense invites war, it would be equally logical to say "NO BLOOD FOR PEACE!"

(Yeah, and "POVERTY IS VIOLENCE!" Someone tell the rich Wahhabis quick!)

Sigh.

I try to be patient, but reading these things makes me tend to lose all patience, because it's such a steady barrage. Writing blog posts does not make it stop. The best I can do is attempt to find humor in it. (The problem, though, is that illogical people don't enjoy laughing at their logical silliness. Well, if poverty is violence, then I guess humor is violence too. And of course war is peace!)

UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds, for the link, and a warm welcome to oil all!

UPDATE (09/18/07): Greenspan says his remarks about oil are being taken out of context and Jonah Goldberg (via Glenn Reynolds) has more:

Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

In other words, Greenspan favored the war on the grounds that it would stabilize the flow of oil, even though that wasn't the war's political underpinning. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan told Woodward, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

Which means that Greenspan's remarks were his way of remarking what he thought was obvious and were not meant as anti-war commentary. (They'll certainly be used that way, though.)

But does this mean Greenspan would agree with my pro-war interpretation (and embellishment) of his remarks?

(I would hope so, because I've always liked the man.)

posted by Eric on 09.16.07 at 08:40 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5528






Comments

This is, how you say, bullshit. Read down a little further, and you see: Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East. Well, duh. You think?

Charlie (Colorado)   ·  September 16, 2007 10:16 AM

Why can't he be more explicit? Look, just once I'd like to hear someone tell it like it is: No blood to keep the lights going in the civilized world! No blood to keep your grocery shelves stocked! No blood to avert a catastrophic world-wide economic depression! No blood to avert millions dying in the famine that would follow even a temporary collapse of Western Civilization!

Seriously. EVERY time I see someone with a no blood for oil bumper sticker I want to push them off the road and give them a fast course in economics.

As a libertarian I don't even believe we should have public education as such -- the argument that it gives us a uniform culture isn't persuasive -- but if we're going to have it I do believe people should be taught economics. Really economics, not wishful socialist fairytales. Nothing comes from nothing. The economy is all inter-related. Distribution does matter -- which makes salesmen important. It's not all production and consumption. That leads to five thousand left shoes, size 50. If you keep us from having nuclear power, then we must be dependent on that nasty oil you abhor. If you are so smitten with the Alaskan wilderness that you saw once on a cruise that you won't let us drill for oil there, then we will have to pay Saudis for oil (and yes, ultimately fund the repugnant blood cult of wahhbism.) No matter how often you click your heels three times and say "environmentally friendly energy" solar isn't going to cut it just yet, and neither is wind. It costs too much to produce what we need. It's not a plot of big oil, it's just the way it is.

Look -- I'm sure if our pain over oil became strong enough we would find other means of fueling civilization. I'm also sure, for a while at least, if we bought less as we would after an economic slump prices would come down. I doubt it would be instant, though. And it would hurt. really hurt.

Right now, Greenspan might as well have said "Western Civilization is all about oil." Why didn't he? HE knows economics, doesn't he? Then in whose name is he spouting?

Yes, economics should be taught. Supply and demand. The law that value is what someone is willing to pay for something, not how much work you put into it. AND that to be able to provide for the current world population requires such a fine-tuned, massive technological civilization (the same one that has brought more prosperity to the world than any other one ever) that for the governments to "fine tune" "oversee" or otherwise tamper with it is about as likely to obtain the "right" results or to "solve" anything as it is to do so to the weather. (Which, of course, they also think they can fine-tune.)

The chances of unwashed college freshmen - or even deodorized ones -- to change that fact with cutsey bumperstickers is even more far fetched.

Economics should be taught -- with a horsewhip. And Mr. Greenspan should NOT try to play tiddly winks with politics.

Okay fine. I need coffee. And possibly estrogen.

P.

Portia   ·  September 16, 2007 11:05 AM

Great natural resources almost without exception lead to a civilization devoid of accomplishment, character or ambition. It is like kids with trust funds; write them off because they will rarely contribute anything positive to society.

Saudi Arabia is a gigantic, dysfunctional trust fund baby. If we actually did wean ourselves off of oil, they'd implode.

Peg C.   ·  September 16, 2007 11:44 AM

I blame Andrea Mitchell. If Mr. Greenspan wanted to keep on getting some of that sweet, sweet Andrea Mitchell lovin', he was forced to adopt a few moonbatty talking points.

Either that, or it's DC Dinner Party Chatter Syndrome. That stuff is deadly to thinking. Hearing the same ideas echo in a tiny chamber causes normally independent thinking folks to imagine that the echoes they hear are a reflection of their own thoughts.

XWL   ·  September 16, 2007 12:39 PM

"Why can't he be more explicit?"

I have a hunch Greenspan WAS more explicit... in the full context of his remarks, as was pointer out be other posters. But if journalists started reporting on things in complete context, the public might start to come to their own conclusions and not the ones journalists know is best.

For example, if they reported that ice at the North Pole is shrinking, AND that ice at the South Pole is GROWING, we might conclude that there evidence for global warming is somewhat mixed, diluting the absolutely clear campaign issue that journalists have obliged themselves to deliver to the Democrats.

Thus it is necessary to omit metion of contradictory evidence to the outcome desired by the party journalists overwhelmingly favor.

There is a technical term for when journalists do this... it is called "lying"!

sherlock   ·  September 16, 2007 03:22 PM
Does that mean we weren't attacked?

And to think I had thought we were attacked by al-Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein. What a fascinating world you must live in.

jpe   ·  September 16, 2007 09:20 PM

jpe: our esteemed host did not say that we were attacked by Saddam. What a fascinating world you must live in.

Jim C.   ·  September 16, 2007 09:29 PM

Here's my whole question on this opinion held by Mr. Greenspan: If waging this war was for oil security only, would it not have been easier for us to cut a deal with Saddam Hussein and avoid the whole thing? I'm sure we could have found a way for Iraq to become a foreign aid recipient along the lines of Egypt and put all the "past unpleasantness" behind us. Cutting deals would have been ultimately much cheaper. I wonder how much Mr. Greenspan knew, or if he's just talking out his backside on this. It seems kind of odd to throw this out this late in the game.

Jason   ·  September 16, 2007 11:17 PM

Greenspan, what a hypocrite! He gains his reputation at the teat of Ayn Rand, and then proceeds to betray every principle he supposedly learned.
The Gold Standard that he once advocated? Gone in a flash of expediency.
As he flitted off to Moscow and Peking to be flattered by the communist dictators still in charge, he forgot that globalism benefits THEM, not us.
Capitalism as advocated by him more resembles the fascist model than the libertarian.
And he dares to call himself a libertarian?
When confronted in congressional hearings by Ron Paul, he backs off into double-speak.
His current apologia is little more than a tome of praise to Bill Clinton, his "soul mate" as he says.
The war in Iraq is about oil? Oh this sounds so much like the Berkeley crowd circa 1970 talking about Viet Nam.
Does he mention 9/11? Probably not, since he's removed himself from the day to day capitalist trading near ground zero, and placed himself safely at conferences in Jackson Hole. Never mind that he narrowly escaped death in a skyscraper fire.

I was once, many lifetimes ago, close to his intimates. I knew Allan Blumenthal and Joan Mitchell. It was a musical and objectivist connection.

I have nothing but contempt for this man. He sold his soul for political acceptance.


Frank   ·  September 17, 2007 02:34 AM

Portia:
"Okay fine. I need coffee. And possibly estrogen."

I, for one, like you angry, sweetie. (It might also be pointed out that there are plenty of things manufactured from petroleum--it doesn't all go to transportation and energy supply.)

Sean Kinsell   ·  September 17, 2007 02:59 AM

We're sponsoring a weekly Presidential Poll. Visit http://www.votenic.com
Thanks!

Pete   ·  September 25, 2007 02:33 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



September 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits