As Iraq takes control of the US military’s last base in the country, the question no one is asking begs an answer: Where’s all the oil? The liberal media hammered away at the idea that the war in Iraq was all about oil and Obama (accompanied by cheerleader Biden) has been taking credit for success in Iraq. Therefore, it should follow that we are successfully leaving Iraq laden with millions of barrels of oil.
US defense secretary, Leon Panetta, told departing troops at Baghdad International Airport: “After a lot of blood spilled by Iraqis and Americans, the mission of an Iraq that could govern and secure itself has become real”. In a speech to returning troops in North Carolina, President Obama said: “Everything that American troops have done in Iraq…has led us to this moment of success”. In these, dare we say, “Mission accomplished” speeches, there is no mention of oil.
How can a war for oil be labeled a success when we are leaving with no oil? The military is leaving behind equipment in Iraq valued at approximately $580 million in an effort to save $1 billion in shipping costs, but not one dollar in shipping costs is being used for oil. There are no tankers lined up to bring home the spoils from our “war for oil”.
Renewed bombing attacks at Iraq’s Rumaila oilfield have halved output but the US military is leaving those oilfields for Iraq to protect. Aren’t they our oilfields now? Doesn’t “success” in Iraq mean we won the “war for oil” and we should protect it?
This raises the possibility that the media and the far left may have been wrong. If not, President Obama must then be lying about our “success” in Iraq. We can expect the persistent demand from the left of “No blood for oil” to now turn into an indignant complaint of “No oil for blood” – or an apology is in order.
David J. Hentosh