war a la woodward

I heard Bob Woodward speak yesterday and it made me think about war and what motivates people to fight wars. Woodward is a great speaker, who is very funny and very serious at the same time. He certainly spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what was behind the war in Iraq. He is now in the process of writing his fourth book on Bush's war and I spent some time yesterday reading parts of volume three. I also read some reviews on that book earlier last summer.

It got me thinking about the causes of war. And especially about why it is so difficult for people to see what the real drivers are. That is because people are good at hiding their motives. "People lie," Woodward said, although he also said he thought Bush did not lie when he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Weapons of mass deception would be a better term. For anyone to think WMD had something to do with the war is quite naive really. People fight wars for one reason and one reason only: resources.

No it is not ideology, beliefs, or religion that lead to war. These things have very little do with it. What drives people is resources and the key resource of the twentieth (and twenty-first) century is oil. I have already highlighted how important oil is. Oil not only gives us mobility, heating and cooling, but also materials like plastics and polymers. And perhaps even more important, oil is essential for food. We put in 9-10 calories of oil for every calorie of food we harvest. Without oil, lots of people would starve, and many others would have to settle for unappetizing foods -or at least food they consider unappetizing.

Ideologies, beliefs and religions do play a role in warfare but mostly to do one of the following: to band and group people together, to justify the cause, to stir emotions, and to make news headlines. I have no doubt Woodward is right when he said Bush felt it was "his duty to liberate people (or set them free)." This is a great American header. Freedom is the American religion of choice. In practice though it means very little and history has shown that the US has supported dictators and other adversaries of freedom at least as often as more democratically minded politicians.

The US supports democracies -even those that follow from free elections -only when it suits our needs. Many times the US has helped overthrow freely elected governments in favor of ruthless dictators. But the header let freedom ring is a big crowd pleaser nonetheless. And one all presidents in modern history have resorted to in times of need.

It seems obvious that there would have been no Iraq war if Iraq were an African country without oil. There have been scores of atrocities, genocide, and other problems in Africa in recent years. Yet we never intervened other than maybe condemn the situation. As a matter of fact, often we have used the statement to bury the matter and keep a lid on it. This is a great political ploy and one the current administration is very good at using: talk about issues or agree to talk about them at a later time. In the meantime, you can just forget about it. If Darfur comes to mind, you are with me. But Washington also used a similar tactic to silence the global warming crowd. And with great success I might add.

Whatever convictions or justifications Bush and his bedfellows may have, it seems more than obvious that Greenspan was right when he said, "I thought it was mostly about oil." And anyone who is honest will agree.