[lbo-talk] Wolfowitz Speaks Plainly: Oil Was The Prime Motivation (fwd)

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Thu Jun 5 19:20:15 PDT 2003


On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Seth Ackerman wrote:


> Am I the only one who thinks this is being unfair to Wolfowitz? The way
> I read it, he's saying North Korea, having no oil, will collapse of its
> own weight, whereas Saddam's regime could have lived off its oil
> forever, thus necessitating an invasion.

I think you are completely right about the misconstrual of his words, and that what you grasped immediately, the transcript and retraction have since proven.

But now that his argument has been understood correctly, there are still two enormous problems with it, one logical and factual, and the other moral.

The logical and factual problem is that oil is the easiest export in the world to interdict. The entire Iraqi sanctions system was built on this fact. Every previous sanction system was notorious for its porousness. This one was unique for its effectiveness. Pipelines and tankers are not just easy to find, they are impossible to miss. Drugs and weapons, on the other hand, North Korea's main exports, have been the mainstays of smuggling since smuggling was invented.

Which brings us to the moral reason. We could easily have turned off Iraq's oil exports completely. That's exactly what we did for the first two years. The reason we didn't keep it up was because threatened to cause mass starvation on a genocidal scale. Not that that bothered us, but it bothered other countries. So we were slowly forced to allow in an Oil For Food Program that rose from $1.6 billion to $5.5 billion in receipts annually. We essentially compromised. Rather than admitting the total sanctions idea had been tried and failed because it was flawed in its conception, we said let's try a slightly less extreme regime for a longer period and see if that works. I.e., let's kill a million Iraqis over a 10 year period and see if that works. And we ended up with the worst of both worlds. It outraged the rest of the world and it didn't work. And now, thanks to a decade-long a news blackout in the US and the moral blindness it makes possible, we can reap the worst of a third world: we'll can do it again thinking it was a great idea.

Wolfowitz's statement is the intellectual and moral equivalent of saying we could have won Vietnam if only we had bombed the dikes. And then declaring that's what we're going to do this time.

Furthermore, the experience of Iraq showed that such means don't work even when they were used at full strength, which they were for the first two years. There are at least three reasons for this. First, regime members are the last to be hurt by such sanctions. Secondly, it creates an external scapegoat for all shortages. (Iraqis blamed Saddam for a lot of things, but they didn't blame him for the sanctions.) And thirdly, people who are scrambling to survive don't rebel effectively. Even when they are aided from the outside. Again, Iraqi is a great example of a coup-free and uprising-free zone during this period despite our best efforts to foster them. And by what other means are economic sanctions supposed to bring down a regime?

I suppose it would be panty-waisted to mention that this method of regime change is banned by the Geneva convention. Such a sanctions regime perfectly regime fits one of the definitions of what we quaintly used to call a war crime. It purposefully aims to inflict suffering on innnocent civilians in order to accomplish a political goal. Why, that almost sounds like terrorism. Except terrorism only does it retail.

So what Wolfowitz is saying is that there are only two choices: war; and an alternative that is both ineffective and genocidal. And that the the latter is better.

I don't know which part of that argument is more appalling.

Beginner that I am, I don't see what's wrong with the pledge not to invade, economic aid, and the progressive opening of north-south contacts. Strangely, it seems to me that would lower the chance of war and improve the well-being of the people in the north. But clearly I haven't been initated into the higher wisdom. All I can say is it must be really deep. Because from the outside, it looks stupid and evil.

The difference between Iraq and North Korea is not that oil is harder to indict. It's that people dying in North Korea aren't laid at our doorstep because we didn't invade 12 years ago.

Michael



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list