In The Independent, Kathey Marks reported on how the Australian Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson has admitted that oil was a major factor in the governments decision to keep troops in Iraq.
That’s no surprise to me.
Anti-war protesters have long said that the real reason behind the Iraq war was oil. They seem surprised that our leaders should think that attempting to secure the future flow of oil from the Middle East was worth going to war over. But looking at it from their point of view, Saddam Hussein had already invaded Iran and then Kuwait. Only quick action by the US prevented an invasion of Saudi Arabia. He obviously would have liked to dominate the entire oil-rich region. Regime change in Iraq was intended to stabilise the region and act as a warning to other dictators. It didn’t work out well and the area is more volatile then ever with war between Sunni and Shi’ite countries now a possibility. If there were a pull out of US and other Western troops from the area, the whole region could be engulfed in conflict and oil supplies severely disrupted for years. As over 60% of the world’s remaining oil is in the region, the world economy would suffer. Food production - now totally dependent on oil - would be severely effected and as world food stocks are now very low, panic-buying and hording would add to the problem.
Western leaders know that we simply can’t now manage without Middle East oil, so instead of taking measures to reduce consumption and make us less dependent, they rely on military muscle.