Aussie Defense Minister States the Obvious, AFP Has Vapors

It would appear that the histrionic rantings of the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!1!" crowd have gained international resonance.  One Australian Defense Minister had the temerity to make a solid point, and even the normally stalwart Prime Minister John Howard slapped him down.

"Energy security is extremely important to all nations throughout the world, and of course, in protecting and securing Australia's interests," he said.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq," Nelson said.

Note that Nelson is not using oil as a justification for entering Iraq.  He's just making the case for staying there, on the grounds that a quick withdrawal would destabilize the region and probably cut off that country's supply of oil for a long time.  That's a fairly credible claim if you're honest with yourself.  After all, oil wells don't produce much usable oil if their operators have been slaughtered for being Sunni in a Shiite area (or vice versa).

But even if you accept the ridiculous premise that the coalition went to Iraq to grab resources, how do you explain the fact that they haven't bloody well grabbed any resources?  Who's going to stop the US from tapping Iraq now?  Surely someone willing to invade a country and topple its leader just for oil would be willing to take the final step and just take that oil.  After all, that's the easy and relatively bloodless part.  Or is the media actually going to claim that they guilt-tripped the coalition into abstaining from the oil?  That'd be a narcissistic delusion fitting of the media and the left in general: their own vehement disapproval changed the course of war and averted a tragedy of justice.  Truth to power, man.

Frankly, I'd be willing to bet that large rodents exert greater influence over the hearts and minds of their owners than big media does, but let's not go down a rabbit trail.  (Sorry.  Couldn't resist.)

As if their restraint re: oil wasn't enough, the coalition has made every attempt to assist the Iraqis in rebuilding and (dare I say it) civilizing their country.  Our rewards?  Improvised explosive devices.  Accusations from across the world.  A proxy war with Iran.  As much as I've questioned the wisdom of this endeavor in hindsight, you can't honestly question the spirit behind it. 

If we really wanted some quick cooperation from the Iraqi people, we could just tell them that for every soldier killed by an IED, we'd take a certain number of barrels of oil.  Then we'd watch as Al Qaeda in Iraq and many similar organizations are handed over en masse.  But no.  We're even avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing.

Some will insist that the Iraqis never wanted Saddam out in the first place.  I'd point them toward the Kurds first, then the bodies found in mass graves, those killed and tortured, and those brutalized in rape rooms.  Ayep.  They sure loved Saddam. 

But what about the WMDs?!?!  Oh yes.  Those.  Well, you'll recall that Saddam had this nasty habit of kicking out weapon's inspectors, and making noises about having an arsenal.  He squawked too loud, and we believed him.  We called his bluff.  And this makes us the bad guys how?

I'm sure media will play this story up, given that it "fits the narrative" and all, but I doubt they'll give it some honest thought.  You can almost feel how giddy the reporter is that these imperialist swine finally admitted to their dark goals.

Posted by: Joseph at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 622 words, total size 5 kb.