Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

[The Vagabond]

Che, of course it's not the official pro-war argument of the US government. What you formulated just seems a good pro-war argument to me. And it might well be that it's the real pro-war argument of the US strategists (they just can't name it officially).

I agree with you about Marxism. It's a powerful method of reasoning. Even anticommies can benefit from it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
che: One of the problems with the theory you are espousing right now (as I see it) is that Iraq is contained which makes his defiance largely irrelevent.

Realistically, it IS irrelevant - Iraq is not now anything close to the relative giant it once was in regional power.

Emotionally, however, there's two problems - IMO, it's an issue that Saddam was once thought to be our proxy, and we (Reagan & George I) invested a lot in that relationship, and containment only works when defiance is isolated.

If half the world seriously goes nuts, there's nothing the US or even the entire western world can do about it - think fundie revolutions in the mideast, civil war in Nigeria, even more deterioration in Venezuela, India and Pakistan going balls out once again, Hekmatyar being a perennial pain in the ass around Khowst, and the North Koreans continuing to demonstrate the benefits of the Dear Leader's wisdom, all at the same time, and all escalating.

Containment or deterrence only works if you have limited targets on which to focus.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
che: One of the problems with the theory you are espousing right now (as I see it) is that Iraq is contained which makes his defiance largely irrelevent.

What does their containment have to do with it? Don't you think the US would like to have control over contained countries also?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
che: One of the problems with the theory you are espousing right now (as I see it) is that Iraq is contained which makes his defiance largely irrelevent.

Iraq is contained, which means it's not a real threat. It is, however, an embarressment. A symbol that US can be defied, especially as other countries are trying to do business with it. Perhaps if the blocakde could be maintained, if Iraq could be punished until it breaks . . . . But with France, Russia, and so many others lining up to end the blockade, the danger is that Iraq might get away with standing up to the US. Sure, they aren't a material danger to anyone, but our prestige will be damaged. Others will see that they can disobey the US and get away with it. Empires don't last very long when the tributaries start to act independent

As for nothing exploding in Europe, Comrade Tribune, you must be daft. Europe has been the target of far more Islamic terrorism than the US has. We just got the worst single attack, and probably the most victims. But France has been suffering attacks many years. The Pan Am bombing over Scotland, whether you believe it was the Libyans or the Syrians. There were Moslem attacks in Italy. You aren't getting away with anything. We've been free of such things for so long just cuz no one's had the balls to attack us directly.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
MtG :
Comrade fundamentally didn't understand we're in the same **** as you. I don't think it is possible to reason with him, he assumes too much reason from the religious zealots.

Edit : As soon as some European countries disagree, they're called names by the US and by many Americans / mainstream media. I highly doubt the US want to see Europe any different than an obeying vassal.

Spiffor - you're right, unfortunately, on both counts. The simple fact that some people have questioned whether we still have any real alliance with France and Germany shows the shallowness of our view of foreign policy. We say "ally" when we expect "vassal," the same way corporations call acquisitions "mergers" to soothe the ego of the lesser entity. Unfortunately, it is a rare skill to realize that real allies may have fundamentally different world views and domestic political landscapes, and genuinely different views of how to proceed.

The whole "relevance" argument the Bushies make toward the UN and UNSC resolutions is a perfect example - the UN is "relevant" to the extent it rubber stamps the US' desired policy.

It's a little tough when dealing with a fairly single-minded enemy.

[DinoDoc]

MtG: How does my not shoving Iraq to the front burner effect your containment calculations?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
che: One of the problems with the theory you are espousing right now (as I see it) is that Iraq is contained which makes his defiance largely irrelevent.

The thing is that as the war on terrorism goes on several countries of the region may get seriously pissed off by the US. Then the currently effective containment of Iraq may be rendered ineffective.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
MtG: How does my not shoving Iraq to the front burner effect your containment calculations?

That's my biggest concern with the whole Iraq thing - we're certainly not going to come up with a good solution for a post-Saddam Iraq, and it's not even clear there is a good solution.

For containment to be backed with teeth, though, you need to have sustainable power projection abilities, and the US military has cut back significantly, despite higher budgets - most of the budget increases have been on the toys and procurement end, plus operational accounts for current deployments (man for man, SOCOM units have bigger support tails by far than regular units).

Realistically, we need a significant expansion (say double) of all SOCOM forces, about five or six more army divisions*, more USMC amphibious and support units, and expanded air and logistics capabilities as well.

Linguists, intel people, civil affairs people are all in short supply, and that's a real problem - you can't keep the people you have deployed forever, and you have to have some effective transitions. CentCom was a nice idea when the mideast was a relative backwater with no major action, but it's now too big, since all the serious global action is there on the Islamic / terrorist side.

We need to really rethink long-term approaches to problems like Iraq - this never should have gone on as long as it has, and the longer sanctions have been allowed to go on, the more Saddam will gain credit for defying both the US and the western world. South Africa proved the basic principle about sanctions - they're only effective if the government in question cares about it's standing in the international (i.e. western lackey) community. Otherwise, they're just a target for defiance.

I don't see a good outcome out of a war with Iraq, because there's too many of our resources that will be tied up for too long, likely for too little long-term gain (if any at all). OTOH, I also don't see it will help us much if we cave and let Saddam continue to give us the finger. Either way, IMO, we've lost the long-term strategic advantage, and it's just a choice of which gamble to take to get out of the hole.

Unfortunately, this administration (my beloved chickenhawks) are too excited by watching reruns of The Green Berets and by all the gee-whiz hardware marketing pitches of the defense industry and their pentagon whores. The level of interest in the necessary-but-unsexy nuts and bolts side of the military is non-existent, and having the CJCS be an airedale, plus a political boy of Billy Clinton's (Shinseki) as Army Chief of Staff really doesn't help.

Back in the early endgame of the cold war, Gen. John Wickham, as Army Chief of Staff, wrote an interesting article about how illogical the entire procurement process was, and how we devoted the greatest resources to the least probable threat scenarios, while the every day, real actions (low intensity combat) got the least attention from the procurement side). Wickham showed that there was a nearly linear inverse correlation between threat probability and procurement expenditure. Unfortunately, in 17 years and four presidents, that hasn't changed.

* re new Army divisions: for this type of modern warfare, I'd like to see a composite division which is one brigade heavy (mixed armor and IFV, with heavy artillery) and two brigades light infantry, with double the air transport, and augmented scout and attack helo capabilities), with reinforced battalions of engineers and recon.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Spiffor
CT :
I don't belive the average dead in the twin towers deserved his death anymore than the average Bagdhadian when the US will bomb Baghdad.

Actually, they prefer to be called Baghdaddies (2nd person: Baghdaddio) since the 1950s. Those crazy cats in Iraq just loved the Beats.

[Sikander]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, it isn't. Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. If we unleashed her, Israel could conquer the ME in a matter of weeks. Holding it would be another story altogether, but they could easily beat every country in the ME. Only Egypt would give them some trouble.

The war is about asserting American power. The first Gulf War was about showing the world who was boss in the wake of the Cold War. But a curious thing happened. The lesson didn't take. Hussein didn't play along. For twelve years he'd been thumbing his nose, not at the UN, but at the US. As long as Iraq can get away with refusing to kowtow to the American Empire, it lets other countries know they can get away with it also. Hussein has to be be made to tow the line or he has to be destroyed.

That's what this war is about.

I agree to some extent. There are a lot of reasons for this war, which IMO is merely an extension of the previous conflict. The U.S. cannot afford to let Iraq flaunt its refusal to abide by the armistace. Otherwise our military budget gains us nothing in terms of power, as we will have no credibility.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Spiffor
MtG :
Comrade fundamentally didn't understand we're in the same **** as you. I don't think it is possible to reason with him, he assumes too much reason from the religious zealots.

Edit : As soon as some European countries disagree, they're called names by the US and by many Americans / mainstream media. I highly doubt the US want to see Europe any different than an obeying vassal.

I don't agree that the U.S. wants to only have Europe be a loyal vassal, though I'm certain there are people who want this in pursuit of short term interest. In the long term though we want Europe to treat with us as equals who often have similar goals in the world, and are capable of carrying their portion of the load, including and especially the ability to act militarily in their own interest independentlywhen necessary. We see much of Europe as having spent decades under our protection and having developed an unrealistic view of the world, as if any other portion of the globe has the sort of security provided by the Atlantic alliance, much less the shared values and economic strength that make the rest of the growth of the European Community possible.

There is a very good reason why many of the new members of NATO agree with the U.S. aside from any leftover goodwill that their entry into NATO etc. has brought. Simply, it is because these states share our view of the world to a much greater extent than those states whose citizens have spent their entire lives protected by this powerful alliance. They have seen with their own eyes the occupation and subjugation of their lands by Soviet power, and are under no illusions about how useful good intentions alone are in a conflict with someone willing to use raw power. Much of their desire is thus for the security that the alliance brings, and it is the United States that brings that combination of power and (in their minds at least) a rational understanding of raw power and its continuing usefullness in the real world, even as only a deterrent. The fact that NATO membership also rids them of any likely conflict with those states who would otherwise have to be viewed as regional rivals only adds to its allure. Membership in the EU is icing on the cake, but at this juncture anyway, I think these states would generally accept NATO membership and the freedom to concentrate on their own domestic needs (which are great) over membership in the EU and the need to depend solely on themselves for their defense. This will probably be an interim step in the development of their attitudes though, at least if things work out more or less the same way for them as they have for Western Europe. As the older generations who experienced the Cold War and occupation die out, the younger generation won't see what all the fuss is about, just as in Western Europe.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by JohnT

The source is my trolling spirit.

I thought it was the US media. They run that myth regularly. Anyway, the US imports roughly twice as much iraqi oil as Europe.

"But then, if the US is already getting Iraqi oil (20% of US Persian Gulf imports), then that doesn't really buttress the argument that the US is doing this to get their hands on Iraqi oil."

Why not? Price is a secondary consideration, reliability makes more sense. So you have the wahabite saudis sitting on 1/4 of the reserves, Iraq and Iran on another 1/4 (very roughly), and the US getting ever more import dependent. War for oil makes sense from a strategic perspective if your domestic policy is based on wasting energy (and what was ****'s energy plan about? )

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
Does anyone have a decent source for where Persian Gulf Oil exports go? Last time I saw such a thing not much of it went to the States United...

Would have to dig it up. Europe has diversified its oil supplies a lot (north sea, russia, north africa), while the US' total imports have risen a lot.

"Does the UN 'cut the check' out of New York and does that make it look like it all goes to the States?"

The UN does not pay for Iraq's oil exports. Or what do you mean?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That's my biggest concern with the whole Iraq thing - we're certainly not going to come up with a good solution for a post-Saddam Iraq, and it's not even clear there is a good solution.

For containment to be backed with teeth, though, you need to have sustainable power projection abilities, and the US military has cut back significantly, despite higher budgets - most of the budget increases have been on the toys and procurement end, plus operational accounts for current deployments (man for man, SOCOM units have bigger support tails by far than regular units).

This is a major point of departure between the U.S. and Britain and say France and Germany. It is our forces who have been on duty doing the containing, and it is our forces who are cooling their heals (and losing readiness while burning money and diplomatic capital) as the U.N. dithers its way to yet another meaningless ir-resolution. It's very easy for Germany and France to demand that we spend our effort to "give peace a chance" for the 17th time, when it seems obvious that Hussein has no intention of complying with the terms of the armistace he signed 12 years ago. Perhaps if they were willing to back up their demands with some willingness to share a significant portion of the burden they would have more credibility on this side of the pond.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Realistically, we need a significant expansion (say double) of all SOCOM forces, about five or six more army divisions*, more USMC amphibious and support units, and expanded air and logistics capabilities as well.

Linguists, intel people, civil affairs people are all in short supply, and that's a real problem - you can't keep the people you have deployed forever, and you have to have some effective transitions. CentCom was a nice idea when the mideast was a relative backwater with no major action, but it's now too big, since all the serious global action is there on the Islamic / terrorist side.

We need to really rethink long-term approaches to problems like Iraq - this never should have gone on as long as it has, and the longer sanctions have been allowed to go on, the more Saddam will gain credit for defying both the US and the western world. South Africa proved the basic principle about sanctions - they're only effective if the government in question cares about it's standing in the international (i.e. western lackey) community. Otherwise, they're just a target for defiance.

Agreed.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I don't see a good outcome out of a war with Iraq, because there's too many of our resources that will be tied up for too long, likely for too little long-term gain (if any at all). OTOH, I also don't see it will help us much if we cave and let Saddam continue to give us the finger. Either way, IMO, we've lost the long-term strategic advantage, and it's just a choice of which gamble to take to get out of the hole.

I would have liked to have seen this problem dealt with in the first place by GB the 1st, or during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. GB 1 thought erroneously that he could kill Saddam, and settled for a much too modest political goal to justify the risk. I felt that then, and my opinion has only been strengthened by events since. Clinton had no strategic vision whatever, merely some values that work fine in Belgium, but aren't terribly realistic for a country in the U.S.'s position, namely overextended with myriad regional involvements around the world. He left all that in place, and satisfied himself with exerting small efforts here and there in the name of his value system. Had either president had a broader vision, we could have practically picked how we wanted the "New World Order" to be and moved there while the world was still busy readjusting to the huge changes made possible (and necessary) by the end of the Cold War.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
* re new Army divisions: for this type of modern warfare, I'd like to see a composite division which is one brigade heavy (mixed armor and IFV, with heavy artillery) and two brigades light infantry, with double the air transport, and augmented scout and attack helo capabilities), with reinforced battalions of engineers and recon.

Would you deploy these as divisions, or use them as subdividable components of an ad hoc system of force creation? I would tend to think that two types of division would be preferable, Heavy and Light.

[GeneralTacticus]

The UN does not pay for Iraq's oil exports. Or what do you mean?

I think he's talking about the fact that the proceeds from Iraq's exports go into a UN account in NY, under the Oil for Food programme.