On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Partisans of the oil angle, I have a question. The U.S. was attacked,
> and it's not implausible that it was planned by ObL, who is based in
> Afghanistan, and that his operatives were trained there. So it's not
> outlandish that any response be directed there, whatever it may be.
> So how's the oil angle fit into that? Did the CIA concoct the attack
> to justify a war on Afghanistan? Is it just a happy coincidence? Or
> are people just in the habit of invoking oil as the Real Secret
> Reason for everything that happens?
>
> Doug
Look at it this way: the multinationals' interests have a tendency to channel policy decisions. Little existing crucial infrastructure that would create economic loss for multinationals, an opportunity to facilitate the extraction and distribution of a profitable commodity: invasion isn't a foregone conclusion, but doesn't it make the option a bit more attractive to pols who depend on economic support from oil conglomerates?
Despite popular calls for revenge (sorry, "Justice"), if the bombing endangered the pipeline plans, or led to extensive damage to multinationals' property and investment, I suspect the military actions would have been far less dramatic. So yeah, I agree we should make fun of the "oil conspiracy" theorists, but we shouldn't ignore how multinational interests help provoke and intensify U. S. military adventures.
Miles