|
In a rather stunning
disclosure, Alan Greenspan, former head of the federal reserve, admits that
he urged Bush to depose Saddam Hussein for the simplest of all possible
reasons: the oil. Greenspan insists that nobody in the Bush administration
agreed: they were only concerned about WMDs and democracy and human rights.
But they also told him that nobody here talks about the oil. They knew
that if there was the slightest suspicion of it, the other Arab countries,
and the rest of the world,
would go ballistic. It is quite possible that they
never talked about the oil because they didn't need to. Everyone
understood it absolutely perfectly. Except George Bush who, to this day, seems to believe that
it was about democracy and the safety of American citizens.
Keep in mind that America doesn't have to actually hold
deed to the oil to take possession of it. They merely have to ensure
that whoever controls the oil is friendly to American dollars and
technology, like Saudi Arabia.
In Greenspan's eyes, it is right and good that the U.S.
should take oil from where ever it can be found and use it to generate
prosperity and a high standard of living for America and Americans. He
is a former (?) disciple of Ayn Rand. America must be strong. It
must do whatever serves its own interests. It can take the oil.
If you're too weak to take the oil away from America, then that's just
tough.
There is a pretty kind of logic to this spirit of
individualism. It is very, very pretty. It is elegant and slim,
because strategic decisions are unfettered by moral or ethical
considerations, and should be guided strictly by questions of efficiency.
How soon can we get rich? How many bodies do we step over to obtain
our goals?
To believe in the myths of individualism and capitalism,
you have to believe in "finders-keepers", for there is no way to justify the
possession of oil or air or water on any basis other than "might makes
right".
Or you can believe that we are all in this world together
and nobody in particular has any kind of magical title to the world's
resources.
Or, like George Bush, you can believe your own spin: God
commanded us to destroy Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a great sinner.
The disadvantage of Ayn Rand's brand of individualism is
that eventually someone stronger comes along and knocks you off the pony and
takes it away. And you really have no moral grounds upon which to
complain. You can only hope to make yourself strong enough so that you can
take it back. And to make yourself strong is to make yourself cruel.
The suicide bomber is Ayn Rand's ultimate legacy: not strong enough to take
the oil back, but fully comprehending that the world is really about raw
power, individual fanatics are easily convinced that there is meaning in
flailing against the machine. In George's Bush's gentle dreams-- which
are not Ayn Rand's dreams-- there can be no comprehension of individuals who
give up the possibility of enjoying the fruits of raw power. The only
explanation is the lamest one: they must be jealous of our affluence
and prosperity and freedom.
Patriotism, in the case of Iraq, is an attempt to convince
most people-- who do believe we are in this together to a great extent--
that the war on Iraq is a moral cause. It is a lie. It can't be
anything but a lie because the war on Iraq is about nothing more than
"finder's keepers". We found your oil. Now it's ours. Just
try to take it from us.
Ayn Rand had nothing but contempt for religion. As
well she should.
All contents copyright © 2007 Bill Van Dyk All rights reserved.
| 
