Securing oil may have played a part but it was not all about the oil (or even the majority). If the war was about oil then the administration would be risking quite a lot for small gains in the change of energy prices and having iraqi oil traded in US dollars. I don't believe that such a risk would be worth the possible benifits. This is not to say that the US does not use its military as an instrument to secure oil supply particularly in west africa.
When you start examining the neo-conservative view that the US government should play the role of world democratic enforcer you discover more reasons behind the war. What this (the role of world democratic enforcer) allows for is twofold. Firstly it strengthens the US position on the world stage and provides increased security (the contention that the current war provided much or any of this is doubtful). Secondly it could be seen as intended, in part, for a domestic US audience. Remember that Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Leo Strauss.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely?
|
So using methods that mislead as to the truth are maybe not incompatible with neo-conservative policy? Maybe through their methods (if such a thing was undertaken) they managed to decieve themselves and the rest of the administration. They were sure that they were right so obtaining inaccurate information from people with an inherent interest in Saddam being toppled (I also remember reading something about the translation from arabic made being exagerated by some neo-conservative group).
Other members of the administration were perhaps purely interested in extending the hegemonic position of the USA. It would also correct the mistake Bush senior had made 10 years earlier.
Edited for clarification.