Alan Greenspan, former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, told the Washington Post that oil was a primary reason for the United States’ invasion of Iraq. In his new memoir, “The Age of Turbulence,” Greenspan elaborates on this remark by making economic connections between our desire for oil and Saddam Hussein.
On Sept. 16, Alan Greenspan told the Washington Post that the primary reason for the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 was for oil.
Greenspan, a self-proclaimed Libertarian-Republican, worked for 18 years as the head of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Specializing in economics, he now holds a position at Her Majesty’s Treasury, which deals with finance and economics in the British government.
According to the Sunday Times, Greenspan’s criticism of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war reflects the tone of his newly released memoir, “The Age of Turbulence.”
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” said Greenspan in the memoir.
According to the Washington Post, in “The Age of Turbulence,” Greenspan attacks President Bush for “abandoning fiscal constraint” when he destroyed the Budget Surplus created in 2001. He compliments Bill Clinton for his anti-deficit policies in the 1990’s, stating that they were “an act of political courage.”
Xan Lovatt, a senior and political science major, commended Greenspan’s remarks about Iraq.
“Greenspan only tends to interfere when we have a problem with the economy,” said Lovatt. “His comments about Iraq were poignant, especially given the number of cabinet members the President has lost.”
On Sept. 20, according to whitehouse.gov, George Bush responded to Greenspan’s criticism in a press conference.
“I respect Alan Greenspan,” said Bush. “I respectfully disagree with Alan Greenspan when it comes to saying that the administration didn’t handle the fiscal issues we faced in a good fashion. As a matter of fact, we did.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates also rejected Greenspan’s assumptions on ABC’s news show The Week.
“I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true” said Gates.
Senior Brennan Aberle, a political science major and treasurer of Community Senate, disagrees with Gates.
“I think we went into Iraq primarily for oil,” said Aberle. “(Dick) Cheney and (Donald) Rumsfeld are members of the Project for the New American Century, which holds a neoconservative agenda to get resources all over the world. Given America’s tendency to privatize every industry that’s in Iraq is proof that this was about neo-Imperialism.”
On Sept. 19, Cheney wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal supporting Bush’s fiscal discipline.
“Though Congress failed to act, no other President has spent more time or political capital trying to avert a fiscal disaster that everyone knows it coming” said Cheney.
According to newsbusters.org, Greenspan offered another connection between the American economy and Saddam Hussein.
“If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first Gulf War,” said Greenspan.
“Saddam was a bad person,” said Aberle, “but that doesn’t mean we had to take away all the social services that were already in Iraq due to our thirst for national resources.”
Lovatt further questioned the motives of the U.S. government, making an economic connection to Iraq and the American people.
“Greenspan has said something very political. You can tell he believes it,” said Lovatt. “Oil revenues are not paying Iraq reconstruction, the American tax payers are. Democracy is floundering in Iraq. This American presidency has failed.”