Even though I was one of those liberals who opposed that stupid decision on March 19, 2003 to invade Iraq, I always thought the leftie “blood for oil” chants were a bit unfair. But check this – Christopher Hayes says staying in Iraq is important to the Bush crowd because we need access to the oil (hat tip to Mark Thoma):
But there’s also the not-so-minor fact that if we withdraw from Iraq we’ll have a hard time establishing permanent bases and may not have any secure access to the country’s oil.
Incidentally, I temporarily confused sensible Christopher with Stephen Hayes over at Mark’s place. My apologies to Christopher as he clearly was simply reporting on what certain rightwingers are using as their latest excuse (how many have there been as I’ve lost count) for that stupid decision to invade. Here’s my problem with the latest excuse – I thought the Bush crowd believed in markets. Access to oil simply means one buys the stuff. Never mind the fact that this Administration’s fiscal fiasco is contributing to massive current account deficits and if this continues for long – the U.S. dollar won’t purchase much at all. But wouldn’t a believer in markets think living within one’s budget constraint so one had the resources to buy goods such as oil be more appropriate than simply taking the stuff by military force. Something about the efficiency of market trades over the inefficiency of global conflict.
And thanks to Christopher for his thought provoking post.