The latest events in Iraq have re-ignited the “It was a war for oil!!1!11!” debate, yet again, so I’m finally going to ask the same question I’ve had since the accusations were first made - why is that a bad thing?
Wars have always been fought for expansion of territory and greater access to the resources needed to run your particular civilization. Can’t recall too many Roman campaigns to liberate an oppressed people from their tormentors. Not recalling too many Greek expeditions or Chinese dust-ups intended to prevent a humanitarian disaster. Coming up short on Islamic Caliphate or Christian Crusades intended to bring equality and human rights to the Middle East (can’t wait for someone to immediately link to a half-dozen to invalidate the basis of the question, but that’s how you learn).
So what if the war (any war, pick one) is about (insert resource here)? When Iraq II - Electric Boogaloo was in full swing and leftists were “It’s all about oil!” I was like - yeah, and I don’t have a problem with it. The problem I had was that the Administration insisted on deflecting from that, instead of embracing it and saying things like “Yeah - you like eating? You like having electrical power to watch the news so you can get your knickers in a twist about the war? You like driving a car or riding a bus to the big protests? Hell yes it’s about oil. Any other positive benefit is a side-effect, not a central purpose.”
Is the “War for Oil” debate really about the resource in question, or the lying about the true purpose of the war? To me, it was the lying.
War is not politics by other means - war is about taking what you need (or want) from those who can’t stop you.
IMO, I thought we should have just built fences around the oil fields and refineries, kept them productive, and hang the rest of the problem. But then I’m a cold-hearted bastard. Also a student of history who knows that I’d much rather be a member of the “vile, repugnant” Have society than the “morally superior, victimized” Have-Not society that gets beaten down. Sorry if that outrages you, but I really don’t care.
So, go ahead and get the smears and disparagement of my character out of the way, but then answer the question - why is War For Oil a bad thing?
Off the top of my head, it probably makes a huge difference to the people of the country you’re invading (who can become armed, in case you wonder why you should care) and to the other countries you hope to ally with (especially if they demand a cut).
I completely accept b) as a valid reason, and agree with it, but nobody sought my counsel before the war. I never said the war was a good idea, just that the obfuscation about it’s true purpose was stupid.
a) could be said about pretty much any war in history, but it never stopped anyone, so it’s invalid IMO.
Individuals and nations are not comparable in this debate, but no, I would not. I would rather trade with him peaceably, and society has laws against murder and theft on an individual scale. There is no prohibition against the actions of a society as a whole that I am aware of. There probably should be, but who is going to enforce it? That’s why you end up with Coalitions of the Willing and World War II instead of calling the Global Police.
If the UN had teeth - and were the only polity to have said teeth - then things might be different. Until such time, the question is nothing more than a thought experiment.
Sure it has. It has stopped every war that didn’t happen. The US has never invaded Canada to get stuff it wants, and I’m sure there are 100s of other examples.
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? If you want support for your war (from your own citizens, from your allies, from the citizens of the place you’re invading), you want as many of them as possible to think that your war is for a just and noble cause. Different people have different views of where the line should be drawn, and while you may feel that “We want their stuff” and “We need to liberate them!” are equally acceptable justifications for war, I expect there are a significant number of people (in all three groups) who would support the latter but not the former.
Both are valid objections. That said, why do you suppose the lying was being done? Might it not be because the average American isn’t in favor of naked conquest in the name of stealing resources from the weak?
Anything could be said, but there is a generally-accepted just-war doctrine that some wars violate and some do not. All wars are not equal.
True, but until individual morality stops a war - and bear in mind that there are people who press for military intervention in many other countries based on their individual morality, in fact seek conflict to impose their morality on others - then the phrase “moral justification” as applied to any large-scale conflict has little, if any, weight with me.
The OP appeals to ancient practices, but I wonder if he would also find slavery, child labor, and other “accepted” historic practices as proper justification to revive them today.
Sure, war has been justified for many reasons in the past. But over time, societies have come to a general agreement that there is such a concept as just wars. Maybe not always followed, but generally the idea of waging war for resources is no longer acceptable in the international community.
War, intervention, etc. is always about the money/resources/etc. Yes, we like to think that we’re evolved as a species to the point that we can go to war (or better still, not go to war) for other reasons, but the reality is that those moral justifications are used as a cover for the true purpose of a conflict. I understand the Just War concept, but in some cases I think it is a philosophical smokescreen used to hopefully hide the true intentions of the aggressor.
Again, is the outrage of Iraq based on the war being for oil and wealth (despite the undeniable fact that it spectacularly failed in that regard, which likely couldn’t have been foreseen prior to launching it), or the fact that TPTB lied and used other moral justifications for it? If we had been told Day One “Yup, it’s about the free flow of oil at market prices”, would the outrage have been more, less, or the same?
“Not go to war” being the key here, as Procrustus has already alluded to. Sure, generally a nation won’t go to war out of pure altruism, there needs to be something in it for them. But it doesn’t follow that all that’s needed is some material gain, or there’d be far more war than there presently is. Mexico and Canada have oil too, y’know.
More. Again, why else do you think the deception was being bothered with?
Ah, you’re one of those who think the war was for the good of the country.
No, indeed you didn’t benefit from it, you and the rest of the people paid for it, but some people sure got rich from it. Where do you think all those trillions went?
This would make more sense to me if we ended up with the oil. If we annexed Iraq as a territory and moved the population of Oklahoma there to suck all the oil out of the ground and then just leave the country. It would be a evil but at least you could make some sense of it. Going to Iraq, spending money you don’t have, killing people who could never harm you, having thousands of your own come back maimed and dead, and then all the oil ends up going to China. How does that fucking make sense?
War is politics by other means and anyone who forgets that is gong to suffer. Wars are not a video game. You need men and material to support and equip your armies. To conduct diplomacy. If there is little political support for a conflict at home, you will struggle to conduct it, as you will have to fight to get the support you need, such a monies for your army, men for the ranks. To get the support of necessary allies.
In Iraq 2003, the US needed political support at home to get funding for the war. The war would have been impossible without logistic support from neighbouring countries? if the Government of the US had said that yes the war is for oil grabbing, do you think that the governments in the region would have acquiesced? Or gotten Congress to release funds?
in short going to war for oil on its own is not wrong. It was politically impossible in 2002/2003.
2) The second part of your statement is ridiculous. It betrays a very very superficial familiarity with history. Being a cold hearted bastard is NOT good statecraft. Oppression on its own just leads to greater resistance. You can defeat that with greater oppression, but history has shown that people can endure a lot more than they can inflict.
Plus,if they did what you suggested, they would have failed. If you want to get advantages and revenue from a land, you don’t lock most of it out. An oil field needs support infrastructure, such as transportation hubs, communications, maintenance etc. You are not going to get that if you quarantine it, at least not without causing yourself to put in more resources than you are extracting
We didn’t need to steal the oil (and it was more about long term control than immediate theft anyway); as one Iraqi said before the war “What do you think we are going to do with it? Drink it?”
And Americans like to believe they are the good guys, we don’t like admitting that we are almost always the villain in international relations and that we are widely hated for largely good reasons.
We pretty much tried that and it didn’t work, the Iraqis kept destroying the oil lines so we couldn’t steal their oil.
Right up until they find a way to strike back. Much of American foreign policy amounts to dealing with the fallout from previous generations with that attitude.
No; often it’s about imposing an ideology or religion, or just about killing people.
It could be forseen easily that it would cost far more than it would gain. That’s why the proponents of such a conquest couldn’t get their way until an idiot like Bush II took office; he was stupid enough to do it.
Another thing that makes the war in Iraq morally repugnant if the stated goal was the oil - the US is the fattest consumer of oil on the planet (with China catching-up). And rather than adopt a diet lower in oil and becoming more efficient, we want to keep the cheap stuff flowing so we can continue to consume unabated without having to make changes the rest of the world have already adopted, such as more efficient cars, higher gas prices, conservation, alternatives, etc.
It’s like the biggest kid on the playground bullying the smaller kids and stealing their lunch. In a word - selfish.