.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, July 05, 2007

The unmentionable truth

On a broader level, how bizarre is it that this statement of Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson generated such "damage control" from his government.
"Energy security is extremely important to all nations throughout the world, and of course, in protecting and securing Australia's interests," he said.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq," Nelson said.....

But Howard swung into damage limitation mode later in the day, strongly denying that either Nelson or he himself had said securing oil supply was a key factor behind his country's contentious involvement in the war in Iraq.

"We're not there because of oil and we didn't go there because of oil, we don't remain there because of oil," he told commercial radio. "Oil is not the reason."


There's no question that oil plays a huge part in all involvement in the middle east, and yet to say that out loud generates a massive response.

In all the mainstream interviews you've seen with experts, and politicians, and pundits, how rarely is this core reality of "energy security" mentioned?

It is somewhat allowable to speak of threats regarding the Iranians and oil, or more vague threats to the Saudi oil fields or shipping lanes, but, in "polite" discourse, discussion of Iraqi oil is off limits. Why? Why is that deemed a publicly unacceptable comment for even mainstream opposition?

Is it because, despite all their rhetoric, they endorse the broader policy? (See "longer term US presence.")

Is it some sort of an offense to the propaganda, that this admission somehow devalues the deaths of so many honest soldiers and marines?

Has the oil argument been so successfully marginalized that merely mentioning it risks ostracizing the critic as fringe?

I don't really have an answer, I'm just thinking out loud this morning about how rarely this truth is spoken within the "polite" media and political society.

7 Comments:

  • It is insane to think that this has noting to do with oil. However, as we see here, it is like the emperor's new clothes.

    Somewhat related, if you have 23 minutes, I think you would really enjoy watching this.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 12:48 PM  

  • It is the emporer's clothes, and I don't understand why.

    I can get why the Bush administration wouldn't want it as it points to their prewar lies, but why not the opposition, why not the Dems.

    (And, I don't have the full time right now, but I started that vid and it's pretty good.)

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:45 PM  

  • You were right. I just went ahead and let it run.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:03 PM  

  • Of course oil is a big part of occupying Iraq. The irony is that oil is now more expensive and the supply is more vulnerable because of it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:22 PM  

  • Good point. They even screwed up the real justification for the war.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:50 PM  

  • Glad you liked it. Pretty hawkish, but at least grounded in some kind of logic.

    Fast 23 minutes too.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 5:50 AM  

  • BTW,

    I think it can't be mentioned because people are not ready to face the truth. Also, the whole "no blood for oil" crowd gets a huge boost.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 5:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home