Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:26 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
> > He cannot admit the real reason for this seemingly senseless war:
> > the control of Mideast energy resources.
>
> Define "control," please?
Tentatively.
Think not of "imperialism," or even of "capitalism" as many on this list would use either term. These people more or less believe what they are doing is for the good of (almost) everyone, and our explanations should honor that probability.
Think of "keeping a friendly climate for business" (not just U.S. business but world business). Think of the threat to that business climate by serious chaos in the Middle East & South Asia, and of how vital Middle-East oil is for the whole global economy. A given administration will have its favorites of course, and a few contracts or drilling rights here or there certainly occur -- but this does not add up to conscius imperialism in the classical sense(s). Given all that, can 'we' really afford to have nuclear-wielding lunatics (not my language) running things in those areas. We can't let Hezbollah or Hamas or .... disrupt this crucial area for the whole world. (Incidentally, John Quincy Adams had a highly moral defense of the Opium Wars; they wre bringing those anti-social Chincese into the social communnion with humanity.)
There are probably a sprinkling of classical "big power' motives (don't let Russia or China edge into) but I doubt those are central. But keeping the world's oil supply 'safe' has to loom pretty large for central planners in D.C. & London & Berlin & Tokyo.
Carrol