Lack of Foresight

I read this article on Slate: Heartbreak Cartel - Ten billion reasons why Iraq shouldn't rejoin OPEC. By Michael Kinsley.

I have generally been supportive of the invasion of Iraq and find it interesting to compare the changes in reasoning both of the war's proponents and opponents.

I found this article frustrating, not because I disagree with the premise that renewed OPEC membership won't cost me money and our economy growth, but because I made the assumption before the war that opponents to the war meant that the US was going to manipulate the world oil market to lower prices when they said that the war was about oil. I guess I was wrong.

I wish I had had the foresight to ask what they thought the appropriate actions should be with respect to the Iraqi oil industry. Bush opponents seem poised to criticize the administration regardless of what action they took about OPEC membership.

Had the administration decided to block the interim council from dealing with OPEC, I think we would be reading war oppenents saying something to the effect:

Clearly by blocking Iraqi membership in OPEC, the administration is putting oil prices and their effect on the economy ahead of the interests of the Iraqi people. Isn't it convenient that this boost to the American economy comes just as we are approaching the Presidential Election. This is economic imperialism at its worst and most blatant.

Of course the Bush administration didn't go this way so instead it is a payoff to the cronies in the Texas oil patch.

If you were/are an opponent of the war, maybe you don't have to come up with a solution to a war you would have never fought, but now that the deed is done, which approach is more explotative? Or is there some third way that would have been morally superior?