On scienceblogs.com there is an interesting article about statistics and “The Surge” in Iraq [1]. It explains how there is not yet enough data to statistically determine whether The Surge is succeeding in improving the situation in Iraq. Some of the comments point out that the “ethnic cleansing” in some parts of Iraq has been mostly completed. When one of the groups in a disputed area is annihilated or driven out you can expect a reduction in violence.
The Guardian reports that Alan Greenspan has stated in his memoirs [2] “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil“. His meoirs are published as The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World
According to an article by William Greider in The Nation [1], Greenspan has apparently corrected his comment:
“No, no, no, that’s not what he meant, Greenspan corrected in a follow-up interview. [Bob Woodward in Monday’s Washington Post] He was only saying that “taking out Saddam was essential” for “oil security” and the global economy.”
[1] http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=233482
Goweropolis: Interesting link. But it doesn’t contradict the essential fact that the war was about oil.
In the lead-up to the war there was NEVER any official claim regarding oil and even today almost no-one who supports the war claims or admits that it was related to oil.
I completely agree with you that the Iraq war was about oil. I just wanted to show that Greenspan has to a certain extent denied saying that (even though it’s a direct quote from his book).