In this thread, “Why are we in Iraq?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=367784 – several posters assert it is urgently necessary for America’s “national interest” to have a permanent military presence, a “police station,” in the midst of the world’s most important and volatile oil-producing region. I can see the sense of the argument given our economy’s dependence on oil, but it is always presented with the unstated premise that because our military intervention in the Middle East is from our POV necessary, it is therefore justified, in ethical terms; and this rationale is supposed to be sufficient by itself, independent of all the other reasons given for intervention (WMD’s, Hussein supporting al-Qaeda, “liberating” the Iraqis from his tyranny, etc.); and on its own tersm it is an argument based on American interests only, without reference to how our presence might affect the peoples of the invaded/occupied countries for good or ill. Does anyone care to defend (or refute) that premise, on those general terms?
Yes, it is justified. Some people seem to think oil is something we can live without. It isn’t. If you got to the hospital in ten minutes rather than an hour, it’s because the ambulance service could afford the gas. If you own a refirgerator, which drastically reduces the amount of food that spoils and allows children to eat fresh produce throughout the non-growing season, it’s because GE was able to ship all the necessary parts to an assembly plant, which probably required oil. At this point in history China and India are undergoing unprecedented economic expansions which will eventually lift millions out of poverty, but these expansions require the use of energy derived from fossil fuels. With all that being said, it is completely justifiable to be concerned with the stability of the major oil producing nations, and ensure that they don’t use the amount of power they have over the world economy to jerk the rest of us around.
The problem with what you are thinking is that you seem to think that ethics can be disconnected from the POV of the nations involved. From the US’s POV (talking govenment now) its justified (in theory) for us to want to have a presence in the region where we have such vital interests…and its ethical because its for the greater good of our own nation (i.e. the citizens they are sworn to protect…including securing our access to the energy vital to the continuation of our nation). From Iraq’s POV though the invasion is not justified, not really ethical…and certainly not for the greater good of the Iraqi people. Neutral and uninvolved nations are going to have yet a third POV…they may see the invasion as justified or not justified, ethical or not ethical and for the greater good of the world (i.e. the US isn’t the only nation who is dependent on oil from the region) or not, depending on their own viewpoint.
I’d have to say that, coldly, our ‘national interest’ justifies a US presence in the ME…though not necessarily our invasion of Iraq.
-XT
I’m curious as to whether you think that rationale holds when you look at the economic power we wielded after World War II and the “jerking around” that we did.
The countries of the Middle East will sell to us, either directly or indirectly, because they remember what happened in 1973 and 1979: we started looking elsewhere and they saw disaster in the future. They can raise the price only so high before they start digging their own graves, and they know it. So no, we are not justified in having a permanent presence (unless requested) in the Middle East, and we are certainly not justified in “occupying” a sovereign nation indefinitely.
As for the long term, I hope they do raise oil to exorbitant levels through monopolistic practices and/or embargoes. It’ll hurt in the short term, but overall it will make us look seriously at alternative energies, and then we can finally tell them to go to hell.
Oh, and their “power” is illusory. They have the power to put us all into an economic depression, and that will hurt them as much as us, especially when the people of those countries realize what their leaders are without oil money.
The problem I have with this type of analysis is - who gets to define what exactly is in our national interest? Seems to me that different people could have quite different opinions regarding how narrowly or how broadly they define it.
And I’m not sure the question is whether we will have access to oil, but rather, the amount and price of the oil available. The ME is not the only source for oil, and their oil is of little use to them if they don’t sell it. Alternatives exist - or could be developed. But at current prices they are just too expensive. Of course, if we figured the ongoing cost of the current occupation into the price we pay at the pump…
All quite true, but it all depends on the assumption that we have the right to use force to take what we need. We don’t accept that as a defense for an individual armed robber, so why is it any better a defense for a nation-state?
It’s only thuggery when someone else does it.
Only to the extent ethics on the individual level can be disconnected from the POV of the individuals involved. Which they can be, or what’s the point of even trying to find general rules or principles of ethical behavior?
Certainly a given state’s leaders have a duty to their own state’s people. But you seem to be assuming they have no duties, not even negative duties, to the peoples of other states. That foreigners are fair game, that they are not to be regarded by other states’ leaders as ends-in-themselves. Do you really believe that?
Why would you say that, “coldly” or otherwise?
Because we’ve spent decades trying not to develop alternate sources of power. We don’t have a right to conquer others because of our self inflicted weakness.
So we have the right to use our military power to conquer, loot and kill them ?
Only if you believe that China would be justified in invading Alaska to secure its oil supply. Or that Iran would be justified in bombing America to prevent it developing a bunker-buster capable of stopping them getting nukes.
“National interest” is an illusion that politicians like to pretend supercedes ethics. Of course, it is their job to support the constituency that elected them- meaning, for most diplomats, their country- but they have no more justification to commit unethical acts than any other country, nor is the interest of any given American (or Britisher, or Iranian…) of greater moral worth than the interests of any other human being.
Because its true…no matter how distasteful it can be sometimes? Nation states look at things differently than individuals. I stand by my statement…the fact that oil is critical to not only the US economy but our very way of life (and perhaps our existance, certainly as a super power) ‘justifies’ our presence in the ME. Note: I didn’t claim it justified our invasion of Iraq.
And its ‘cold’ because such decisions by a nation state generally ARE cold and calculating…because a nation state must take into account its own survival first (and thus must sometimes sacrifice its own citizens to the greater good), and the welfare of its people over those of other nations. Just reality really. I didn’t make the world as it is…I just have to live here.
-XT
Once again, I get to follow Happy Clam and get to echo what he says. By saying the US is justified in invading Iraq, you’re either saying that every other country is justified in invading another country for similar measures or you’re saying that the US can and nobody else can, which is bad. I’d rather have nobody attack everyone as opposed to everyone attacking everyone.
What is the definition of a presence in the Middle East?
I don’t deny that a presence in order to either get your agenda through or protect your interests (good old Dollar Diplomacy).
Just asking for a definition.
Indeed the US has already been a victim of this sort of Realpolitik: much of the reason for the Perl Harbor invasion was the US oil embargo on the Japanese empire, which previously had provided 80% of that countries oil.
Well, in that day and time, Japan had to eventually tussle with America. They just picked the place and time and incorrectly judged the reaction.
Good question. IMHO it would be political and economic awareness (including the use of pressure in both those categories), as well as a military presence (Navy presence including AC Carriers, perhaps forward deployed and stored heavy equipment, maybe even US ground troop basing if possible). Its a region of vital strategic importance to both the welfare and perhaps the survival of the US…so I think we are ‘justified’ in maintaining a high level of interest in the region. From OUR POV…I conceed that from others POV it appears (and IS) high handed. C’est la vie though…this is how the world currently and always has worked. And really its hard for me to see how anyone can fault one nation protecting its interests…even at the costs of another. Right and wrong sort of fly out the window in the face of several hundred million citizens who may be in the cold and dark come winter if things go completely tits up in the ME.
None of this really justifies our invasion of Iraq however IMHO…as there are other means we can use to achieve the ends we seek.
-XT
Where does the line get drawn from using economic and military “pressure” and war?
Who says we need to pressure a government into doing what we want anyways?
The line gets drawn when one nation feels it has no other option in order to protect its vital national interests. Sometimes nations fuck up of course and decide unwisely. What? You think there is some formula a nation can use? These are things run by HUMANS after all. 
They do the best they can…to paraphrase ‘fucking up in a fucked up world’.
Is it your opinion that nations either don’t have vital national interests, or that they have no justification in preserving them? What use a nation at all then…since this is its core role?
I’m trying not to be snotty here so don’t take this as a snotty reply…its supposed to be funny but with a core of truth.
The answer to your question is…reality of course. The reality of the world is that nations have divergent interests. Even allied nations have divergent interests. Of COURSE you have to sometimes use pressure, influence, even trickery to get other nations to go along with you. Most times this is a better option than the alternative…i.e. rolling tanks across the border.
-XT
I don’t think you can have a worthwhile military presence without a creditble willingness to actually use it, so I’d say the kind of military pressure we’re talking has to involve at least the real threat of a war.
The most common reason I hear cited that they had to “tussle” was because of the oil embargo, which was devastating to Japan’s economy and war machine. Hence my original point: that the US has been both used and been abused by the “national interest” justification for military action.
No snottiness detected. Just wanted to get your feelings on the subject.
I think that what the US wants most (even if it doesn’t realize it something tells me that this clause will become problematic) is to preserve the status quo. Things are good, things aren’t too shabby at all. Why rock the boat? Obviously the payoff must be huge.
The payoff changes if it’s proven that Venezuela has as much oil as it claims it has. If it’s about oil and pursuing the oil is paramount, do we go there to get the oil then?
Agreed, “divergent” goals don’t ge tmuch more divergent than ‘we need to get your regime out of power’. That’s the type of thing that, almost by nature, must get met with force (of some kind).