> Smacking around some pissant third world country every decade or so wasn't just to intimidate third world countries, or even our own allies, but to impress up the citizens of the u.s. IIRC, one of the PDFs at the neoconnery PNAC site had an entire argument spelling this out. Its focus was mainly on the point that all action on the foreign policy stage was never directed at the enemy but at one's so-called allies.
> relatedly there used to be huge wars on the list about the why behind afghanistan and iraq, with impassioned arguments that the "no blood for oil" slogan was ever so much bullshit. it was clearly not a way motivated by desire for securing access to ME oil resources.
>
> What's the wisdom on this, with hindsight now? If the war for oil logic is rejected, what WAS or IS the current explanation for why the u.s. waged the wars? Was there one?
Imperialist wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan, are fought far more to "impress" the subject populations than the home ones, especially in circumstances where the home populations can be counted on to support these ventures. Ruling classes don't need foreign wars as a pretext to intimidate or suppress their populations. They have many means for doing so in normal peacetime circumstances.