UPDATE: the Guardian newspaper has issued a correction on this story, no doubt in response to reader complaints: A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading “Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil” misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had … Continue reading “The Dowdian attacks Wolfie”
UPDATE: the Guardian newspaper has issued a correction on this story, no doubt in response to reader complaints:
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading “Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil” misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, “The … difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.” The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
Now will all the anti-war blogs that quoted the Guardian article also issue corrections? People of good character admit it when they’re wrong.
—
The Belgravia Dispatch has the goods on the Guardian’s Dowdification of Wolfowitz’ remarks in Singapore. The anti-American paper claims Wolfowitz said: “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”
But what he really said on the subject of tactical differences in dealing with Iraq and North Korea was: “The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil.”
What difference two words can make in the hands of a skilled prevaricator. We had to invade Iraq, in other words, because the option of economic pressure wasn’t viable (and had in fact been shown by experience not to work), but against Korea it’s still an option.
Reasonable, and all that. What this discussion misses, and I think Wolfowitz and other Administration officials miss out of fear of feeding the “no blood for oil” frenzy is that oil can be a weapon of mass destruction. The logic is pretty straightforward, and we saw it at work in 1990. The world economy is heavily dependent on a few major oil producers; taking two or even one of them offline disrupts the whole system, leading to price increases and shortages in the poorer countries with limited hard currency. When India can’t import oil because its current account is tapped out, electricity isn’t generated in some areas and food and medicine aren’t delivered to others. So people die.
That’s a weapon of mass destruction, just as much as anthrax or mustard gas. So yes, we invaded Iraq at least in part to stabilize the oil supplies that undergird much of the world economy, and it’s worth it.
But we also did it to teach a lesson, as Tom Friedman pointed out, so it was a twofer, and a bargain at the price we’re going to pay for it.
Link via Instapundit.
UPDATE: The Dowdian (AKA “Guardian”) based their story on a German translation of Wolfie’s remarks, not on the remarks themselves. Their corrections address is [email protected].
