(It’s a pun: get it? Trompe d’oeil?)
Trump reiterated his support for “taking the oil” in Iraq at the Commander-in-Chief Forum last week. Leaving aside the fact that any such action would have been inconsistent with the professed objectives of the war and dissolved all of the public support for it, both domestically and abroad, let’s follow up on Matt Lauer’s question: given that oil fields, unlike gold and art treasures, cannot simply be packed up and sent home, how could this be accomplished?
Trump indicated that it would be necessary to maintain a small residual force in order to protect the oil fields. It isn’t that simple. No possible government of Iraq would acquiesce to American control of its principal source of revenue, and the population would be outraged. In addition, the oil would have to be moved out of the country, either by pipeline or truck, and both would be extremely vulnerable to saboteurs. As a result, it would be necessary to provide armed protection over thousands of square miles of Iraqi territory.
There would also be questions about who, exactly, would be given the oil after it left the country, but the bottom line is that “taking it” would require an indefinite and large scale occupation of the country over the armed opposition of the residents. The cost of that would far exceed the value of the oil itself.
It’s certainly comforting to know that a man with such incredibly idiotic views has a realistic chance of being our next President.