Posted by Cockney Robin | ...as is now confirmed by Mr. Alan Greenspan, who---according to Bob Woodward----has said in an interview that "the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies"(Washington Post) To be strictly accurate, he also said that securing oil supplies wasn't actually the Administration's motive for the Iraq war (WaPo).
Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, acknowledging he wasn't around at the time or present for any of the discussions, doesn't believe that what Mr. Greenspan says he isn't saying. ""I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true""(WaPo).
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."
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." 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."
Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "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.(WaPo)
War or "Plan B", eh? That's a nice, flexible view of international
law that Mr. Greenspan has got, according to this humble and unsophisticated Brit. Is it naive that I find this a bit bloody shocking?
Hey, but at least Greenspan "added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab."(WaPo) Phew!
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.
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said.(WaPo)
And so:
LINKS
Washington Post: Bob Woodward, Ouster of Saddam Hussein Crucial for Oil Supplies (WaPo)
Greenspan Admits Iraq War was About Oil [Updated and Clarified]
Comments