It is a common criticism of the Bush administration. The cries of "It's all about oil" spring forth like a gusher during any public discourse regarding Iraq or the Middle East.

If you ask me, the cries are correct. It IS all about oil.

The difference is that I think it ought to be.

It is time for the citizens of the US to take an honest look at why we have a military in the first place. As someone who enjoys reading military history, I have lots of opinions on the subject. As someone who has never been in the military I have to preface my opinion with this disclaimer: I am neither an historian nor a former serviceman. My opinions are those of an outsider to the military.

Why does any nation spend the extraordinary amount of time, money, effort, and lives necessary to maintain a peacetime force? There are many reasons, but defending one's borders is the first reason that comes to mind. Providing direct aid to allies is another. Securing access to resources is yet another, and is one that actually underlies the first two.

The people of the US enjoy several beliefs that say more about our ideals than our grasp of reality. We liked to think we had no real enemies in the world, just friends we hadn't met. We like to think that war over resources is something OTHER nations make, but we are somehow too noble for such petty actions.

Fortunately, most of our democratically elected leaders throughout our history knew better. During and after World War II the United States became the dominant Naval Power in the world, and we currently have combat power equivalent to several times the combined force of the rest of the world according to some estimates. We have this Navy and also our Air Force for one reason, which is to project American military power wherever our national interests are threatened.
Do not interpret this to mean that the US is inclined to resort to military force quickly. Like any democracy the act of making war is a slow and laborious process. It took a direct attack on our ability to project force in the Pacific to bring us into World War II.

During the Reagan presidency Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger articulated the circumstances wherein the US should use military force. This brilliant recognition of the wrongheaded policies employed during the Vietnam War became known as the "Weinberger Doctrine." In summary, it stated that the US or close allie's vital interests must be at stake, that we must fight to win clearly defined political objectives, we must have Congressional support, the public should be behind the war, force must be necessary and appropriate, and other diplomatic means should be exhausted.

Weinberger was not read these criteria by a burning bush, but they are an astute analysis of what was lacking in Vietnam. They provide an interesting viewpoint on the Iraq situation.

Does Iraq threaten us vital interests? Clearly. Free market access to oil in the Middle East was, is, and will be one of our vital interests for a long time. Without it our economy will tank, which carries with it ancillary costs in crime, poverty, joblessness, and other dire consequences. We also have been very reluctant to develop our own oil resources. When someone says we shouldn't overthrow Hussein ask them if we can drill for oil in Alaska instead.

Do we have clearly defined political objectives that we will fight to win? This is more hazy. After Saddam goes who goes up in his place, and what will it cost us? Personally, I think this is the stickiest point in the whole endeavor.

Will we have Congressional and public support? Probably. Saddam is a very hard man to love, and despite all the nattering about how sanctions are crippling Iraq he has plenty of treasure to spend on weapons and palaces, as well as most Sunnis. It is the Kurds and Shiites who are getting shafted, because Saddam hates them and they hate him.

Is force necessary and appropriate? Of course. Saddam is going nowhere without a toe tag, and he has a few loyalists who will go down with him. The war will not hurt Iraq very much, unless Saddam lets loose with his chemical weapons. While our side, with the best training and equipment, will only be mildly inconvenienced Saddam's people will have a very rough go of it.

Are other diplomatic means exhausted? Ask the UN. They won't rescind the sanctions or the no-fly zones but won't lift a word of complaint when the US and UK forces get shot at enforcing them. They should be thrilled that we will do one more dog and pony show to pretend they are relevant.

Lets contrast this with some other uses of force since WWII. For example:

Vietnam. We lost tens of thousands of lives and spent billions fighting a pointless war in support of a bunch of crooks in the South. What was in it for us?

Korea. South Koreans complain that the US is blocking Korean reunification. Which we are, at great expense. We don't want reunification, at least on the North's terms.

Serbia. The Yugoslav governments have been corrupt wrecks since WWI, and the civil wars were often between the criminal kingpins in power versus the kingpins not in power, with religious clashes thrown in. Now we have the 1st Armored Division keeping the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo, where Al Qaeda can recruit new batches of terrorists without all that nasty fighting.

When we send our nation's sons and daughters into harms way, we incur a great oblication to them. First, they deserve the best training and equipment we can afford. Secondly, they deserve our full support and acclaimation. Lastly, they should go in knowing they fight for something tangible and important.

One of the most common criticisms of Bush is that he is somehow picking on Iraq, when North Korea is just as bad. This is stated as though the United States was somehow obligated to treat all bad regimes in the same manner. This criticism is often shouted with righteous indignation in order to demonstrate that the war is about oil.

When it comes down to it, some mother will be notified that her son or daughter is dead in a faraway land and was sacrificed to protect our economic interests and our freedom to live as we have lived, in prosperity, health, and liberty. That loss is a tragedy. If parents must be told their child is dead because despite our lack of national interest we have to look consistent to the rest of the world, then that loss is an outrage.

Home | Interact | About | Feedback | Site Map