The Washington Post is running an article today by Bob Woodward providing further elaboration of Alan Greenspan's comment in his new book that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." See Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security. As is so often the case with Woodward's reporting, it is simultaneously fascinating and absolutely infuriating. Once again Woodward uses his insider influence to report stunning statements... years too late for it to make any difference at all.
We begin with the report that Greenspan made the oil/economic case for removing Hussein prior to the onset of the war.
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential." ... Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."
So, leaving aside the substance of the Greenspan's case for war... we have the nation's leading force on monetary policy providing rationale for military policy... we have a person who is not an administration official providing that rationale directly to to the top tier of the White House... and we have a supposedly universally respected, erudite economic leader speaking about "taking out" a foreign official. Lovely. And it gets richer.
"I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.
And so, he injected himself into administation discussions of war as a foregone conclusion... and said NOT A SINGLE WORD IN CAUTION OR OPPOSITION. He doesn't even offer any balanced advice on the potential economic costs and consequences, supposedly his forte'.
As for the transparently false WMD argument for ousting Hussein, here's what the Great Oracle has to say:
Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."
Another Master of the Universe, supporting an illegal war of choice based on the flimsly rationale that Hussein was "acting guiltily" and could someday having some sort of weapons, and we were "doing nothing"; forget the U.N., forget diplomatic pressure, forget forging a solid international front, forget the unintended consequences that we are dealing with now. Wow. Some oracle.
Then watch Greenspan twist himself around the inevitable conclusion to which his premise leads:
"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 [of oil] 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.
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.
"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."
No no no... the war was not an oil grab... it was just a little bit of wise economic policy, a rational investment in the global free market system. And you have to love the last little comment. If I follow the logic right: we need to commit the lives of our nation's troops, ruin the international reputation of the United States, and accumulate massive debt to assure the stable flow of a resource that we are going to deplete anyway. This man, hailed by one and all as the Great Guru of Global Economics for my entire adult life, apparently lacks what seems like basic, common sense, conservative investment strategy: do not throw your money (much less the blood of your youth) at stretching out a bad and failing long-term investment; put that money into preparing for the future through innovation.
I don't want to spit out my coffee on my computer, so I leave it to the comments to elaborate my outrage. But let's give a word of appreciation to the esteemed Mr. Woodward. Once again he provides the expert post-game commentary, explaining how his important friends on the field of play in Washington committed sins of ommission and commission in the middle of the game, and no one really noticed until the game was over. It really wasn't HIS job, after all, to report on the game as it happened.