BLOOD FOR OIL

I like to say that the blood-for-oil argument refutes itself—that is, any attempt to articulate the theory makes it falsity transparent. But my old prof Jeffrey Sachs’ version seems logically tenable:

September 11 was a dramatic confirmation that the stability of Saudi oil was in jeopardy. The regime was unstable and perhaps even a lethal threat to the US. The only quantitatively significant alternative to Saudi oil was Iraqi oil, but that option was barred as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power. The long-standing contingency plans to seize Middle Eastern oil were probably rolled out within days of September 11.

Second, a substitute had to be found for the US military bases in Saudi Arabia. Like Saudi oil, the bases too were now under threat, especially because the US presence in the Saudi kingdom was known to be the principal irritant for al-Qaeda. Iraq would become a new base of US military operations. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, has already explained during an interview with Vanity Fair that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were but a bureaucratic pretext that hid other core motives for war, including the reduction of the US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Mr Wolfowitz's remarkable statement seemed bizarre at the time it became public but was allowed to pass in the US without scrutiny. But it makes full sense in the context of a White House debate about the US's response to a teetering Saudi regime.

Third, the Bush White House needed to issue a powerful threat to the Saudi leadership: one more false step and you're finished. Attacking the next-door neighbour was no doubt judged to be quite persuasive.

Sachs concludes that

if the Iraq war was an opportunistic response to September 11, it is crucially important that we know it. Thousands of lives and perhaps $100bn have gone into this war, with little to show for it except an enraged Iraqi public and enormous costs of occupation extending into the future.

Wait a minute, Sachs, haven’t you just described yet another “something to show for” the war—namely, that in future we won’t need to prop up one of the world’s most reactionary regimes to secure our oil supply?

There’s more that’s wrong with this argument. Bush is a millionaire who doesn’t care what he pays at the pump. If he wants to keep oil prices low, he’s doing it for Joe Sixpack’s vote. But in that case, shouldn’t he tell Joe Sixpack that’s why he did it, so Joe knows to vote for him in return? Anyway, cheaper oil hasn’t materialized so far. Did Bush think it would, and miscalculate? Or is it the long-term oil supply that Bush is trying to boost? But how will that help him in the election? Unbeknownst to Sachs, his argument implies that Bush is a selfless altruist, taking great risks for his country’s and the world’s (everybody needs oil, not just us) good, seeking no political credit.

What’s absurd is that Sachs doesn’t even consider the most obvious reason for the war, which Bush is saying loud and clear: liberty for Iraqis, and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East! This explains the facts far better than any version of blood-for-oil. Even if you think Bush is bad and selfish, he could just be betting that Americans will like a democracy-spreading project. The Bush-hating paradigm is turning some smart people really stupid. Sad.