In regard to Jeff Hexel’s perspective, ‘No oil for blood,’ I regret to admit I do not have the time or knowledge to probe to deeply into his arguments; nonetheless, I will attempt to address a few of the grievances I have (Mar. 3, pg. 11). When reading such perspectives, I am usually impressed by the seemingly vast knowledge the writer has of historical events, but I become bothered when this knowledge is used irresponsibly in generalizations and over-simplifications.

The first grievance I have is with Hexel’s remark that ‘it has been established that the potential war is not about oil for the ‘coalition of the willing’ now being built by America and Britain.’ I find it hard to believe that considerations of oil could ever be realistically excluded from discussions of Iraq or any other OPEC nation when such a large portion of its economy depends upon oil. However, I agree that the whole war is probably not ‘about Bush and Cheney trying to line their own pockets with Iraqi oil money,’ but that is not to say that oil in no way comes into play in their political considerations. Although Bush and Cheney may still have important ties to their businesses, they are the president and the vice president of the United States, and the domestic economy should supersede their personal interests. Even if it doesn’t, a drop in oil prices due to an increase in Iraqi crude oil exports might help the dwindling economy by lowering costs related to oil across the board and stimulating public consumption; a recovery of the economy must surely be on the minds of those seeking re-election, as it would be an invaluable asset to their political campaign.

If, however, Bush and Cheney see that this increase of oil supply will harm American oil companies like the ones I’m assuming they are affiliated with then once ‘Iraq is liberated and its oil fields are repaired,’ it is in no way necessary that oil prices will drop in America, as Bush and Cheney may enact measures to ensure oil supplies do not rise by putting some friendly pressure on our newly founded democratic allies or by some sort of taxation measure on crude oil imports. I have no idea whether the assertion that ‘Bush and Cheney will actually lose money’ is an accurate one, although I’m skeptical whether either man will ever be in dire economic turmoil and considers anything but the money these companies donate to their political causes.

To comment briefly on the rest of Hexel’s perspective, I think it is misleading to single out France’s diplomacy and business with Iraq, as ‘it’s no secret’ that the United States also did business (supplying arms) and had a not altogether unfriendly political relationship with Iraq during the first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran. But don’t we too still depend upon the Middle East for a majority of our oil? And if we do not depend upon Iraq particularly, aren’t Iraqi actions a factor in the stability and, therefore, the interests we have in this region?

All of this is not to say I believe Iraq isn’t producing weapons of mass destruction; I merely want to point out that this is a serious and profound debate that should not be treated lightly. The arguments for and against a strike on Iraq are often cursorily explored, as definite opinions are often reached prematurely based upon a narrow and biased perspective.