John Gulick wrote:
>
>
> Securing oil field claims and drilling rights for ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco
> (or is that TexacoChevron ?), Halliburton, and so on are small potatoes
> (_contra_ the conspiracy-minded). What matters is brokering these claims and
> rights to Russian, French, Chinese, et. al. firms, and the leverage the
> power to broker gives the U.S. state (acting largely on behalf of U.S.
> capital) on a host of other geoeconomic (and geopolitical) fronts -- the
> Doha round, the row over steel tarrifs and farm subsidies, the WTO ruling
> against bonuses to overseas affiliates of U.S. TNC's,. . . . . . . .
This makes a good deal of sense to me. I think there is a very large body of opinion (correct in my estimation) that saw the main purpose of the first Gulf War as being the permanent stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; and not so much to protect the oil for U.S. firms as to potentially deny the oil to Japanese or European firms (except at a geopolitical price). And I believe that in one way or another Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq again have had the same general goal. If there is any earlier period of history comparable, it is the period 1890-1914. It can't be a replay (we hope!) because of the way in which nuclear weapons change the rules of warfare among great powers -- but great power opposition to the U.S. will develop sooner or later, and at least one large sector of the U.S. ruling class (including the controlling elements in the DP) are thinking in terms of that future contest.
The U.S. is asking Japan, France, Germany to support its war on Japan, France, Germany. Bright, what?
Carrol