On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:36 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Oil (and gas) was certainly part of the essential background of the
> war. If the primary product of Iraq were asparagus, we wouldn't
> have half the American military there. The control of what the US
> State Department, in 1945, described as "a stupendous source of
> strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world
> history" -- Mideast energy resources -- has been the cornerstone of
> US policy in the region ever since.
>
> Just after 9/11 but before the invasion of Iraq, Noam Chomsky wrote
> "the September 11 terrorist atrocities provided an opportunity and
> pretext to implement long-standing plans to take control of Iraq's
> immense oil wealth ... US intelligence predicts that these will be
> of even greater significance in the years ahead. The issue has
> never been access. The same intelligence analyses anticipate that
> the US will rely on more secure Atlantic Basin supplies. The same
> was true after World War II. The US moved quickly to gain control
> over Gulf resources, but not for its own use; North America was the
> major producer for decades afterwards, and since then Venezuela has
> generally been the leading exporter to the US. What matters is
> control over the 'material prize,' which funnels enormous wealth to
> the US in many ways, and the 'stupendous source of strategic power,'
> which translates into a lever of 'unilateral world domination.'"
1945 was a long time ago. Is this really still true? What does this alleged lever of world domination do for the U.S.? How does it exercise this power? Is the U.S. going to blockade the Middle East to deny supplies to China? Wouldn't it be easier to blockade China?
There's an aspect of repeating old formulas to this. It could still be true, but I'd love to hear someone explain the mechanisms.
Doug