February 21, 2004
The Reasons for the Iraq War
Kwiatkowski says that no one in the OSP believed they would find WMD because they knew they didn't exist before the war started.
So if, as you argue, they knew there weren’t any of these WMD, then what exactly drove the neoconservatives to war?
The neoconservatives pride themselves on having a global vision, a long-term strategic perspective. And there were three reasons why they felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq.
One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.
The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter — to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important — that is, if you hold that is America’s role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.
The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.
The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it’s not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar.
She says that she feels it is her duty as a patriot to speak out on this subject. Thank you Karen.
(Via smalfish, a Calpundit commenter.)
Posted by Mary at February 21, 2004 03:01 PM | TrackBackThe following is a JOKE:
Can someone please accuse Col. Kwiatkowski of having had an affair with Kerry, so we can get some publicity on her statements?
Oh, no, Mary, don't revive the "euro conspriacy theory" again! No, no! The Guardian explained why this isn't true. The euro cannot replace the USD as a reserve currency because the Eurozone runs Balance of Payment (BoP) surpluses. Use of the dollar in trade allows the EU to do this. Second, Saudi Arabia was a vastly easier, cheaper, and more congenial host for US military bases than Iraq could ever be.
Finally, the sanctions regime was a public relations disaster. So I'm, sorry, but none of this holds together. If you want to know what what was the neoconservative motive for invading Iraq, that's already been established.
Posted by: James R MacLean on February 24, 2004 02:05 PMThe Guardian article does not, in my opinion, refute Kwiatkowski's thesis. It refutes someone else's thesis. Kwiatkowski wasn't saying any of the things that Richard Adams wrote about. She was saying that the value of the dollar would go down significantly once the embargo were lifted and if the oil continued to be sold in euro.
And, what is the "well-established" neoconservative motive for invading Iraq?
Posted by: Paul Foraker on February 25, 2004 07:49 PM