So, why is Iraq being invaded? There's zero evidence that it will aid in the disastrous and phony "War on Terror" – rather, just the opposite, since the attack will likely create millions of new Islamicist sympathizers. There's absolutely no evidence that a pitiful, bankrupt Third World hole like Iraq threatens the U.S. – rather, just the opposite, for the same reason that even a rat will attack you if it's cornered.
Maybe Iraq was developing so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction. But so are Israel, Pakistan, North Korea – as will be many other Third World countries in the years to come. It's got absolutely nothing (except indirectly) to do with the fact Saddam is a nasty dictator – there are literally dozens of others out there as bad or worse. It's true that Saddam gassed and killed many Kurds, but the U.S. government did the same to its citizens at Waco. For the U.S. government to use these excuses only makes Americans into laughing stock.
I can only figure one of two things are, realistically, in back of the invasion: Oil, or psychology. I think it's a bit of both – but not in the way most people seem to.
Oil
One of the most proven rules of criminal investigation is "follow the money," or, if you wish "Who benefits?" Following that reasoning, some conspiratorialists allege that, since the Bush family has close connections to the oil industry, the Baby Bush is invading to garner fat contracts for U.S. firms in Iraq, after we install a puppet government. Other conspiratorialists say that, since higher oil prices are good for oil companies, Bush is creating this nightmare for that reason.
They're right in that the Bush family has longstanding links to the oil industry, although you'd never know it to hear Baby Bush talk about it, as he did on Dec. 20, 2000, when he famously explained: "Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."
As you know, I don't think Bush is the brightest crayon in the box. But it makes no sense that even he would do something so immensely dangerous and expensive just for the possible benefit of a few friends. As president, he's got far more to lose from a lower standard of living for Americans, in general. So forget about those arguments.
When it comes to oil, I actually think Bush is sincerely doing what he thinks is in America's best interests. So here's why America is invading Iraq.
The U.S. imports about 55 percent of its oil, and the economy runs on oil. Most of the world's oil exports come from the Middle East. The world uses about 77 million barrels per day – Iraq accounts for 2.6 million of that. Looking at the world from the point of view of someone who plays "Monopoly," or "Risk," which is pretty much the way politicians see things, Saddam was actually quite clever in capturing Kuwait back in 1991.
If he'd succeeded, it would have added another 2.5 million barrels of production to his control. Next stop would clearly have been Saudi (9.4 million), and the Emirates (2.5 million). All those revenues, even as badly managed as would have been the case, would have made him a real player – for a while, anyway.
Although much freer than the Soviet economy, the socialist Iraqi economy has many of the Soviets' problems – both economies were purely resource driven. Like the Soviets, Iraq could only produce raw materials – they certainly couldn't manufacture much of real value. Iraq has long been on its way to bankruptcy, and its impending bankruptcy was accelerated by the 1980-1988 war with Iran.
Although it ended badly, it wasn't as foolish an adventure as it seems in retrospect. Saddam figured (quite reasonably) that he could steal their oil easily, since the country was in turmoil from the maniacal Ayatollah ousting the terminally corrupt Shah. Iran was, it seemed, the weakest that it would ever be. It was an ideal time to invade. And, even better, he had the full backing of the U.S.
Not only was the U.S. (including Rumsfeld, who visited approvingly with Saddam in 1982) willing to overlook peccadilloes like the gassing of the Kurds, but it was happy to supply our new ally with arms to fight our erstwhile ally Iran. Invading Iran was just a miscalculation of relative military strength. Invading Kuwait was a miscalculation of the Americans' reaction – although, in checking it out with his ally, Saddam actually asked the U.S. ambassador if there was any objection.
Bush (or, more precisely, his advisers) figures that all that oil in the control of absolutely anyone (other than a U.S. puppet) would be potentially risky and destabilizing. And this is understandable. As Bush said on Feb. 6 (and this is further proof, for skeptics, that I don't think absolutely everything government officials say is a lie – as well as proof that I love listening to Bush talk): "It jeopardizes our national security to be dependent on sources of energy from countries that don't care for America, what we stand for, what we love."
Of course, I don't see how you can ever be sure you can buy what you want from countries that "care for you." And I don't have the foggiest idea what Bush is referring to when he says "what we stand for, what we love." In an earlier era, I would have said "freedom, and individual liberty." Maybe the Baby Bush is thinking of "cheap oil, and an aggressive military."
Certainly, if Saddam had succeeded in conquering either Iran, or Iraq, and then the rest of the neighborhood, he would have controlled a lot of oil. But it would still have to be sold at the market price, just as it is now. And he would have known that the Western powers were quite capable of stealing it back if he got too uppity. What would Saddam have done with the oil revenues? Presumably frittered them away like he did Iraq's. Or just like the Iranians, Saudis, Kuwaitis fritter their revenues away. These are not forward-looking capitalistic cultures. So what?
That relates to the second reason I believe Bush invaded Iraq – which I'll cover next week.