Consequences
Sep. 11th, 2007 02:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoFrom 2Blowhards comes this snippet of an interview, which I think has the best comment on L'affaire Irak ever:
2B: What would be the consequences of a rapid USA exit from Iraq?
Cochran: Someone would win the civil war and then they'd sell oil.
*^*^*
See, that's always been my problem with the whole, "We're really in Iraq for the oil," argument. You'd think that if we were, we'd somehow manage to sell more of the stuff.
About the only way one can get to an oil-related motivation for our involvement in Iraq is counter-intuitive: We're there to keep Iraqi oil off the market, and thus prop up prices.
Two other possibilities, neither of which are comforting:
* Like the WMD, it turns out Iraq has far less oil than we thought.
* The Bush administration is so incompetent it can't even get this right, despite years of experience at senior levels in the oil biz.
2B: What would be the consequences of a rapid USA exit from Iraq?
Cochran: Someone would win the civil war and then they'd sell oil.
*^*^*
See, that's always been my problem with the whole, "We're really in Iraq for the oil," argument. You'd think that if we were, we'd somehow manage to sell more of the stuff.
About the only way one can get to an oil-related motivation for our involvement in Iraq is counter-intuitive: We're there to keep Iraqi oil off the market, and thus prop up prices.
Two other possibilities, neither of which are comforting:
* Like the WMD, it turns out Iraq has far less oil than we thought.
* The Bush administration is so incompetent it can't even get this right, despite years of experience at senior levels in the oil biz.
