If you want to think in the really long term:Enlightenment wrote:If only the oil problem were so simple as to only involve US national and global economic interests...
We appear to be looking at this from different angles. While you're looking at the broader economic consequences of adding Iraq to and removing Saudi from production loop I'm looking at the personal economic consequences for the Bush family and the chickenhawks.
Members of the US administration have a lot of personal financial links with Saudi oil production. If Saudi Arabia is stepped on these people stand to lose a lot of money even if the broader economic consequences have been minimized as a result of the conquest of Iraq. The Bush clan isn't about to put national security above its own bank balance so touching Saudi is out of the question.
Indeed, looking at the noise coming out of the administration war drums WRT Iraq, there's a disturbing number of signs that the Iraqi conquest is mostly a way to make Shrubby and Cheney richer (and keep the easily distracted US public patriotic and distracted on election day) rather than anything intended to make the world a safer place. For instance, the post-conquest plans for oil production currently involve the Iraqi opposition-in-exile being returned to power and tearing up existing oil production contracts with European firms and handing out new contracts to--wait for it--friends of Shrubby.
This administration's middle-east policy (such as it is) has absolutely nothing to do with security and everything to do with lining the pockets of Shubby and his oil buddies.
1. Iraqi oil deals could compensate for financial loss in Saudi Arabia, partially.
2. Massive Saudi investments in the USA could be seized and parcelled out to companies which have suffered "damage" from the KSA government, including said oil companies, thus completing recoupment of financial investment.
3. At the final defeat of the KSA, their oil would fall under much more effective control. No more oil bomb.
Basically, what I'm saying is that it's possible for Bush the Younger to defeat Saddam and the Kingdom and quite possibly make a buck while doing it, all the while serving our national security interests. Iran may fall as well, increasing the overall incentive and glory.
Nothing terribly unusual here; 19th century politics make it look snow-white in comparison. Of course, it requires the President to come down on one of our allies sooner or later, and to have been planning to do that all along. Quite Sun-Tzu of him; but he has very good advisors even if he isn't the greatest public speaker nor planner himself (His stupidity is a Democrat campaign slander - Accuse him of corruption, fine, but the man is not stupid. If anything that should make you more nervous of him).
And I think this is quite necessary, and good, if it is done. The other option may be millions dead. So I shall wait and see if it is carried through, and hope that it shall be; but ultimately only time will be the arbiter of that, as I am not privy to any sort of information.