Wolfowitz: it was the oil, stupid!

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Although I wouldn't get carried away about the "difference" between
Iraq and North Korea. The US has other interests besides oil, and the
threats to North Korea are also escalating.  Another important
difference between the two countries: North Korea is thought to have
"weapons of mass destruction," possibly even some nuclear weapons,
while the administration knew full well that Iraq had none.  North
Korea also has oil, although not on the scale of Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
and iran.
Fred Feldman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading
White
House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to
the
US-led war.

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already
undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) by
describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone
further
by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to
delegates at
an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported
today by
German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated
differently
from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been
found, the
deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most
important
difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just
had
no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US
was
set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North
Korea
and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the
Bush
administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an
interview
in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that
have a
lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one
issue
that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had
already
undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein
may
have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not
come at
a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing
fierce
criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated
the
threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign
affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate
claims
that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's
WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain
any
inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in
secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and
nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's
justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional
investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush
administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was
a
strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre
and
Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and
"end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr
Wolfowitz
was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins
University.