A Sphinx But Not a Moonbat

Not having read, or even seen a copy of, Alan Greenspan’s about-to-be-published memoirs, I don’t know the context of the sentence that so excited Matt Drudge and the Times of London (and an atypically unperceptive Little Green Footballs, too): “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Those words will doubtless be seized on by moonbats of all stripes, from the Paulitarians to the Krazy Kos Kidz, as “proof” that the “petroleum elite” conspired to invade Iraq, steal its oil and sell the plunder for outrageous profits.

That reaction shows why Mr. Greenspan is “saddened”. The Angry Left has set up a snare for timid politicians. With one side of its mouth it shrieks that the Iraqi campaign isn’t in the national interest. Then, when anyone responds that what happens in the world’s largest energy-producing region is too a matter of American concern, the other side of its mouth sneers that war supporters want to trade “blood for oil”. The same trick was deployed during the Vietnam War: Whoever pointed to America’s concrete interests in Southeast Asia was accused of imperialism; whoever invoked idealism, of waging a war in a region where our interests were nil.

Mr. Greenspan’s point – easier to divine that his oracular pronouncements on monetary policy – is that rich anti-Western tyrants are a greater danger than impoverished ones. Robert Mugabe is as hostile to us as Saddam Hussein was, but he can’t fund suicide bombers or bribe Western politicians, much less finance weapons programs. It was oil that made Saddam dangerous, so in that sense “the Iraq war is largely about oil”. If its eventual outcome is a peaceful Iraq under a lawful and reasonably competent government, oil will help bring prosperity. If the mufsidun prevail, as every Democratic Presidential candidate is willing to see happen, oil will pay for attacks on our friends and ourselves.

Addendum: A New York Times preview says, perhaps accurately,

Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”

Here I think we see Greenspan the Sphinx again. Bill Clinton never expended a syllable in behalf of policies to promote long-term economic growth. But, after his initial round of tax hikes, he was the most ineffectual President since Gerald Ford. His “consistent, disciplined focus” consisted of doing nothing, which was, in all likelihood, exactly what his Fed chairman wanted to be done.

Update (9/17/07): My interpretation of the Sphinx is vindicated. The Washington Post reports:

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. . . .

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.” Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, “Well, unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.” Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, “I talked to everybody about that.”

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein’s ouster, either through war or covert action. “I wasn’t arguing for war per se,” he said. But “to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B” – an alternative to war. . . .

Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.” While he was “reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon,” he added, “my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon.”

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.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”