Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons?

Great Debates
1

I do not understand the political rhetoric.

We are in Libya to arrest massacres? Granted, that is not a bad goal.

But… there is already a war started. Rebels vs. their government, and their government is coming out shooting. Is it a massacre, or is it war?

Well anyway, at least this time we are getting involved in a war already in progress instead of inventing one on admittedly spurious grounds. But the only reason we are involved is the oil, right?

I am not saying we are there to extract the oil. I am merely noting that it appears to be US national policy to station troops in key oil regions when possible. It is also apparently policy to cite some reason other than oil for the military intervention.

If you think we are not intervening in Libya ultimately because of its oil exports, I want to hear from you. If you can explain why we should intervene in Libya for the military oil bonus, yet should publicly maintain that the action is being undertaken for other reasons, I also want to hear from you. What I don’t want to hear is whether the engagement itself is right/wrong, justified/unjust, etc. Good or bad, I want to debate what-is-the motive.
I don’t have to cite for savvy 'dopers the massacres in which we have not intervened. Why can’t we admit we are using our military to secure international oil sources? (by ‘secure’ I mean that we can defend the sources, and possibly shut them off to offenders in wartime; not necessarily that we are burning the oil in the US)

2

Here we go with this nonsense again. All Middle Eastern/Asian wars are about oil even though somehow the U.S. never manages to get any oil out of them.

3

Right!

Our military controls the oil. It doesn’t pump the oil, or sell the oil.

4

I think the pragmatic reason the U.S. is involved in Libya is that, if Qaddafi crushes the rebellion, it’s a big setback for the outbreak of democracy across the middle east. There are pragmatic reasons that a widely democratic ME is far better for the U.S. than the totalitarian mess it has been.

I have no idea how oil could be the motivator here. The U.S. won’t be stationing troops in Libya, or establishing a base. There were existing oil deals with Libya that are now threatened, when quietly backing Qaddafi or passively allowing him to win would leave those unthreatened. And the U.S. in the past did just fine with an oil embargo against Qaddafi that lasted more than a decade, I believe. It just doesn’t make sense to say “oil is the cause”.

5

I would have thought the motive was obvious. By supporting the rebel faction, we are on the side of the angels. We are supporting the right of a country’s population to determine for themselves what type of government they want while stymieing Gadhafi’s attempt to keep control. We assist in getting rid of a long-time thorn in the Arab world without taking unilateral action.

The other part is that we had to do it. This is a UN-approved action, and we are doing as little as possible since it isn’t strictly speaking our problem, and we’re trying very hard to pass the buck to those who have more of an interest, like Italy. Unfortunately, due to our long history of intervention, countries are not exactly chomping at the bit to take over because then they will bear responsibility for actions traditionally taken by the US, actions that they would like to take but find easier to criticize and back away from when taken by somebody else. By deferring command they can accept the benefits of the actions without absorbing any of the criticisms, which is how things like this have gone for a long time.

It has nothing to do with oil. As has been said already, for all the “no war for oil” nonsense that has been tossed out for the last decade (and arguably the last two decades), we haven’t exactly seen any benefit from those wars. We’re not exactly awash in oil, as you can plainly see by the prices at the pumps and in heating oil prices. We saw very little of Libya’s oil in any case.

6

But global oil production has been flat for 5 years now. 1.5 million bb/d means alot in terms of global economic stability, especially considering that gas prices are approaching $4 in the US as it is.

And it is hard to deny the pattern of the US deploying troops to oil or oil-related regions. No?

7

Sounds good. When does the US bombing of Yemen and Bahrain start?

See above. Also, how do you determine that you are on the side of popular will when you artificially skew a civil war so as to make popular will impossible to determine?

There is a world of difference between being allowed to do something and being obligated to do it. The Resolution does not call for all nations everywhere to join in the feeding frenzy, so clearly the US was not forced into this crusade against its will.

Ultimately, none of these proffered excuses make any sense. Personally, I would go with a combination of oil-seeking and a general Western desire to maintain an imperial stranglehold on the Arab world.

8

The popular will is easy to determine. Civil wars don’t start because the populace dearly loves their leader, and heads of state don’t typically turn weapons on their own people if those people support them.

The people want Gadhafi gone, and but for his turning the military (if mercenaries can be considered the military) loose on them he’d already be gone.

Consider this: the United States knows nothing about these rebels. For all we know, for all anybody knows, they could turn around and implement an Iran-type theocracy hostile to the US. It’s not like we’re trying to install puppets. Yet we’re still helping them, with a broad-based coalition’s (the United Nations) assent. That is about as far removed from imperialism as you can possibly get.

9

Hi!

We can’t be awash in oil. Now is the peak-plateau period, unless I am mistaken. Status quo is as good as it gets. Apparently it is worth defending militarily. No?

10

I agree that we rarely hear that oil is the reason, but in 1990 I happened to record BBC news on the radio, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and they did mention oil as a reason for getting involved. I still have the tape, and it’s fascinating to hear it.

You can listen to it here

Towards the end of the recording, it says “The White House has warned it will take any steps necessary to protect vital oil interests in the region”

If only they were so candid all the time.

11

I think this is a big part of the reason. If Qaddafi crushes this and survives, the message to the other despots will be “Just use as much force as needed and you will stay in power, even if it means killing a ton of your own people”, and the message to wannabe revolutionaries elsewhere will be “Don’t think things will go as smoothly as they did in Egypt, you will get crushed and killed”

Of course, there are a couple other countries that have killed their own people in recent days, and no bombing from the US has happened, so it’s a mixed message “If you start a revolution, and if your government starts killing you, we may or may not help out, depending on how strategically important your country is to us and/or how much oil you have. Good luck!”

12

It seems that the US governement was very reluctant to join this operation, so there is no strong reason that would clearly trump the reasons to not join. The past policies come to hount now: it is committed to several undemocratic regimes in the region and has in general a bad reputation among the Arabs.

These are clearly two sides of the same coin:

  • This is an operation where the Arab league has asked for assistance and has a clear UN mandate. It is a unique window of opportunity to get rid of a dictator the US doesn’t like and gain acceptance in the Arab world to the notion that the US armed forces can actually do good for the Arab street and not just feodal rulers.
  • Don’t rock the boat. All actions which point the attention of the World to Arab dictators getting ousted is embarrassing. It could backfire in Bahrain, Yemen or elsewhere.

The way this is reported around here, The US is not acting according to its standard gun-ho leader of the free word routine but on the contrary saying it’s just there to help a little. I’m sure the balance of resources means they’re doing a bit more, but in the communication front, the contrast to Nicolas Sarkozy is telling.

13

If you think that the rebels, whoever they are, will implement anything like democracy as we in the west know it, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. It ain’t going to happen. The culture won’t allow it. It will most likely be another strongman type regime of one form or another or it will be religious based.

14

But the point is, Libya has oil. Bahrain does not, Yemen does not, Syria does not. Yet all of those countries have brutally put down uprising and killed their citizens. So where’s the call for no-fly zones over their nations?

Will there ever be?

Why do we support this rebel groups who have no organization but don’t give any support to Somaliland, which has functioned and prospered as a break-a-way state?

I see this an an Arab or an African problem. Let’s give them technical aid, but all actual bombing, manning of air craft and fighting need to come from Arab League or African Union states.

The argument that if Gahaffi wins, it’ll send a message to dictators to use force doesn’t wash. All it does is tell the dictators, to quash ANY movement right from the start, not even to allow peaceful protests, for fear the West will also invade. It also tells nations that they need to rethink their nuclear ambitions.

Let’s face it North Korea is thousands of times more oppressive to their people yet we would never do anything to them. Even without China they possess nukes and are now “safe” from any foreign meddling.

Dropping a tiny nuke over Seoul is enough of a threat to let any dictator in North Korea do what he/she likes.

Remember it’s not about GETTING OIL, it’s about protecting interests to be able to obtain it. People aren’t stupid and oil IS something worth protecting.

In the old days it was like, we can put an embargo on Iran as they have nothing else to sell but oil. Today Iran can sell it’s oil to China or India or a host of other developing nations.

That means less oil for the West and higher prices for the West. It means more production in China and India and possible more job losses to those nations. Remember one person’s loss is another’s gain

So why are we in Libya. It’s a small country population wise. While large in area, most of it’s dessert so it’s definable to fight in and it’s close to Europe. More importantly it’s winnable. We all know the USA invading Grenada was a joke, Of course we won, it was like stepping on an ant, but it was a feel good victory for the USA after the loss in Vietnam and the humiliation of us by Iran.

15

Oh, I think it’s about Realpolitik, but it’s not really about US interests particularly nor necessarily about oil.

Libya is pretty close to Europe. Unlike Syria, e.g., it’s kind of their backyard. And not quite the same kind of geopolitically tricky region as Syria, which borders five different states and the Kurds.

If Libya is allowed to fight a revolution without Western involvement, then that hurts the image of the Western powers. When I say ‘Europe’ or ‘the West’ in this case, I mean NATO & perhaps especially France.

If the revolution fails, it would not be good for NATO’s international image for NATO to have done nothing. If the revolution succeeds without NATO, then that doe not create goodwill toward the Western powers on the part of the revolutionaries. The West will be blamed if it fails, unless they at least pretend to have tried to help. The West will have less political capital with victorious revolutionaries if it succeeds, & could end up with another anti-imperialist like Qaddafi, unless they at least pretend to have tried to help.

If France wants to keep stomping around North Africa like they own the place; if NATO want to keep playing world’s policeman; if the West (USA, UK, Germany, NATO in general) don’t want to lose their prestige worldwide, their do-gooder image at home, & their fearsomeness to the darkies; they almost have to appear to be supporting the revolution. Now, the rest of NATO could shrug it off: The other rich NATO countries aren’t on the Mediterranean, & the other Mediterranean NATO members are poor. But France is going to go in, so the rest of the alliance will come along; that’s what alliances are for.

Help “the Libyan people,” help “democracy,” in the end it protects the West’s ability to influence Libya post-war to their advantage. The risk of course is that Qaddafi will win, but then we’d be back where we started–just with a pissier Qaddafi bombing Western targets again until he dies in a few years–& that sounds like not much worse off than doing nothing. And taking Qaddafi’s side is not an option given politics back home, so what the hell?

16

In other words, it’s not about Libya’s oil, it’s about Western influence in the region. Which might mean oil deals elsewhere in* l’Afrique.*

17

Oh, and to people who are skeptical about oil as motive in this kind of case generally: It’s not about total oil production in a global sense, it’s about ownership of exploitation rights.

Though it’s ridiculous to say that Bahrain doesn’t have oil.

We’re more likely in Libya because Qaddafi is an anti-imperialist who has fought the Western hegemony & killed Westerners. Unlike Mr Assad or the guys in Yemen. Get it now?

18

Well, I agree that the part of the West’s deep involvement everywhere in the Arab world is tied to oil. Closeness to Europe and abundance of oil make the whole area a traditional target of politics and military presence. This presence is part of why some troops were close by and why this operation was doable in the first place.

This tradition is a child of colonialism and the Cold War, so it is not always easy to sell aggressive operations to the general public in today’s world. This is the point in Bahrain and Yemen: the US can’t back off of it’s allies in the region. If the US troops were involved, they’d be on the side of the rulers against the peopleTM. Tough sell.

In Syria, it is both early days and more complicated. Syria is a multi-ethnic country with precarious balance. It is the most prominent candidate to decline to Iraq-style chaos. Syrians seem aware of that, since the protests don’t demand change of regime directly and protests have come late. In this situation it is very difficult to see how bombing would help. Also, if pushed too far, Assad would turn this into an Israel-Arabs conflict.

In Somalia, an intervention was tried. This intervention failed and that is one of the main reasons why nobody wants to send ground troops.

Libya is difficult but possible and easy to sell. In fact, the planes are there probably because Sarkozy is trying to win an election.

So yeah, oil is part of the equation, but it’s not Libyan oil, it’s the vast oil resources of the whole region. For various reasons, for Libya it’s: Yes, we can. For other countries: No, we can’t.

19

By “we” do you mean France and the UK which were the driving forces behind the intervention? Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Belgium perhaps. Which all have planes over Libya. If you think Denmark has planes over Libya on account of oil, then I’d need some rather strong references to this, as it sounds just plain nuts.

20

Oil is a fungible product. Which means that wherever it is sold, or whoever is buying it, is buying the same product, for roughly the same price. Iran isn’t going to sell oil to China for any less than it does to anyone else unless it is really stupid.
Think a really big pool that everyone is drinking from. It doesn’t matter who is selling to whom as it is essentially the same pool.