Trump’s ‘Take Iraq’s Oil’ Isn’t a New Idea. Here’s Why It Won’t Work.

Sep 13, 2016 | Emily Meierding
View Original

During NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum last week, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed an unusual policy for dealing with Iraq: “Take the oil.” When host Matt Lauer asked him to elaborate, Trump doubled down. “It used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil.”

Commentators, including Stephen Mufson at The Washington Post, have offered many reasons why “taking the oil” is a terrible idea. Chief among them: Oil isn’t a “grab ’n’ go” resource; it’s extracted over years. So, if the United States wanted to take Iraq’s oil, we would have to stay in the country for decades. During that time, American troops would have to defend oil fields, processing centers and transportation routes, including hundreds of miles of pipelines.

Local resistance to an oil occupation would be intense. There would also be international condemnation; as observers have noted, exploiting a foreign country’s oil resources violates international law. And domestic support for taking Iraq’s oil would decline rapidly as U.S. casualties mounted. All for resources that we — and our allies — could buy far more cheaply on the international market. There’s another reason, however, that the United States shouldn’t take Middle Eastern oil. We’ve rejected the idea before, under far more desperate circumstances.