Today, the long awaited (at least for some) memoir of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was released. Greenspan describes himself as a Libertarian Republican, which is the ultimate contradiction in term considering the undisputed fact that the GOP is no more a champion of limited government and individual freedom than the leftist opposition. So what did Greenspan say…as a matter of fact he said a great deal, most of which rings true. He pointed out the inescapable realty of the Republican loss of Congress in last year’s mid term elections. As Greenspan noted the Dems didn’t win the election, the GOP lost when they abandoned principles of fiscal responsibility in a mad dash to spend every last dime in the federal treasury (and then some)…naturally the left and the right both ignored this criticism. The GOP have yet to face the reality of their humiliating defeat and the Dems aren’t likely to recognize in critique of overzealous spending on the part of a reckless Congress.

Greenspan also noted that oil was a major factor in the Iraq War, the simple fact is the stability of the world’s petroleum resources, which are primarily controlled by tyrants and dictators is essential to the world economy, a reality not lost on Mr. Greenspan. The question is…does a country have a legitimate right to wage war in pursuit of natural resources? If the world’s oil supplies are threatened does the US have a right to war on one nation or another to secure those supplies? If the answer is yes, then how is the world justified in condemning the actions of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany during the Second World War? In both cases the Axis powers waged aggressive war in pursuit of land, natural and human resources…is this any different? Just because one nation possesses a vital resource that is desire by another does not justify the use of force to wrest those resources from the hands of a sovereign nation. No more than governments are justified in using the police power of the state to redistribute the wealth of citizens. Does it matter if a sovereign nation is ruled by a tyrant and murderer like Saddam Hussein? Certainly the US would be justified in resisting an attack waged from afar by a nation on extracting or “securing” our resources for their national interests. This reality underscores the heart of the freemarket, not a coerced market system. If resources aren’t available and can’t be obtained through trade then a nation must pursue alternatives or simply go without.

Does this mean a nation is unjustified in defending itself in the event of an overt threat, even when taking preemptive action? Certainly not, preemption is entirely justified, whether it applies in the case of Iraq is a matter for debate, and whether invasion was the best course to deal with an on going threat like Saddam Hussein is equally debatable. One thing that cannot be debated, though quite a few politicians on the left may beg to differ, Iraq most certainly did possess a vast WMD program. Only the most ignorant and foolish amongst us could ever believe otherwise.
Link to Washington Post article