[MP-Ryan]

I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.

Y'know, a lot of people like to espouse this view on the United States, particularly those of us not living there, but it actually ignores reality.  The US has this reputation of being the great intervener in places where they aren't wanted, but the American government actually shows remarkable restraint in its military endeavours - and is frequently chastised for doing so.  Look at the calls for intervention in Syria and Mali, or the old ones for Darfur.

Considering the last 70 years has seen the US, arguably now the world's only superpower, involved in only 6 actual 'hot' wars (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq) - only 2 of which acted independently of a broad international consensus - I think they're doing rather well on the military restraint front.

[Nemesis6]

On a side-note in relation to Iraq -- If America wanted to create an additional ally in the Middle-East, it could do so by politically endorsing the Kurdish people. They're as far away from Islamism as possible due to the whole Apoism thing, and they have very real national aspirations. Politically, they're secular and nationalist, but without the tyranny often show by middle-eastern secular governments like Iraq and Syria. Indeed, the best democracy in the Middle-East apart from Israel is arguably Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurdish rebels in Syria have joined the fight against regime, but for its own reasons; they have control over a lot of the border towns leading to Turkey and some in vicinity to the border with Northern Iraq. But having any meaningful relationship with the Kurds is complicated by America's strategic relationship with Turkey, who is pretty much America's second most important in the region.

[Lorric]

I'm going to spare you the history lesson on Iraq and just say that if the powers that be wanted to take out Saddam, it could have been done since the Gulf War.  The Israelis had the capacity for quite some time - it's just that the potential replacements were worse.  And when we're talking about the Baath Party, I'm not talking about something like the Conservatives, or Labour.  I'm talking about an entire social/religious class of people that ostensibly ran the Iraqi government and military.  They also comprised a large part of the military.  There is a reason that regime change in Iraq would take more than just a guy with a rifle in the right place at the right time.

You might be confusing "not taking evidence" with "not making the evidence public information."  Nevertheless, Al-Qaeda confirmed bin Laden's death as well, as did Pakistani authorities.

As for giving a timeline on occupying Afghanistan (and Iraq)...  In order to occupy a country and ensure smooth transition - like Germany after World War 2 - hundreds of thousands or millions of troops are required, along with minimal cultural differences.  To put this in perspective, Germany had more allied troops stationed there in 1946 and 1947 than Afghanistan and Iraq had rotate through for the entire duration of the ground wars.  The only rational choice for Western politicians was to say we're either staying indefinitely (politically unpalatable) or give timelines for draw-downs and conversion to local forces (which they did).  Those timelines were only given after local forces were starting to show they could function independently.

However, as I pointed out earlier, the point in all this conflict was not necessarily the installation of functioning democracies but the achievement of strategic goals, which have, to some extent, worked out.

Worse than Saddam? Oooh...

Do you mean the Baath party is more of a rank than a "party" as we in the West would interpret the word and the other parties were lower ranks?

From what I heard on the news, I interpreted it as they purposely took no evidence for some reason. I looked up Al Qaeda:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13313201

Interestingly, there's a note about conspiracy theorists in there too:

"The release of a statement from "the general leadership" of al-Qaeda may do something to undermine the conspiracy theories circulating in some quarters that Osama Bin Laden is not dead.

However, there will no doubt be some for whom even this will not be enough, who will argue it is not definitive proof."

I must admit I did think that Al Qaeda could just be using it to drum up support if he's already dead in the first place, and before they were pretending he still lived, but at this point we've gone past the point where I am suspicious enough to still think it was a cover up with various people actually coming out and stating they identified the body.

I think there's a third choice. Yes, you say it will take as long as it takes, but you keep the public updated, you make them see that progress is being made, that things are getting done. The media often make it look like all the soldiers are doing is patrolling around aimlessly getting blown up by IEDs. I know that's not the case, but it sure looks like it at times the way things are covered.

I think the US doesn't make enough of an effort to avoid a solution that doesn't involve war. Then again, when you're pumping in more money than the entire globe combined (I think that's right) into your military, I guess you're going to want a return on your investment from time to time.

Y'know, a lot of people like to espouse this view on the United States, particularly those of us not living there, but it actually ignores reality.  The US has this reputation of being the great intervener in places where they aren't wanted, but the American government actually shows remarkable restraint in its military endeavours - and is frequently chastised for doing so.  Look at the calls for intervention in Syria and Mali, or the old ones for Darfur.

Considering the last 70 years has seen the US, arguably now the world's only superpower, involved in only 6 actual 'hot' wars (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq) - only 2 of which acted independently of a broad international consensus - I think they're doing rather well on the military restraint front.

I guess there is some selectivism there. Either they shouldn't be waging war, or they should be. But America will only go to war when it's in their own interests, and I only have "real time" experience with the last two, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me in both cases, especially Iraq, they jumped in too quickly. Iraq is basically a war crime.

[Luis Dias]

Calling spade a spade. That's no conspiracy, I don't think US would intervene if they didn't have anything to gain. I think that's sort of a public secret by now.

This is the goofiness I'm talking about.  The United States gets its oil from Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico.  Given the estimated oil reserves in Canada alone, Iraq is irrelevant to the supply of oil to the United States.  The invasion in Iraq was not about the supply of oil to the US.

Where the oil supplies in Iraq are relevant are in strategic terms.  Luis has hit the nail on the head.  Iraq and Iran have been on the US radar for a long-time, and the years following 2001 were a convenient excuse to start some direct intervention on the ground in the region.  Iraq has historically-documented used of so-called weapons of mass destruction (their chemical and biological programs did exist at one time), which was exploited by the US administration at the time as a convenient excuse to invade.  When it became abundantly clear to everyone that it was a flimsy excuse at best, the PR line became "bringing freedom to Iraqis."  Meanwhile, the conspiracy crowd insisted (and still does) that this was about net economic benefit to the US vis-a-vis oil.  I have news for these people:  the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a net economic disaster for the United States.  It hasn't even been a strategic coup, because all it has done is strengthen Iran and splinter existing regional divides further - the law of unintended consequences at work.

So the military engagement in Afghanistan/Iraq had about as much to do with oil as they did with weapons of mass destruction - that is to say, very, very little.

Some contradictions in there. The main reason the US was interested in Iraq and Iran was obviously due to oil. Also, I detect perhaps some gaps of reasoning on your part. You seem to agree with me that the purpose of the war was to secure some odd 40 million barrels of oil from the egomaniac Saddam, who had the power to really create a problem in the gulf and damage the entire world economy via the destruction of the petrodollars. Then, you say that it had "very very little" to do with oil.

Of course it was all about the oil. And I'm not even saying that as a "bad thing". Thing is, the egomaniac was playing his hands all the time and who knows where he might have gone with his cruzade against America. He was already dealing with the french to start negociating the oil in euros, which might give a clue on why France was so opposed to the attack. His track record on weapons of mass destruction was abysmal and his behavior regarding his own people really portrayed someone that you just couldn't trust in that area.

All in all, the US may have well "profited" from the war mostly because the alternative might have been catastrophic to the petrodollar. And lets not forget who's profiting with the millions of barrels of oil that are being pumped from its land (the usual sisters as they call it).

[MP-Ryan]

Do you mean the Baath party is more of a rank than a "party" as we in the West would interpret the word and the other parties were lower ranks?

No.  Now is the point where I tell you to go learn the history.  I feel like a history professor trying to explain geopolitics to a grade school kid in this thread.  If you're going to engage in discussion, Lorric, it really does help if you know more about it than what flashes up on BBC news from time to time.  It's great that you have an interest in the subject - go pick up some books on the history of 20th century warfare,

I guess there is some selectivism there. Either they shouldn't be waging war, or they should be. But America will only go to war when it's in their own interests, and I only have "real time" experience with the last two, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me in both cases, especially Iraq, they jumped in too quickly. Iraq is basically a war crime.

No nation deploys its military unless it's in its own interest.  The US has been one of the least selfish nations in this regard for the last several decades.

The invasion of Iraq doesn't qualify as a war crime.  Unless you'd like to pull a section of the Geneva Convention to back that up.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

American interest in Iraqi and Iranian oil had nothing to do with exploiting those resources and everything to do with the stability of global oil prices and the supply provided by the Persian Gulf.  All of that comes secondary to the security implications of the strategy, though.

Middle Eastern oil is largely irrelevant as a commodity to the United States - the Canadian, Mexican, and their own internal reserves more than satisfy their strategic requirements.  Where it becomes important is on the variation of oil prices and the various benchmarks.  Problems in the Middle East affect prices everywhere, and the US has a massive petroleum dependency.  Fluctuations in oil prices dramatically affect their economy, as with most modern democracies.

So, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were only tangentially about oil, and not at all in the sense that most advocates of the "Oil war!!!!1111!!!" conspiracy theory promote.  First and foremost they were about strategic long-term physical and economic security.

[Lorric]

Do you mean the Baath party is more of a rank than a "party" as we in the West would interpret the word and the other parties were lower ranks?

No.  Now is the point where I tell you to go learn the history.  I feel like a history professor trying to explain geopolitics to a grade school kid in this thread.  If you're going to engage in discussion, Lorric, it really does help if you know more about it than what flashes up on BBC news from time to time.  It's great that you have an interest in the subject - go pick up some books on the history of 20th century warfare,

I guess there is some selectivism there. Either they shouldn't be waging war, or they should be. But America will only go to war when it's in their own interests, and I only have "real time" experience with the last two, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me in both cases, especially Iraq, they jumped in too quickly. Iraq is basically a war crime.

No nation deploys its military unless it's in its own interest.  The US has been one of the least selfish nations in this regard for the last several decades.

The invasion of Iraq doesn't qualify as a war crime.  Unless you'd like to pull a section of the Geneva Convention to back that up.

And I feel like I'm back at school. Hello there, teacher. How are you doing?

Hey, sorry for being frustrating, but I do appreciate you sticking around and answering my questions. You've changed me in a few ways. How do you know all this stuff anyway? I don't mean just on this, but you've been there pretty much every time I've entered into any serious subject matter on here in general discussion and made some impression on me.

I did for a while research quite well on these wars. But I'm just so tired of them now in general, that often only what I see from the media gets through.

On Iraq, I simply see it as an invasion was launched for a reason (WMDs) and that reason was bogus. I bet you'll tell me I'm thinking too simply again. But if someone said you had a powerful weapon and were planning to use it and tore your World apart looking for it, how would you feel?

[Beskargam]

Perhaps its because I grew up during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,but I don't feel like the US has used a lot of restraint on the world stage in terms of resorting to force. (I am an American).

[NGTM-1R]

Perhaps its because I grew up during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,but I don't feel like the US has used a lot of restraint on the world stage in terms of resorting to force. (I am an American).

There are a lot of Somali pirates, Lebanese, Syrians, Tunisians, etc. who would probably disagree.

Hell, go anywhere in Africa.

[karajorma]

I've suggested people watch The Power of Nightmares before. But this time I've got a link

Why go to all this trouble in Iraq? Why not just eliminate Saddam if he was the problem, and if necessary some other key personnel? There are all kinds of ways it could be done, an assassin, an attack team, a bounty on his head, even enabling the Iraqis to do it themselves.

638

[Dragon]

So, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were only tangentially about oil, and not at all in the sense that most advocates of the "Oil war!!!!1111!!!" conspiracy theory promote.  First and foremost they were about strategic long-term physical and economic security.

I wouldn't call it "tangentially" about oil. Rather, it was because of oil, or "about" it in a rather indirect way. Afterall, this strategic economic security requires securing and having a degree of control over an important source of oil. By that, I don't mean oil physically located in Iraq (like many seem to assume), but rather that in the entire Middle East. A "secure" (meaning politically stable, on friendly terms and maybe even reliant on US) source of oil means secure economy, since (as you mentioned) instability in that region could cause instability in oil prices around the world. Ultimately, the whole thing was about manipulating balance of power surrounding this resource. That's sort of what was talking about when claiming that oil was an underlying cause of all this mess. Of course, that's a simplification (and ignores the terrorism aspect, which also played no small part), but you're much better at explaining things in minute detail than I.

Also, people who misunderstand the global politics and economics shouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists". Saying that US invaded Iraq because they wanted their oil is a gross misunderstanding of the actual situation (not exactly unexpected from an average Joe not into global politics), not implying some sort of shadowy figures conspiring for something. It's not even a secret, just a poorly known fact of world politics. Of course, the government is primarily playing up noble sounding excuses and terrorism aspect, because it's good for PR. I don't think they'd throw so much money into Iraq if it was really about a flimsy WMD claim and a tinpot dictator oppressing his people. On the other hand, people wouldn't cheer for openly invading a foreign country in order to maintain economic security (especially since many people would read that as "We want to steal their oil!"). The whole point of politics is knowing what to tell to the crowd and what to skip over.

[MP-Ryan]

I've suggested people watch The Power of Nightmares before. But this time I've got a link

I don't have time to watch a 60 minute YouTube video.  Summary in 250 words or less... go! 

[MP-Ryan]

How do you know all this stuff anyway? I don't mean just on this, but you've been there pretty much every time I've entered into any serious subject matter on here in general discussion and made some impression on me.

A B.Sc, a B.A. (both with a fair number of history electives), and a ridiculous amount of reading, not to mention way too much time spent in Internet debates.

On Iraq, I simply see it as an invasion was launched for a reason (WMDs) and that reason was bogus.

WMDs were a convenient excuse.  Iraq did have them at one time (chemical, and worked on a biological program), meaning the excuse wasn't entirely fabricated.  But the actual invasion was for all the reasons I've talked about in the last few pages.

[MP-Ryan]

I wouldn't call it "tangentially" about oil. Rather, it was because of oil, or "about" it in a rather indirect way. Afterall, this strategic economic security requires securing and having a degree of control over an important source of oil. By that, I don't mean oil physically located in Iraq (like many seem to assume), but rather that in the entire Middle East. A "secure" (meaning politically stable, on friendly terms and maybe even reliant on US) source of oil means secure economy, since (as you mentioned) instability in that region could cause instability in oil prices around the world. Ultimately, the whole thing was about manipulating balance of power surrounding this resource. That's sort of what was talking about when claiming that oil was an underlying cause of all this mess. Of course, that's a simplification (and ignores the terrorism aspect, which also played no small part), but you're much better at explaining things in minute detail than I.

Also, people who misunderstand the global politics and economics shouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists". Saying that US invaded Iraq because they wanted their oil is a gross misunderstanding of the actual situation (not exactly unexpected from an average Joe not into global politics), not implying some sort of shadowy figures conspiring for something. It's not even a secret, just a poorly known fact of world politics. Of course, the government is primarily playing up noble sounding excuses and terrorism aspect, because it's good for PR. I don't think they'd throw so much money into Iraq if it was really about a flimsy WMD claim and a tinpot dictator oppressing his people. On the other hand, people wouldn't cheer for openly invading a foreign country in order to maintain economic security (especially since many people would read that as "We want to steal their oil!"). The whole point of politics is knowing what to tell to the crowd and what to skip over.

If you take that approach, you can boil all strategic objectives in all wars down to competition for resources.  That's doing root cause analysis a serious disservice.  If you want to boil the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions down to a reason in four words they are: physical and economic security.  The economics weren't just about oil either - invading those two countries cost a lot less than a full-scale deployment in a Middle Eastern hot war would.

The conspiracy types I'm talking about are the ones saying the US fabricated various mixtures of 9/11, terrorism, WMDs, the Gulf War, etc because the US wanted to exploit Iraqi oil resources.  That's conspiracy bull**** at its worst, and there are unfortunately people who believe that nonsense.

[karajorma]

I've suggested people watch The Power of Nightmares before. But this time I've got a link

I don't have time to watch a 60 minute YouTube video.  Summary in 250 words or less... go! 

The wikipedia page does a reasonable job of summing up what the show was about.

[Luis Dias]

-snip-

American interest in Iraqi and Iranian oil had nothing to do with exploiting those resources and everything to do with the stability of global oil prices and the supply provided by the Persian Gulf.  All of that comes secondary to the security implications of the strategy, though.

Middle Eastern oil is largely irrelevant as a commodity to the United States - the Canadian, Mexican, and their own internal reserves more than satisfy their strategic requirements.  Where it becomes important is on the variation of oil prices and the various benchmarks.  Problems in the Middle East affect prices everywhere, and the US has a massive petroleum dependency.  Fluctuations in oil prices dramatically affect their economy, as with most modern democracies.

So, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were only tangentially about oil, and not at all in the sense that most advocates of the "Oil war!!!!1111!!!" conspiracy theory promote.  First and foremost they were about strategic long-term physical and economic security.

Right, it's as if you are violently agreeing with me except for the quallifier "it's about oil". The oil market is fungible, MP. Think about that for a moment. And then think who is pumping oil right now in Iraq. The general advocates of the "Oil war !!!one!!!" etc are thinking in simplistic terms, I agree with you, but they are not exactly *off the mark*.

Also, you should really spend any time watching the Power of Nightmares. That and any other Adam Curtis' documentaries. They are the most amazing bunch of docs I've ever seen, period. It's the kind of stuff you may even want to repeat seeing. Pure works of art.

[karajorma]

Told you it was good, didn't I?

[Luis Dias]

Told you it was good, didn't I?

Been a fan of him for almost a decade now, and I'm sure I've posted every single link I could find of his docs in this forum before. (although no one seemed interested at the time). Really great stuff. And his hear for music is also quite quite good.

[Dragon]

If you take that approach, you can boil all strategic objectives in all wars down to competition for resources. 

This would be a cynical, but generally valid assertion. I imagine that the first time a caveman hit another caveman with a stick was because the latter had something the former didn't. Gaining resources and/or controlling them is a key concept in conventional war, most RTSes and also in politics. While it can't be said that all strategic objectives boil down to this, a great majority of them does. Those who have resources also have money and production capability. If denied those resources, they lose those capabilities. Without an ability to replenish loses and create new equipment, winning a conventional armed conflict is pretty much impossible.
The whole reason guerilla warfare is so difficult and partisans are so problematic is that you can't cut off their supplies and deny them resources, because they're so decentralized. The only way to win against partisans with standard military methods is to kill every single one out there, which can be difficult. If you consider humans a resource (something which is frequently done), then even that way becomes "depriving the enemy of resources".

The conspiracy types I'm talking about are the ones saying the US fabricated various mixtures of 9/11, terrorism, WMDs, the Gulf War, etc because the US wanted to exploit Iraqi oil resources.  That's conspiracy bull**** at its worst, and there are unfortunately people who believe that nonsense.

That approach is, of course, utter BS. The most extreme theories pretty much always are. Same as with Roswell. There were people who said "US Government is hiding something about Roswell" and those who said "US Government is hiding a crashed alien saucer that fell near Roswell". The former were right, the latter were ridiculous. US might have used WMDs as a convenient excuse and it's hard to argue they didn't got anything out of the Gulf War (and it was tied to oil, it's already been said how), but a conspiracy linking this to terrorism and 9/11 is just ridiculous.

[MP-Ryan]

What both you and Luis are missing, however, is that I keep saying the economic concern behind the 2001/3 invasions came as a secondary consideration to the security concerns.

Security becomes intertwined with the economics quite rapidly in any analysis, but fundamentally the purpose behind ousting the Afghan and Iraqi governments was to address regional and international security concerns - in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda lost its friendly, unchecked logistical base.  In Iraq, the invasion removed a government that was singlehandedly the most likely to start a hot war in the region.

The reason a hot war in the Middle East is so concerning is two-fold:  (1) it would inevitably involve Israel, which means the US, and (2) it would dramatically affect global oil prices.

I guess what I'm getting at is there is a conspiracy-bent fetishization concerning oil in the region.  Move the same political-religious-resource situation to any other part of the world with any other key natural resource and the same events would have occurred.  Thus, oil is only tangential to a root cause analysis.  You can't say it's a non-factor, because it isn't, but simultaneously a takeover of Iraqi oil production has no real benefit to the US, particularly given the amount of money it cost in spending and the economic havoc that's resulted in the US.