On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:59 AM, brad bauerly wrote:
> Contrary to the belief by many, I don't think the US has really
> seeks to use
> its military to control an industry. Its history is more of the use
> of
> force to open up areas and industries for global capitalism, and to
> protect
> US investments, or even non-US capitalist investments. It does not,
> usually, set up colonies or mercantilist systems. Its power has
> always lied
> in its use of force to open up areas that seems to benefit global
> capital in
> general, which is why it is hegemonic amongst advanced nations. Of
> course
> there are exceptions, but I think this is pretty much the case. I
> think we
> need to analyze Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way
For sure, but just what has been gotten by "opening up" Iraq? Iraq has a lot of oil and wants to sell it, and has always wanted to sell it. If the U.S. had left Saddam in power and lifted the sanctions, Iraq would have sold its oil and developed its now-damaged fields with foreign assistance, including U.S. oil companies. After the latest auctions, China has a piece of the oil action in Iraq, U.S. firms have a relatively small piece of the action - and all the foreign oil companies are on service contracts, not production-sharing arrangements. For that we're spending $3-5 trillion? And doubling down on Afghanistan now too?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that there's nothing rational about this, and U.S. policy has been driven by some atavistic lust for real estate. But trying to make rational sense out of these adventures may be going too far.
Doug