"That U.S. oil companies did rather poorly in the recent round of auctions in Iraq" -- even if that should remain the case -- doesn't say much about his central affirmation, that "the critical issue is control, not access."
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:54 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> Noam Chomsky points out, "Note that the critical issue is control, not
>> access. US policies towards the Middle East were the same when the US
>> was a net exporter of oil, and remain the same today when US
>> intelligence projects that the US itself will rely on more stable
>> Atlantic Basin resources [i.e., those of the Western hemisphere plus
>> west Africa]. Policies would be likely to be about the same if the US
>> were to switch to renewable energy. The need to control the
>> 'stupendous source of strategic power' and to gain 'profits beyond the
>> dreams of avarice' would remain. Jockeying over Central Asia and
>> pipeline routes [notably in Afghanistan] reflects similar concerns."
>
> I love Noam, but how can you believe that policy would remain unchanged
> despite a big change in material circumstances? How do quotes from fifty
> years ago continue to explain a different world?
>
> Note that U.S. oil companies did rather poorly in the recent round of
> auctions in Iraq. Companies from China, Malaysia, France, and Russia did
> at least as well or better.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk