Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> John Thornton wrote:
>
> >Attacking China (or whoever) or blockading France doesn't fit that
> >idea as neatly.
>
> Not now, of course, but neither would the U.S. ever use an oil lever
> against either right now. Whether done at the source or destination,
> turning off the oil supply is an act of war. This is all about
> hypotheticals and credibility, isn't it? isn't a major reason the
> U.S. is boss that we can blow everyone up?
>
I don't particularly like "war for oil" as a slogan or as an analysis, but I'm surprised that Doug seems (in this thread) to forget his own favorite cliche, is it really an "either/or" proposition. There are hundreds of ways far short of war (or cutting off the oil supply) and not necessarily much akin to "capitalist rationality" in which a strong military position in the center of the world's main oil fields could bring many different degrees of pressure to bear on real or potential rivals/enemies, etc.
Without seeing oil as _the_ motive, surely the fact of middle-east oil figures in somewhere. And despite some wavering at the margins, the u.s. ruling class seems fairly tied to a continued occupation. That takes the war out of the realm of sheer nuttiness on the part of a few extremists in the white house.
Carrol