US policies towards the Middle East were the same when it 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. 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” would remain. Jockeying over Central Asia and pipeline routes reflects similar concerns.
The war(s) have been a catastrophe only for the Iraqi (death and destitution) and American (debt) publics. Important American interests have done quite well, thank you (armaments & construction companies et al.). The seamless continuity of Bush and Obama Long War policy testifies to the continued effectiveness of the policy.
Geopolitically, for all the Bremeresque mismanagement (from Kissinger's shop) of the Iraq occupation, Bush/Obama have established the first secure military bases in a dependent client state at the heart of the world’s major energy reserves. These have been crucial policy concerns throughout the post-World War II period, even more so in today’s evolving tripolar world, with its threat that Europe and Asia might move towards greater independence, and worse, might be united: China and the EU became each other’s major trading partners in 2004, joined by the world’s second largest economy (Japan), and those tendencies are likely to increase. A firm hand on the spigot reduces these dangers. --CGE
Marv Gandall wrote:
> C.G. Estabrook writes:
>
>> 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.
> ==============================
> Did the US have to invade Iraq to have access to it's energy supplies? Was
> the cash-strapped Baathist government refusing to supply it with oil and
> gas? Who placed sanctions on whom?
>
> Recently declassifed FBI documents show Saddam was well ready to cooperate
> with the US, as he had in the past, rather than confront it. There's no
> reason to suppose such cooperation would not have included allowing US oil
> firms to bid on contracts to develop Iraqi fields.
>
> The New York Daily News last week reported:
>
> "Asked how he would have faced "fanatic" Iranian ayatollahs if Iraq had
> been
> proven toothless by UN weapons inspectors in 2003, Saddam said he would
> have
> cut a deal with Bush.
>
> "Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to attack from
> Iran and would have sought a security agreement with the U.S. to protect it
> from threats in the region,' according to a 2004 FBI report among the
> declassified files."
>
> Full:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/24/2009-06-24_former_iraqi_leader_saddam_hussein_feared_iran_more_than_us_secret_fbi_files_sho.html#ixzz0K7NzCMOk&C.
>
>
> Of course, the US seeks to control global energy supplies. But it does not
> do so through the direct exercise of control by US oil corporations, nor by
> invading and occupying oil producing countries which jealously guard their
> oil supplies.
>
> When the US has confronted "rogue" regimes, it has typically relied on
> economic pressure, political subversion, covert military operations,
> and, on
> occasion, selective air strikes to force them into line. The Bush
> administration's decision to put tens of thousands of US boots on the
> ground
> in Iraq aroused fierce controversy within the US defence and security
> establishment and general staff because it was such a radical departure
> from
> doctrine, and the forebodings of Brzezinski, Scowcroft, Zinni, Eagleburger,
> Kissinger, and others proved to be entirely justified.
>
> That's why, for example, the US has not invaded Venezuela or Iran, who are
> also not asparagus producers.
>
> While Iraq's oil supplies were an incentive, as I acknowledged, other
> geopolitical and domestic factors weighed more heavily, IMO, in the
> decision
> to invade, IMO.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk