Why no mention of oil?

06/17/2014 1:06 PM

06/18/2014 9:29 AM

Re "U.S. should be wary of Iraq quagmire" (Editorial, June 14): Why publish an editorial or letter about the Iraq quagmire without even mentioning oil?

Of course the U.S. is involved in the Middle East and has been since the 1920s. There is no question that we have to be deeply involved. The question for President Obama, and every president, is how.

The U.S. couldn't depend on a despot like Saddam to assure access to the oil. President Bush's biggest error was disbanding the Iraqi army rather than just restructuring it and leaving it in power. In retrospect, trying to guide Iraq, or any Middle Eastern country, into democracy was probably doomed to failure.

Regardless, I hope President Obama and his advisers come up with an effective strategy for dealing with the current Middle East problem. Failure to ensure access to Middle Eastern oil can simply not happen.

-- Rich McKone, Lincoln

Editor's Choice Videos

 

Join the Discussion

The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service