Monday, September 17, 2007

Did Greenspan just agree with me?

In December 2005 I wrote an articled called "We're in Iraq because you want us there." In it I wrote:
So now we've invaded Iraq and many American's don't understand why. In reality they know perfectly well why but prefer denial. We're there because we're dependent on foreign oil. We're dependent on it because our lifestyles require it. We live further and further from work, enjoy the luxury and autonomy of one-car-one-person, and drive increasingly larger vehicles. Our "right" to live where we want and commute how we want is not without costs beyond $2.25/gallon. As ignorant as pretending the consequences may be it is disingenuous to drive to a No Drilling in ANWR demonstration in anything less than a bus filled with like-minded protesters or display a "No War" lawn sign with the same SUV parked in the driveway you drive 20 miles to work.
Now Alan Greenspan has a new book coming out that has already re-agitated this controversy. The Washington Post reported Greenspan blamed the invasion of Iraq on oil. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took issue with Greenspan's comments on this past weekends television news programs.

In a Washington Post interview, Greenspan has explained his out-of-context comment in a way that makes me sound like a Washington insider:
His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.
Well, since my blog is locally-focused I didn't rush into any "global economy" claims. But I must admit some satisfaction knowing Mr. Greenspan and I have something in common--even if he doesn't call me to discuss national and international issues.


  1. Did I just agree with Tom Gagne? I have to say that this post speaks to the idea that us libs and you republicans do not always have to disagree! I could not be happier about Greenspans admition to our reasons for fighting this war. Tom, I think it is good to point out the hipocracy of many people in this country. Although I do think every little bit counts, I would challenge the anti-war, SUV driving Americans to spend a little time considering their impact.

  2. Thanks, Emmele. I like your point that oil doesn't have a party affiliation.