[lbo-talk] Obama: killing for 2012

[C. G. Estabrook]

American planners are not idiots.  (We went to school with most of them.) They 
(essentially the same people through the last two administrations, except for a 
slight neocon detour) would not have poured people and money into their 
21st-century Middle East wars out of pique or madness.  Their plans were not 
irrational -- just vicious.  Capitalism, imperialism, and geopolitics provide an 
adequate account.  And, as Carrol pointed out, they're winning.  --CGE

Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 3:03 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> These were remarks from no more than five years ago and were clearly 
>> meant to describe the current situation (as the reference to renewable 
>> energy suggests).
> 
> The "profits beyond the dreams of avarice" and "stupendous source of 
> strategic power" quotes come from the late 1940s or early 1950s. He 
> quotes them all the time. And to say that the U.S. would have the same 
> interest in the Middle East if we converted to renewable energy seems 
> almost parodically rigid.
> 
>> "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."
> 
> How does the U.S. "control" Middle Eastern oil? As I've said here a 
> million times, if it wanted to shut off supplies to, say, China, it'd be 
> much easier to blockade China than try to exercise "control" of the 
> Persian Gulf. There's no button in Baghdad or Riyadh that can shut off 
> the flow to China. And trying to shut down ME oil would throw the world 
> economy into a tailspin.
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk