A perfectly moral case for fighting for Iraq's oilfields

The Times ^ | February 21, 2003 | Nicholas Boles

[MadIvan]

There is nothing like (self-) righteous indignation to give the Left the warm glow of a Ready Brek breakfast. And nothing gives them that feeling more completely than the idea that the only reason the United States wants a war with Iraq is oil. But like all the household gods that the Left cherishes, this too has feet of clay and a head full of nonsense.

The accusation is wrong because there are several more important reasons why we might go to war: upholding the authority of the UN; the duty to protect Iraq’s neighbour; and liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny.

But the war for oil charge is not just factually wrong, it is also humbug. A war to defend open access to the Middle East’s oil reserves would be a just war – and a war fought primarily to defend the world’s poor.

Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. Seven of the 30 countries that are members of the OECD relied on fossil fuels for more than 75 per cent of their primary energy supply. People may argue that it is foolish for us to be so dependent on a resource that is limited in supply and mostly located in unstable regions. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the OECD economies are dependent on oil. It is also a fact that the OECD nations drive the global economy. The only large OECD economy that has managed to bring its fossil fuel dependency below 60 per cent is France. Before anyone on the Left is tempted to trumpet the merits of French exceptionalism, they should note that France achieved this by investing in a massive expansion of nuclear power — hardly an example which Joschka Fischer and his ilk would want us to follow.

Iraq is in a unique position to threaten the world’s access to oil. At present, Saudi Arabia accounts for 15 per cent of global oil production and Iraq and Kuwait together account for 7 per cent. Virtually all the Saudi oilfields (and the whole of Kuwait) are within the range of Iraq’s missiles. A single well-aimed nuclear warhead could wipe out 75-95 per cent of all Saudi oil production. So, up to 22 per cent of global oil supplies would be under direct threat if President Saddam Hussein acquired the nuclear weapons he spent most of the 1980s trying to build.

During the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, 2.75 per cent of global oil production was withdrawn from the market. The Iranian revolution in 1979 withdrew 5.68 per cent. Both events led to a dramatic rise in oil prices and severe recessions throughout the OECD. If Saddam gained control of nearly a quarter of global oil supplies, he would be able to unleash a depression of incalculable proportions.

You would have thought that the need to protect the world economy from calamity required little further justification. But the Left does not see it that way. For it, an economic motivation is merely a selfish motivation. It isn’t sufficient to point out that a depression would cause many in Britain to lose their jobs, savings and homes. For few people in Britain are likely to die as a result.

But what about the world’s poor? The high priests of anti-materialism don’t ever seem to consider what effect economic devastation among rich countries would have on the Third World. When the OECD economies shrink, so does the demand for Third World products. When the only member of an extended family working in a factory loses his or her job, elderly relatives die because the family can no longer afford treatment, children are deprived of an education because the family can no longer afford them not to work in the fields, members of the family may even starve. Now the Left can call these consequences “economic” if it likes. But if defending those who rely on a healthy global economy to feed themselves is not a moral imperative, what on earth is?

The author is Director of Policy Exchange.

[MadIvan]

Pass this on to a lefty you love. After they foam at the mouth and fall over backwards, give it to them again. ;)

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Poohbah]

James F. Dunnigan made it clear in his book From Shield to Storm, about our first war with Iraq.

If the price of oil goes up, some people in the developed world lose their jobs, and a lot of people in the Third World starve.

[bobi]

It is not about OIL

It is not about OIL

It is not about OIL

It is not about OIL

Ok it is about OIL but we need it, they need it, you need it, it is big business, can't cut the supply ..... so stop protesting.

[MadIvan]

It isn't about oil, but this article presents how it could be for oil and still be moral anyway. ;)

Which is worth a chuckle at the left's expense.

Regards, Ivan

[liberallarry]

Finally, someone makes the obvious obvious. Boles should win a prize for this article.

[Jhoffa_]

We've got a far batter moral argument than that.

Unfortunately, we seem to be singularly focused on "pre-emption" and such.

Republicans have an inherent ability to shoot themselves in the foot on issues like this. It's truly unique.

[Momaw Nadon]

Attack on Iraq Betting Pool

[Vigilanteman]

I met James F. Dunnigan in person at one of the companies he founded, Simulations Publications, Inc. in December 1974. The man knows his stuff and was awesome, even back then.