Press "Enter" to skip to content

Blurring the difference

The DoD kicked out a press release today about Iraq’s oil. About what you’d expect no matter what you believe: promises to preserve the oil for Iraq, warnings that Saddam may intend to destroy the oil, ecological warnings, etc. I found this quote interesting, though:

“Oil is a natural resource of Iraq that provides commerce, income for education and other needs, and infrastructure. The department considers destruction of that resource as an act of terrorism.”

That’s bullshit. Destroying strategic reserves, even in a scorched earth strategy, is not an act of terrorism. It’s a wartime strategy. It’s saying “You can conquer this land, but you will not profit from it.” It’s the kind of thing that’s considered noble resistance when it’s your side doing it — a last act of defiance. Terrorism? Hardly.

One Comment

  1. I’m not sure I’m following their argument well enough to construct an analogous argument against the United States, but my gut tells me that by any standard which would call destroying the oil fields an act of terrorism because of its negative effect on the general populace of Iraq, the United States has been a terrorist nation for large portions of its history. It’s a shame no one has ever been powerful enough to intervene.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.