> On 9/24/2010 5:44 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> The decision to invade and occupy Iraq provoked sharp debate within the US defence and foreign policy establishment over whether that would result in control of the rich oil reserves of the Middle East and Central Asia, or a net drain on American resources
>
> Can you give some examples of people who made the former argument?
On 2010-09-23, at 8:32 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "Offhand, I can't think of any states in the modern era which
> have sought to acquire or to control territory other than to secure
> access to resources, markets, and labour "
>
> [WS:} I can - offhand, the US involvement in Korea and Vietnam was
> mainly for strategic reasons, also Afghanistan (what resources are
> there anyway?). Iraq is more complex, as one can argue it was about
> oil - but I doubt...British control of East Africa was mainly for strategic reasons - to
> thwart German advances in Tanzania...Also, British attempt to wrestle the control of the
> Philippines from the Spaniards in the 1700s was mainly because of the
> strategic importance of the islands, as no obvious resources were in
> sight.
>
> Of course, oftentimes it is difficult to separate economic form
> strategic objectives. However, the conventional Marxist view that the
> capitalist state acts always in the interest of and on behalf of
> capitalists has been proven wrong...the US state, has considerable autonomy from its economic
> interests to pursue strategic policy objectives, especially in the
> arena of foreign policy.
"Strategic policy objectives" aren't pursued for their own sake any more than power is exercised for its own sake. Economic interest is central to both.
This is no less true even when it is understood that the state has considerable autonomy to administer the system of capitalist property relations, independent of the particular interests of competing capitalists and capitalist sectors. But the relative autonomy of the state is often confused for absolute autonomy, as in Woj's case above, where it is assumed the state is able to act apart from and against the system. There is no historical instance of the system having being replaced from above by peaceful means, although obviously it is subject to state regulation in the interest of the class as a whole. The New Deal was a notable illustration of the US government's relative autonomy in domestic affairs, where there may have not been a readily apparent correlation between the Roosevelt administration's labour and social policies and the immediate interests of the corporations, but they were nonetheless integral to the further progress of the system, and were consciously seen as such by their architects and the liberal wing of the US bourgeoisie.
So too in foreign affairs, where there may not be a direct economic interest when the US engages in military action abroad - Grenada actually being a more striking example than either Iraq or Afghanistan - but where each intervention has to be situated in its larger context, which is the overall defence and strengthening of the US's global economic empire. Tiny Grenada was not invaded on the orders of US nutmeg producers, but the overthrow of its left-wing government was intended as a demonstration effect on movements inspired by the New Jewel example in countries where US economic interests were more significant. The US had previously invaded and blockaded Cuba not solely or even primarily because the July 24th movement expropriated the United Fruit Company and other US interests which dominated the Cuban economy, but because the Cuban rebel victory was seen to be spreading a revolutionary "contagion" throughout Central and Latin America which needed to be contained.
Similarly, oil may not have been the primary consideration in the invasion of Iraq, though I regarded the prospect of US companies regaining access to Iraq's oil reserves as one of several factors at the time. I thought the more immediate ones were to remove the Saddam regime as an impediment to a Middle East settlement, and, beyond that, to signal to the Iranians, North Koreans, Venezuelans, and other opponents of US imperialism that the new Bush-Cheney administration was resolved, as the previous Clinton administration had not been, to sequentially use its indomitable military forces against them unless they rapidly came to terms (as the Libyans subsequently did). The administration of course strenuously denied it was sending American troops to shed their blood for oil - war is always justified with recourse to national security and the national honour - but insiders like Alan Greenspan subsequently cited it as the reason for the invasion. His view was shared by other high-level supporters and critics of the invasion in the US, the UK, and elsewhere, which is well documented. Those interested in doing the research can begin here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oil_and_War_in_Iraq.
The US fought earlier wars in Korea and Vietnam to stem the advance of Communist forces wanting to end US economic and political hegemony in that region, and, more recently, it has intervened against Islamist forces having the same objective in the Muslim world. The British, German, and other European imperialist powers jockeyed for control of the world's resources which brought them into periodic conflict with each other and with insurgents in their various colonies and spheres of influence, not necessarily in those countries with the most abundant resources, but all in their own way necessary links in the chain of empire.
The economic foundations of capitalist imperialism is one of those settled questions for me, so my further interest in this thread is likely to be limited.