>Let me try this one more time. The Bush admin may think all these
>things about the control of oil; I'm trying to determine how
>accurate and rational their beliefs are. As I've said, I don't get
>the economic payoff, except maybe in the narrow sectoral sense that
>some specific oil companies might benefit, but not U.S. capital as a
>whole.
Why is it necessarily irrational for the power elite in control of the state to privilege one sector of US capital over US capital as a whole? It would benefit almost all corporations, small businesses, medical doctors, etc. if Washington established universal health care at the expense of the insurance industry, but it doesn't do so, preferring to privilege the sectoral interest of insurance companies over the interests of US capital as a whole.
>I'm skeptical of the strategic payoff, since the strategic exercise
>of this control would be an act of war, and if you're going to wage
>war, it's a lot more efficient to go after your target country than
>to try to "control" the producing regions.
During the Cold War, Washington didn't wage war on its "target country," though, thinking it is more efficient to attack the nations turning to the Soviet Union one way or another.
The last time the US went to war with Japan, the war triggered by its oil embargo, was it more efficient than the invasion and occupation of Iraq? -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>