War for Oil


Everyone's favourite hawk, Paul Wolfowitz, is quoted in The Guardian saying, "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." This, comes soon after his recent comment in Vanity Fair, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason".

While it is obvious that behind the scenes there must be a process of reasoning including proponents of different particular viewpoints, these two pronouncements are controversial. Can we take Paul Wolfowitz's words to be anything other than his own opinion? Is this the White House Policy and an authoritative statement on U.S. Foreign Policy or are the White House media minders toothless to prevent outspoken outbursts from the Defense Department?

Posted by Paul at June 4, 2003 10:44 PM |
Visitor Feedback

umm, no. read: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6906_Another_British_Attack_on_Wolfowitz

Posted by: at June 4, 2003 11:57 PM

Thanks for that, this is interesting - the actual Q&A from the DoD's transcript of "Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A following IISS Asia Security Conference" : http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html

Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not thatís true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. Itís is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- 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 problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

Posted by: Paul at June 5, 2003 12:55 AM

it seems people are taking the guardian's mis-quoting faux pas as vindication of wolfowitz's views. it's the same logic as - the war was a walk in the park, so all you liberals were wrong, time to shut up and let the real men run the show. bullshit - war on iraq was wrong, and it WAS about oil.

wolfowitz's justification was that they had no choice in iraq - they couldn't squeeze them economically because of iraq's vast oil reserves. on closer analysis this argument evaporates - 10 years of hardcore economic sanctions rendered iraq's oil reserves irrelevant.

now the bush administration is handing over gobs of cash to their buddies to 'rebuild' iraq - to be paid for with US taxpayer money (in the short term,) and - shock horror - iraq's oil income in the longer term.

Posted by: gregor at June 5, 2003 07:53 AM

The Agenda for Century 21 by The Used Johnnys
This deeply satirical anti-war song is gaining massive interest on the net and has become a major voice in the anti-war movement world - wide. Run time 3mins. 44secs.

While retaining the full spirit of the traditional "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" this version:
"The Agenda for Century 21" brings the song bang up-to-date. Hacking guitars slash through the military band accompaniment while ironic vocals weave the story of political betrayal and personal sacrifice.

Our political pastiche puts their words into context. Flip on to any current news bulletin and we hear about more unnecessary troop deaths, long after their success in achieving their masters will. While this occupation continues then this song is pertinent, relevant and of the moment.

Around the globe this song is of major interest. Even the US media have been researching this song; media from a country who frown on the playing of anti-war music of any sort and ban the reporting of star spangled coffins returning to their shores. If you are against this war and the leaders who orchestrated it, then get a copy, play it loud and send the message out as far as you can. Bush is visiting the UK right now.
Know any DJs, radio hosts, media?
This song is a political protest song. It is intended to provoke positive action against the occupation of Iraq. It is not intended for profit or gain by the authors.
Download the song for free from http://www.agendaC21.50megs.com
Feedback and support is always gratefully received.

Posted by: Johnny at November 19, 2003 06:31 PM