The problem is that it gives lie to the statement that we only go to war against those that would deny us our freedom. If we admit to war to steal resources then the next time some veteran tells me he fought to protect my freedom, I get to tell him he’s wrong.
My impression is that, to the extent it was a War for Oil, it was primarily on the notion that a privatized Iraqi exploration and production industry would result in revenue increases, coupled with a system of reparations, that would somehow finance the costs of the US invasion. That’s a bit different (although I’m not claiming it’s any more morally supportable) than some of the simplistic “We did it to take their oil” arguments being made here.
In the end this plan turned out to be a pipe dream, in part because of resistance from the local (nationalized) oil industry, in part because of the insurgency, and in part because of pesky international laws intended to prevent that sort of economic looting. So I guess if I were a “cold-hearted bastard” , as the OP inexplicably seems to proud of stating, I’d say that if you are planning to finance your military ventures by looting the resources of the conquered, better make sure beforehand that you can actually do that.
Factor in the difference in what the government of the USA is supposed to be about- being the voice of the public and representing their interests- and what a war for this purpose really is- a private imperial or maybe fascist action- and it reveals the entire government system of our country to be one big sham, maybe to keep the public distracted and calm enough to stand still while they get fleeced? I don’t know how to define it precisely, but one thing we know for sure in this context is that representation is a colossal lie. (Yeah, I know, a war for oil in the public interest would be socialism…)
I was talking to an Iraq I vet the other day. We discussed how the US bombarded the Iraqi army for 45 days before the invasion to soften them up. He says there were 175,000 casualties on the Iraqi side- we’d carpet bomb whole units, then send in bulldozers to push the corpses into mass graves. To do this simply for oil isn’t being a ‘cold hearted bastard’, it is evil.
Your blame of the Iraquis is unfounded. Most of the post-war problems can be laid squarely at the feet of Paul Bremmer, whose disbanding of the Iraqui army and banning of former Baath party members from government and public service jobs essentially led to a brain drain of exactly the people you needed to help run the country. Bremmer’s de-baathification order was opposed by military commanders on the ground, including David Patreus, who predicted exactly what would end up happening as a result.
You’re not much of a student of history - or of the past 11 years - if you imagine fences could simply have been built around the oil fields and refineries and ‘hang the rest of the problems’. The oil pipelines proved particularly vulnerable. The idea that you can just keep the oil pumping while blissfully ignoring the civil war happening all around you is frankly stupid.
From [url=]Vietnam: The Necessary War, by Michael Lind – Chapter 7, “Was the Vietnam War Unjust?”:
However, IMO, to be truly comprehensive, we should add to that list a fifth, the “imperialist” or “piratical” argument:
I venture to suggest that theory (e) has played a more important role in influencing the actual behavior of states and leaders throughout history than the other four combined. I even see it, in effect, occasionally defended in this Forum.
This, and, although this would not necessarily been on the radar back in 2003, oil imported to the US from Iraq has been on a downward trend for several years.
You’re correct that the Romans did not go to war to liberate oppressed people. But you know what? When the Romans invaded other countries, it was morally wrong to do so. And when the United States are any other modern nation starts a war solely to acquire oil or any other resource, it’s morally wrong for them to do so.
