Greenspan says (basically) that with higher MPG cars, Iraq war could have been avoided
In a statement that would shock no one except for the fact that it's coming from Alan Greenspan - Alan Greenspan! - another voice has chimed in to say that the Iraq war was really all about oil.According to the Times of London, Greenspan writes in his new book that, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." The official line, of course, is that the the U.S. invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; this turned out to not be the case.
Now, there are all sorts of reasons why the ex-Federal Reserve Chairman could be right or wrong about the reasons for the Iraq war. I'm pretty sure that oil had something to do with it, but the larger economic and empire questions should not be ignored just because a Republican we don't expect to go against official pronouncements speaks out.
As far as putting this up on a green car blog, I hope you'll agree that calculating overall oil use and demand is a pretty vital component for understanding the broader environment that hybrids and SUVs exist in. I'll read what you have to say about all this in the comments, but I wanted to just point out how vital of a role Greenspan is admitting the gasoline-powered vehicle has in deciding American foreign policy. Greenspan's comments will (thankfully) give the Woolsey-minded readers of our site another reason to support greener cars for national security reasons; they give the rest of us plenty to chew on as well.
[Source: Times Online via EV World]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
OhmExcited 7:53PM (9/19/2007)
If it were about oil, then it wouldn't it have been easier to just drop the UN sanctions and buy the oil on the open market?
Reply
mike 8:06PM (9/19/2007)
Ohm,
I think you're not getting the part about it being U.S. Oil companies that get the Fat Oil Contracts to Pump the oil.
Good to see the Economic Principle "Opportunity Cost" seems to have crossed Mr. Greenspan's mind.
Even better if there'd been a debate.
Trillion dollars for war, and control of the Iraq oil fields
or
Trillion dollars for Wind, Solar and Nuclear electric generation and Plugin Hybrids.
Reply
Tim 8:52PM (9/19/2007)
It was about keeping the Federal Reserve's fiat Dollar solvent. You need an ever increasing money supply in order to pay interest on the debt and the only way to float more currency in the market without hyperinflation is to create a hole to dump it into. That’s also why the Fed created the housing bubble, but sooner or later, that money will come home to roost as in bubble bursting.
If you want an indication of the whole truth, look at gold prices and the decline of the US Dollar over the last 5 years. Greenspan is telling a half-truth. The other half is that international markets are beginning to believe that the US is insolvent and foreign investment in treasury bonds is slowing. We’re in serious trouble and Greenspan should be skinned, rolled in salt and left in the sun… http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=AMERICA%27S+GREATEST+THREAT-Federal+Reserve+Bank+Pt+&search=Search
Reply
MikeW 10:34PM (9/19/2007)
Greenspan is a lying sack of sh*t.
The war was about oil, about shutting off the oil to reinforce the artificial scarcity.
Reply
Nathan 11:56PM (9/19/2007)
The old oil routine... I thought this site was dedicated to the promotion of moving forward through unity (progress), not looking into the past for devision (useless). I come to this site for the warm fuzzys. Not for hate. When you bring up hind-sight conspiracy theory as truth it just reaffirms most people have short memories. Saddam attacked Kuwait. The United Nations defended Kuwait. Once Saddam was defeated we allowed him to stay in power under restrictions. Saddam never held to the restrictions and was continually attempting to undermine the rules set in place by the U.N. by dealing under the table with other countries and exploiting his people. The deal was ok we leave you in power, you (saddam) be straight up with us. Like being on parole. But then Saddam would not allow the U.N. to monitor all actions to make sure there was not a nuclear threat. So we had to take him out. If Saddam would have been open with the U.N. then No-one could have came out and said he has nuke mterial. But he wasnt open so it was possible. He could have even came out after Bush announced the invasion and said ok ok you win check everything out Ill comply, but he didnt. Even as you saw the boats moving towards Iraq nothing... Then One can argue he did have them. You cant prove he didnt. And it was very apparent to anyone Saddam wanted more power and was willing to screw any country for it if he could. So it is not logical to believe in time he would not have worked towards the idea. Furthermore Iraq is in the middle... of the middle east. A perfect base to allow extremists around the middle east to meet their maker. It devides extremist countries from one another and it sends a clear message. The old oil routine... most countries that have the power to corrupt must have assets. The worst will have a lot of assets. Because of this there will always be spoils of war. I want american countries to profit from having to enforce U.N. rule. Its a spoil of war.
Reply
NewType 3:27AM (9/20/2007)
Yo, to the idiot that made this post. READ UP! Greenspan was TOTALLY misquote by people looking for fantasy fulfillment of their conspiracy theories.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?hpid=topnews
Read up, yo! Greenspan SUPPORTED an Iraq war because he felt that would it would be the best way to stabilize the world's oil supply. Why? Because Greenspan felt the costs of fighting a war were much less than the cost of Middle East oil threatened by Saddam Hussein.
Quoted from the Washington Post article clarifying his statements:
"His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.
Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy."
Secondly, the idiot who posted this without actually reading what Greenspan said should realize that the Secretary of the Treasury's opinions about war with a foreign country count very little. It is Congress' job to declare war and the President's job to wage it. How about studying up some Constitution instead of succumbing to mind-numbing conventional (but thoughtless) "wisdom?"
Reply
peter franzoni 10:13AM (9/20/2007)
Ofcourse the Iraq war is about oil. "R people" refuse to acknowledge this since "fighting terrorism" is a better justification for the almost 4,000 American lost lives, trillion dollar price tax, and lost American worldwide image.
Furthermore, Hunt Oil of Texas just negotiated a seperate oil contract with the Kurds in Northern Iraq. This is important, since oil revenue sharing is the most essential agreement which must occur for a stable Irag. Hunt is a Southern Methodist Univerity trustee, who donated 35 million to the Bush libary to be built on his campus. The oil contract was a payback for the libary "gift" and to an old Bush friend. Hunt is also on an important Intelligence commitee who probally had inside information as the the state of Iraq politics. He is betting the country will fall apart, hense the seperate oil contract with the Kurds. This is in direct conflict with what the administration is telling the public-that oil revenue sharing will lead to a politcal settlement, and US troops leaving. Blood for oil-that is all this war is about...do you remember leading up to the 04 elections, Bush stated "I'm not concerned about finding Bin Laden"
Reply
rgseidl 11:40AM (9/20/2007)
There may well have been a hidden agenda in the Bush administration, because Iraq is the only country other than Saudi Arabia that has the potential to deliver similarly vast quantities of oil very cheaply. At the time, there was some question about Saudi Arabia's resolve to combat the terrorism perpetrated by the young men it had sent/allowed to go to Afghanistan and then effectively exiled there. There was also some question about the succession process should Crown Prince Abdullah pass away.
Even if the US invasion really was intended primarily to prevent Saddam from once again destabilizing the region, it's clear that the only reason he could afford to dabble in WMDs in the first place was oil revenue. Also, the US turbned a blind eye while he was doing its dirty work in the 1980s war against Iran, another oil producer. Now, is that country's nuclear program the cause of or rather, a response to the US' foreign policy toward it since the overthrow of the Shah, who came to power after the CIA toppled Mossadegh in 1953?
Ergo, whichever way you slice and dice it, oil is always a big factor in Persian Gulf politics and closely intertwined with WMD issues.
If improving the fuel economy of the US LDV fleet can create some (temporary) excess oil production capacity, that would shift the balance of power away from producers and toward consumer nations again. Russia, Iran and Venezuela would all have to moderate their foreign policies accordingly. Excess capacity would reduce the risk premium a barrel of oil currently commands.
Unfortunately, the notion that "less is more" does not appear to be very popular with US consumers. Then again, sending the marines to keep oil producing nations in the region in line obviously isn't working all that well, either.
Reply