YES, IT WAS ABOUT THE OIL…AND A NUMBER OF OTHER FACTORS.

Was reading over at the Egyptian Sand Monkey’s blog, came across this post - http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/04/it-wasnt-about-oil-stupid.html - and while I enjoy his take-no-prisoners attitude, and I appreciate the perspective from across the ocean, gotta disagree with a number of points he made – all of them good, I might add.

It wasn’t all done for oil. That was a factor, a major one, to be sure. The other two majors are: Shrub’s re-election, and Israeli security.

SAM says: “As for the re-election, let's be honest, the Iraq war was Bush's weakest point up to the election. It was his most vulnerable side at the time, cause let's face it, back then it wasn't going very well.”

Excuse me? I think not. All due respect, I live in this country, and I watched all of these things unfold, very carefully.

First off,

1. Nobody is going to change leaders midstream, regardless of how badly the conflict is going, especially in the very beginning.  


2. By the commentary of almost EVERYONE in this administration, Iraq was going to be a ‘breeze’.

(I will skip over the obvious and scary re-election tactics employed in the 2004 election.)
Witness:

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003.

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties.

‘We promised this would be the most powerful campaign ever seen, and it will be. It will be unlike any we have seen in the history of warfare, with breathtaking precision, almost eye-watering speed, persistence, agility and lethality” — Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, US Navy. By Day Six US forces were bogged down by heavy resistance and bad weather 60 miles south of Baghdad .‘The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberators’ — Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, March 11.

In short, the administration, from all appearances, thought we’d be in and out in months. Rumsfeld (?) guesstimated about 15 weeks.

Not about oil? Not all of it. Factored into the equation in a major way, however:

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]
State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]
Oh, and as a sidebar (still salient), a REAL eye opener: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-05.htm - Ex-General Says Israel Inflated Iraqi Threat (original source: L.A Times).

Again: http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/bbcnews0512.htm - Israelis 'misread' Iraqi threat – The BBC.
Again: http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083 - War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

And I will never, EVER forget that newsclip – Bush being asked what he would do if not re-elected, and he looked straight at the camera – dead on, no hesitation, the rare moment where the Commander-in-Thief was being explicitly candid – and replied: “I have no intention of losing my job.” (paraphrased)

In short – yes, it WAS about the oil. And the re-election. And Israel security.