Editorial - The motives in Iraq

Feb. 23, 2004
Controversy over weapons of mass destruction obscures other motives, real and imagined, for the military strike in Iraq last March.

Controversy over weapons of mass destruction obscures other motives, real and imagined, for the military strike in Iraq last March. Some of those presumptive motives make no sense; others do. All of them deserve attention.

An alleged motive that has never made sense is control of Iraqi oil. Outside the chronically suspicious Middle East, only the hopelessly cynical continue to argue that the US led coalition forces into Baghdad for such a reason. The US and its oil-importing allies don't need to control Iraqi oil, or oil from anywhere else, in order to have access to the supply they need. Control of Iraqi oil isn't worth a single coalition death. Control of Iraqi oil isn't worth the enormous expense of rebuilding a fractious country or the international scorn leveled against occupation. The US and its coalition allies didn't invade Iraq in pursuit of that supposed prize.

Oil revenue

The record speaks for itself. Since last May, Iraqi production of crude oil has climbed back to a recent 7-day average of 2.34 million b/d. Exports since November have remained slightly above 1.5 million b/d. With the Mina Al-Bakr terminal on the Persian Gulf operating at capacity, exports won't climb much until other outlets restart, probably not for several months. Still, restoration of production and exports to current levels is impressive and important. Crude sales exceeded $5 billion last year and total $1.3 billion so far this year. The money stays in Iraq. The Iraqi Ministry of Oil controls the oil. If coalition governments wanted to control Iraqi oil they should have taken control by now. But that's not the reason their troops occupy Iraq and never has been.

Suspicions about weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, do constitute a reason for the invasion—or did. US Sec. of State Colin Powell made those suspicions explicit in his appearance a year ago before a balky United Nations. Failure of the suspected weapons and chemical agents so far to turn up makes Powell's information look wrong. To opponents of the invasion, especially political opponents of coalition-government leaders, the apparent error of intelligence closes the case.

Their judgment is premature. The weapons might still be found. That former President Saddam Hussein wanted and at one time possessed them is well documented. In any case, the invasion never was exclusively about weapons of mass destruction, however much Powell's presentation to the UN emphasized them.

In a recent interview with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), R. James Woolsey, former US director of central intelligence, said the US had at least two other good reasons to overthrow Saddam: human-rights atrocities and links to terrorists.

Woolsey noted that the administration of former US President Bill Clinton, of which he was part, went to war twice against former Yugsolav President Slobodan Milosevic on humanitarian grounds alone. The 200,000 killings attributed to Milosevic, Woolsey said, amount to one tenth of the deaths for which Saddam is thought responsible. As long as he held power, the Iraqi president would have killed Iraqis he saw as threats.

Woolsey also cited Saddam's known links with terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda, the group blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the US. Saddam and Al-Qaeda had disputes, Woolsey said, but still could have worked tighter in specific projects. "There were enough contacts between Iraq and Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaeda for there to have been a risk that something like anthrax or even dirty bomb material might have been provided," Woolsey told CFR. "To my mind, given the human rights situation, that would have been sufficient" to justify Saddam's expulsion.

Confining debate

The Bush team, of course, set itself up for trouble when it focused on weapons of mass destruction at the expense of the broader argument. With nasty weapons nowhere to be found, critics naturally confine debate as well. Just as the invasion never was about control of oil, however, justification for ridding Iraq of Saddam never hinged solely on bombs and bugs.

Iraqis have new hope, amplified by oil and enabled by freedom. As newly intercepted communications reveal, their hope terrorizes the terrorists. The US and its allies need no more justification than that. They only need to finish the job.