Is war in Iraq about oil?
Let's be clear about the answer: no. To repeat: no. One more time: no.
But at the time of this writing, within Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's 48 hr of opportunity to choose exile over war, a cynical assertion to the contrary persists. Opponents of the war, of the US, and of both, as well as conspiracy-theory gulls, insist that the US wants to force Saddam from power in order to control Iraq's oil fields.
The view makes no sense. And US President George W. Bush has been clear about objectives of the threatened military campaign. Control of Iraq's oil fields isn't among them.
Interest and engagement
Yes, oil makes Iraq and the Middle East vitally important to the US and the rest of the developed world. Yes, it engages interest and interaction—often unwanted—that wouldn't exist if two thirds of global reserves of conventional crude oil didn't occur in the region. But that engagement, which includes military defense, is an economic and geopolitical constant beyond which much more is required to precipitate warfare.
Cynics ignore an important question: Why would the US even want to control Iraqi oil fields? The notion that the US would seize another country's oil resource in a grab for wealth is simply preposterous. No such imperialistic move would receive political support in the US or survive the international opposition it would provoke. The economic cost, logistical inconvenience, and forsaken legitimacy wouldn't warrant the prize.
Bush has properly asserted that Iraq's oil belongs to Iraqis. To allege imperialistic intent is to challenge his integrity. When a new regime is solidly in place and US military forces withdraw from their inevitable and possibly lengthy defense of Iraqi oil fields, the president and the country he leads will be due a few apologies.
What the US and other oil-consuming countries need from Iraq and other oil exporters is petroleum for sale in international trade. That's all. They don't need war to achieve what complementary commercial interests already provide.
Insistence that oil drives the US toward military action obscures legitimate questions about whether and when the action should occur. Opposition to the use of force in Iraq by the US, Britain, and others is understandable. Throughout history, preemptive military invasion has been the behavior of aggressors, not defenders of peace. In the context of history, therefore, alarm over a preemptive strike by the so-called coalition of the willing is justified, even essential.
And it is no minor concern that the showdown proceeded despite the promised veto of a supplemental United Nations Security Council resolution supporting military action. The UN will have much to repair—if, indeed, repair is possible.
For generating these strains, the US itself bears great responsibility and has many questions to answer. So far, when it has addressed issues raised by its siege of Iraq, much of the world seems not to have heard. Part of the reason is distraction by illusory concerns about control of Iraqi oil fields.
History has turned a page. A murderous, aggressive, and deceitful tyrant with a craving for horrible weapons and a history of aggression rules Iraq and defies the UN. He probably would attack neighbors again if given the chance and certainly would share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists abroad if he hasn't done so already. There can be no question: Saddam Hussein represents an international threat, and an international network of terrorists extends his reach.
France, Germany, Russia, China, and others justifiably ask the US: How dare you launch a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein, threatening as he is? To which the US can rightly respond: As the country most able to expel the menace and relieve Iraqis of oppression, how dare we not?
Self-defense
To much of the world outside the US, the regime change soon to occur in Iraq is about oil. To the US, it's about Sept. 11, 2001, and self-defense. Mass murder by international terrorists on US soil changed the calculus of global politics.
Opponents of US military action in Iraq don't have to accept that logic, of course. They do need to acknowledge US resolve, however, and for their own safety to stand temporarily out of the way.