Iraq War Mythology Part 1: Why America Invaded Iraq

I will be writing a series of posts on what I like to call Iraq War Mythology. The purpose of these posts will be to tackle common misconceptions, or myths, about the war in Iraq. I hope to take on these issues in a comprehensive but thoughtful manner. My goal is to find the facts and refute the myths.

The first Iraq war myth I wish to tackle regards the reason America invaded Iraq. There are two common misconceptions regarding why America invaded Iraq. The first myth, which gained traction early on in anti-war protests - primarily before the actual invasion took place- was that America was waging a war for oil. The second myth, which has become far more pervasive and which has largely eliminated the first misconception, is that the only reason we invaded Iraq was to find weapons of mass destruction.

Here are some good sources which reflect the notion that oil is, if not one of the biggest issues, the only issue in a war with Iraq. (WARNING please do not take these links seriously. The logic behind them is seriously flawed. They all contain bold assertions which are based on assumption and do not logically pan out)

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Source.

This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil
Along with the concern for 'vital interests' in the Gulf, this war was concocted five years ago by oil men such as Dick Cheney

...

Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
Source.

American presidents have never hesitated to use this power when deemed necessary to protect U.S. oil interests in the Gulf. When, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the first President Bush sent hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in August 1990, he did so with absolute confidence that the application of American military power would eventually result in the safe delivery of ever-increasing quantities of Middle Eastern oil to the United States. This presumption was clearly a critical factor in the younger Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.
Source.

Iraq War is "War for Oil" - Los Angeles Times

"While the Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence. Page 1, Chapter 1 ... lays out Iraq's importance: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. The Iraq Study Group would commit U.S. troops to Iraq for several more years to ... provide security for Iraq's oil infrastructure. We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil
Source.

Here are some excellent refutations to the notion that America invaded Iraq for oil (These are included as a counterbalance to the erroneous logic above):

For example, the author of a recent letter to The Collegian, Ashland University’s student newspaper, simply lists a few facts—American consume "more 25 percent of the world’s oil output", Iraq has "the world’s second-largest proven reserves of oil in the world," and American oil companies "currently have no stake in the Iraqi oil market"—then connects the dots to conclude that any war against Iraq would have nothing to do with liberating Iraqis from a brutal tyrant, but everything to do with "liberating oil."

At its heart this is nothing more than what even sophisticated leftists refer to as "vulgar Marxism." There is no need to prove that the Bush administration has oil in mind. One must merely show that there is a possibility that a material interest might be involved, then sit back with a knowing smirk, confident that the true motive has been uncovered. Further evidence—indeed, any further argument—is unnecessary. The rhetoric coming from the White House and the Pentagon might fool the hoi polloi, but not the jaded mind of the economic determinist.
Source.

Nothing demonstrates the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left more clearly than the current attempt to portray military action against Iraq as "for the oil".
...
The flagrant misrepresentation in this assertion seems to be an attempt to trivialize an invasion as motivated by a business decision on behalf of one of the left's favorite scapegoats - the oil business. Such a characterization fails on the basis of being an extremely bad business decision.
...
A war "for the oil" thus can be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis.
...
So the most likely outcome of an Iraqi invasion is a reduction of supplies and increased prices; clearly an additional cost attributable to an invasion, not a benefit, and exactly contrary to a claim that the invasion is "for the oil".
...
Estimates of the costs to the government of the United States for an invasion of Iraq seem to be mostly between $50 billion to $200 billion. If we invade Iraq for oil, the U.S. government must be able to derive a benefit from the oil greater than this cost. What is not clear is how Washington would be paid back for the war.
...
Governments can charge taxes and fees. The United States will not be intending to occupy Iraq, but to establish a new government. The new government will be expected to honor international commitments and contracts, particularly debt repayment. Iraq owes Russia about $8 billion. The United States has no taxing or fee-charging authority in Iraq. If the United States did, by brute force, impose a tax on Iraqi crude, it could not be an add-on to the market price at which crude is sold in the international market or no one would buy it. If that crude is taxed on the net to Iraq, it must be a fee taken from the Iraqi government share and could not be more than about $3 per barrel without imposing an intolerable burden on a country which the United States will be trying to stabilize economically and politically. The United States government currently pays about 4 percent for long-term (10-year) money; that corresponds to $4 billion per year for a 100-billion-dollar war. A $3-per-barrel tax will bring in about $2.4 billion per year; not enough even to pay the interest on the cost of the war.
...
Could we increase production in Iraq after an invasion? Yes, but that increase would also require investment just as it would anywhere. We can make that investment in Iraq if the opportunity is available or elsewhere if it is not. But in Iraq any investment for oil would be increased by the large sunk cost of the war. That cost is not justified by the amount of oil production. Nothing is changed by an invasion and the cost of the war is still a large cost without any return based on oil.

From a political and diplomatic standpoint, the United States will probably not be able to impose any taxes or fees on the production nor take any competitive advantage for American companies.
...
So not only can the United States not receive any direct payback of the cost of the war from the oil, but any significant increase of Iraqi supplies will probably not be realized for a few, or possibly several, years.

As a business decision, invading Iraq "for the oil" is a loser, a big loser. Anyone who would propose, in a corporate boardroom, invading Iraq for the oil would probably find his career rather short. No, the slogan "no war for oil" is a blatant misrepresentation propagated for political reasons.
Source.

Evan Maloney: Do you think he is going to keep the oil fields after the war?
Protestors: Well, yeah. Yes
Evan Maloney: Why didn't we keep the oil fields after the original Gulf War?
Protestors: (dumb look) uh... gee.. I dunno... That's a very good question. I'm not sure.
Watch the Amazing Video.

The congressional resolution to attack Iraq (if it didn’t comply with U.N. resolutions) was justified by 23 paragraphs of reasons among which were:
1) Iraq didn’t honor the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
2) Caches of illegal weapons had been discovered in Iraq -- Iraq had thwarted U.N. attempts to supervise their destruction.
3) The U.S. Congress in 1998 had concluded that Iraq’s weapons programs represented a threat to the U.S. and it authorized President Clinton to deal with it.
4) Iraq posed a continuing threat because of its weapons and because it supported terrorist groups.
5) Iraq had used illegal weapons.
6) Iraq had demonstrated a continuing hostility toward the U.S.
7) Members of al Qaeda were training in Iraq.
8) The attack of 9-11 underscored the danger of having illegal weapons in the hands of terrorists and the danger that was posed by the willingness of nations like Iraq to provide such weapons to them (and through them, to the U.S.).
Source.

"There had been a perspective that is widely spread among Arabs and the anti war, even some Iraqis, that America came to Iraq to steal the oil and other natural resources from Iraq (I don't know if anyone supports this idea in the USA) and I’ve got sick of seeing this ridiculous idea written on the walls in Baghdad or on signs held by the supposed peace activists or even being spoken in interviews on al-jazeera or other Arab media by those who pretend that they care for the interests of the Iraqi people. I wonder how their brilliant, clear thinking got to that nonnegotiable conclusion!!?
...
Everyone knows that the American forces need about (4 billion) dollars/month for their supplies, operations and reconstruction work. I find it so naive for someone to think that the USA is spending 4 billions a month to 'steal' 1,5 billions.

"The USA has already spent (or assigned) over 200 billion dollars, which requires the Americans to wait for over 10 years to get their money back.

"What a great investment!!!

"And that's only in the case that America is 'stealing' all the oil or money of Iraq, while as a matter of fact, all the money that oil yields is spent to provide food, medications and of course to pay salaries to the Iraqis. The war was never for oil itself, the aims of the war were freeing the Iraqi people, destroying Saddam's WMD's, fighting international terrorism and the spread of freedom and democracy in the M.E.
Source.

"What are we accomplishing with a war for oil that we couldn't achieve more easily via peaceful means?"

We can't be going to war to get Saddam to sell us oil because he already does.

Do we want him to sell us MORE oil? Well then all we'd have to do is ask. Iraq is desperate to acquire more revenue.

Do we want to increase the price of oil to make the oil companies more profitable? Again, that's easy to do. We could simply destroy the Iraqi oil fields in retaliation for their attacks on our planes in the "no fly" zone. That would cause a large temporary spike in the price of oil.

Do we want to get more oil on the world market so we can buy cheaper oil? We could easily convince the UN to remove the sanctions and Iraq would quickly double their oil production. They're currently producing way under capacity.

Do we want to get the oil field contracts that the French and Russians have? Behind the scenes, Bush could have offered to have the sanctions lifted if Hussein would have torn up the contracts he had with the French and Russians. If we didn't want the sanctions in place they'd be gone and the contracts Saddam made with the French and the Russians? They don't mean anything when you're dealing with a dictator like Hussein -- unless you've got a military capable of enforcing the deal. Also, just as a side note, the war, the occupation, and aid we'll give Iraq will end up costing us much more than those oil fields are worth even if we would have gotten them all (which we won't).

Do we want to control the country that has the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world so we'll still have a source of oil after much of the rest of the planet has gone dry? Well, this makes no sense at all in world where relationships between nations change regularly. Think about how our relationships with Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, & Germany have changed just since 9/11. The only way we could insure that we would still have access to Iraq's oil decades from now would be to make them into a US colony with a puppet ruler who actually takes orders from us. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks this is going to happen despite the fact that we're not doing it anywhere else in the world today?
Source.

Who is getting the money you might ask? According to multiple sources, the money, 6.9 billion in 2004 with a total of 10.79 billion, including 2003 oil proceeds are in the Central Bank of Iraq. Much of these proceeds are earmarked by the Iraqi Interim Government for reconstruction efforts along with 8.1 billion remaining from the recently released Food for Oil funds administered by the UN and transferred to the coalition on Nov. 21, 2003.

Of course, the CTs got heated up over the transfer and began calling it the black hole, insisting that 4 billion in oil for food money was missing based on their estimations. Little did they know that they were probably right on target with missing money, but it wasn't the coalition that took it.
Source.

There are countless more sources of claims that the Iraq war was about oil and countless more sources refuting undeniably that acquiring oil was NOT the reason America invaded Iraq. I am certain their are far better examples than the ones I have hastily brought together, but the preceding links are fine for the purpose of demonstration.

The claim that America was preparing to wage a war for oil was made primarily before the actual invasion of Iraq. It was an effective argument up until about the time that it was proven wrong.

America has been in Iraq for several years now, and there have been no reports of the Bush administration stealing oil from the Iraqi people. As many of the above sources point out, if Bush wanted oil from Iraq so badly, why not just have the UN lift sanctions and buy it directly from Saddam? That would have been far less costly than engaging in war.

After the invasion, a new myth took over as the prevailing war rationale: WMDs were the only reason America went to war. This notion quickly became very popular because Bush's political opposition and the media were very quick to declare that Iraq had no WMDs, and that Bush must have known that there were no WMDs. Their conclusion: Bush lied about the only reason we went to war.

The "No WMD" myth is a myth unto itself. However the myth that recovering Saddam's WMDs were the sole reason we went to war is as pervasive as any of the common misconceptions about Iraq. How often have you heard someone say, "the only reason we went into Iraq was for WMDs!" or "Bush lied about the primary reason for invading Iraq."

As many educated in the political process are aware, the President cannot declare war. It takes an act of Congress to commit the United States to war. Prior to the 2003 Iraq War invasion, the United States congress authorized the President to go to war with the following piece of legislation (warning, long and technical):

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(I have ommitted the rest of the act)

I'll bet you didn't read all of that. Don't worry, neither did the press, nor did Bush's political opponents, apparently. This list is a summary of the joint resolution

1. Iraq entered into a cease-fire agreement in which Saddam agreed to:
a) cease fire
b) eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and
c) the means to deliver and
d) develop them and
e) end its support for international terrorism.

2. Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Saddam had been hiding his weapons and ongoing weapons programs.

3. Iraq threw out UN inspectors in 1998, violating the cease-fire agreement.

4. In 1998 Congress passed a law specifically requesting the President to bring Iraq into compliance with the UN resolutions

5. Iraq posed a continuing threat to US national security, international peace, and security in the Persian Gulf.

6. Iraq, in violation of UN resolutions, continued in the brutal repression of its people.

7. Iraq's failure to return people wrongfully detained, including a US serviceman.

8. Iraq's failure to return property wrongfully seized from Kuwait.

9. Iraq's demonstrated willingness to use WMDs against other nations and its own people.

10. Iraq's continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including a 1993 attempt to assassinate former President Bush, and attacks on nations enforcing the No-Fly zone.

11. Members of Al Qaeda were known to be in Iraq

12. Iraq's continued support of international terrorism

13. The risk Saddam's WMDs posed to the United States in Saddam's hands or in the hands of international terrorists

14. The established US policy towards Iraq was for regime change

There is no doubt that WMDs were one of the reasons America invaded Iraq; but it is wrong to say that it was the only reason or even that it was the primary reason.

Why did Congress list so many reasons if the only one that mattered was the WMD issue? Regardless, the myths regarding the rationale for invading Iraq are busted. It wasn't to steal or otherwise acquire oil and it wasn't only to find WMDs.