OxBlog

# Posted 5:26 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

COMMON SENSE FROM DOWN UNDER: Patrick Porter -- a good friend of mine, a rising force among historians of Europe, an Australian and an avowed multilateralist -- has this to say about the logic of "No Blood For Oil":

For some analysts it is obvious that a lone superpower will capitalise on opportunities to secure its economic interests. For protesters it is immoral to sacrifice blood for oil. For either, it is often a 'real' reason, even the lone reason, behind the camouflage of Bush's stated reasons [for wanting to invade Iraq].

[Yet] one does not have to be an expert on the global oil economy, American foreign policy or Middle Eastern politics to realise how simplistic this is.

Is it so obviously in America's oil interests to attack Saddam Hussein, which risks destabilising the region and alienating other Arab nations? The enormous costs of such a war, which might precipitate a US recession, must also have occured to the US administration. Can we really sensibly say that the US is prepared to gamble its domestic prosperity and foreign economic resources so recklessly for more oil? If anything, this so-called dollar-driven war might well involve considerable economic sacrifices. If this is an oil-driven war, it comes with profound risks...

Finally, even if hypothetically America could enrich itself and its oil reserves without risk or complication, that is not enough. Causality requires demonstrating a link between acts, interests, objectives, and events. The nexus between oil and foreign policy must be proven. It is not clear that nation-states, particularly powerful ones reacting to acts of war, always define their interests in purely economic terms. It might be true that despite everything, oil plays a significant role in US objectives. But like any other thesis, it needs evidence.

I make this argument as someone opposed to unilateral pre-emptive strikes. One can still challenge the legitimacy of America's position in relation to Iraq. But under serious analysis, the oil thesis emerges as little more than cheap rhetoric.

Naturally, OxBlog is sympathetic to Patrick's views. What's really interesting about them, though, is their focus on the logic of causality. While some of us often take it for granted that the left will always argue that greed is the engine of aggression, one has to ask why anti-war protesters are so wedded to this specific empirical position, as opposed to the more defensible ethical position that war is unthinkable unless one is attacked first.

Or perhaps one should ask, which comes first: the belief that war is wrong, or the belief that this is a war for oil and therefore it is wrong? Do those who assume the former simply accept the latter because it reinforces their position? I don't know.

Rather than arguing against the anti-war position, the more interesting question may be what leads people to it. While I'm not all that concerned about the self-defeating American anti-war movement, it might be interesting to know what really drives European anti-war sentiment. Resentment of American power? Self-interest? Sincere pacifism? Or the belief that this is a war for oil? If we knew, we might be able to avoid the constant conflicts that set back our efforts to disarm and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion