Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:35:28 AM
Does the left listen?
My wife sent me a
link she found with the headline "John McCain Admits War Was Over Oil". Unfortunately for the left, that was not exactly what he said.
McCain's exact quote, which they do reproduce was "My friends, I will have an energy policy which will
eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent
us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again
in the Middle East.”
Now, I suppose if you are looking for a "Blood for oil" explanation this could be read that way, maybe, but it is hardly the "smoking gun" they claim.
Let me explain this, slowly for those on the left. The Middle East, as a whole, is of strategic interest to us, partly, perhaps mostly, because of the oil that is there. So, were we less dependent on foreign oil, we would have less strategic interest in the middle east. But, as the oil there is necessary, we have a strategic interest there. That strategic interest means we will fight wars there for many reasons, to stabilize the region, for example, not directly related to oil. So, just because a domestic oil industry would lessen our interest in the Middle East and thus reduce the need for involvement, it does not mean we are fighting "wars for oil".
Second, I don't know why the left is crowing about this. If McCain "knows" the war was for oil, then so should every senator. It isn't as if McCain was some special confidant of Bush. If he "knows" it, so does Kerry, so why isn't he breaking the news? For that matter, if McCain "knows" this, doesn't that mean all those Democrats in the senate voted for "blood for oil" too? Or are they trying to push the Democrat line that McCain is somehow a reincarnation of George Bush and a close confidant of the administration?
Lastly, it is our dependence on foreign oil, and that of other nations, which fund the dictators and terrorists of the middle east. I don't know if that was in McCain's mind when he said this, but it is yet another possible reading of what he said. And, while I would hardly claim it is the only possible reading, it does give lie tot he idea that this is some shocking admission that we sent children off to die for oil.
Having said that, I do think McCain's statement is a bit off base. Even without any interest in oil, and even were the entire middle east stripped of its oil wealth, we would still have
been involved in the middle east for the last century. First, the Suez Canal is a major strategic asset and threats to that region would require intervention. Second, Israel is an ally and would need assistance, as would our NATO ally Turkey. Then, until recently, there was the Soviet drive for an ice free port which could not be blockaded at Istanbul or Kiel, which drove them to involvement in Iran and Iraq. That ahd nothing to do with oil. And finally, even without money, the terrorists of the Middle East would require our involvement. After all,. Afghanistan is hardly the heart of oil territory, yet we are quite involved there.
So, though I think McCain is overly optimistic in thinking an end to foreign oil dependence would take us completely out of the Middle East, I also don't think what he said matches up to the left wing crowing. Yes, oil plays a part in our interest in the Middle East, but that does not translate to "we fought for oil".