# Why not admit we are in Libya for oil reasons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2011, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468 "2011-03-30T04:27:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/41 "2011-03-30T15:04:13Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Hasn’t the second Gulf War shown that when the US decides they personally hate you, they will go through hell and high water to get you removed? That’s not what happened in Libya, though. The U.S. has been pressing to do the bare minimum and turn over the operation to other countries. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/42 "2011-03-30T15:15:34Z")
Perhaps the underlying mistake in this thread is to assume that there _is_ a coherent and overarching strategy driving U.S. involvement through the decades. And we’re kind of missing the biggest counterexample to the “it’s all about oil” argument: Vietnam. Oil didn’t seem quite as important in the 60s and 70s, but it was still a key economic driver, and U.S. involvement in Vietnam was vastly more extensive than anything we’ve seen since, including Iraq and Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/43 "2011-03-30T15:16:32Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > 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. True. But imagine if there really was a threat of some sort of people’s movement for reform. We’d have to either bomb it or use special forces to make sure certain planes have unusual runway accidents. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/44 "2011-03-30T15:17:21Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Can you explain why the US decided to interfere in the case of Libya and not in the countless other recent and not-so-recent cases where a lot of civilians were being killed? Logistics? It’s easy to strike Libya or Bosnia, from the sea. Other hot spots have been far from the sea with many countries in between to disrupt even the best supply lines. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![Profound\_Gibberish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Profound\_Gibberish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Profound_Gibberish)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/45 "2011-03-30T15:19:31Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Wait…_whaaaaa_? > We were Mubarak’s number one fan, and gave him millions in military aid. Mubarak Egypt was the third highest recipient of US aid after Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not beleive that the US supported Mubarak per se, but rather his military by giving them cool toys like the M-1 Abrams, Apaches, and professionalizing their officer corps through US schools and collaborative training. And when push came to shove and the military had to choose between the government and the people? Unlike the last several decades, they chose the people. Maybe it was because the military had been instilled with a higher purpose from their training with US forces. Maybe they didn’t want to lose their cool toys. At any rate, it worked. If you cannot influence the dictator maybe you can influence the military that supports him. I am not sure if that was offical US policy or just coincidence, but it worked in this case. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/46 "2011-03-30T15:25:52Z")
Like hell. That’s the biggest steaming load I’ve heard in a while- “We weren’t supporting Mubarak, we were supporting the Egyptian army, who we probably knew were on the side of good.” Utter revisionist bullshit. We supported Mubarak because he was amicable us in regards to Israel and the Suez canal. We were surprised when his army did not fight to protect him, and it took a long, long time for the US to decide to come out and support democracy in Egypt. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/47 "2011-03-30T15:36:11Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Can you explain why the US decided to interfere in the case of Libya and not in the countless other recent and not-so-recent cases where a lot of civilians were being killed? > > If you believe that it is indeed to “protect the Libyan people”, why are they deemed more worthy of protection by the US than other people? The limits of force. Geography and the means of oppression being used against the people have a lot to do with it. In Libya, the brutal dictatorship had to move troops across open ground into regions and cities in order to kill citizens. You can actually stop an army with enough air power, which is why the NFZ and the strikes on armor and mobile artillery did some good. Try using airstrikes to stop state police from shooting into crowds or killing/disappearing citizens in their custody. We can’t rain destruction so selectively as that from out at sea or from thousands of feet (and hundreds of mph) above. Effective military intervention in Syria or Yemen or Bahrain would require boots on the ground, which is a whole different kind of commitment. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/48 "2011-03-30T16:15:04Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Actually Libyan oil _is_ noted for its higher-than-usual quality (low sulfur content) and lower-than-usual extraction costs (not very deep)–wars excluded, of course. Very well – but I suppose the question still stands: how is it that we know that low sulfur oil is so important to France that they are willing to go to war over it? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/49 "2011-03-30T17:13:47Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > 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) There are currently half a dozen conflicts going on in Africa and we couldn’t really care less about any of them despite the fact that far more people are dying than in the Middle Eastern conflicts, far more millions are being denied their democratic rights etc. Half the world’s recoverable oil is in five countries that surround the Persian Gulf. Because of this, from the time when the Brits ran the region (Secretary of War\* Winston Churchill calling the region “the greatest strategic prize in history” back in the 1920s) the greatest concentration of British/US military power has always been centred in and around the Gulf. If half the world’s oil was under the Sahara desert instead of the Arabian desert then we’d pay the Middle East and its people exactly as much attention and concern as we currently and historically have given to sub-Saharan Arrica, while we’d have a massive presence in and around the Sahara desert and occasionally some tinpot little Saharan dictator would become a credible threat to the national security of the United states of America who would have to be dealt with militarily. FWIW Hillary Clinton’s top aide at State just resigned complaining that the intervention in Libya is all about the oil. It always is in that region. If there wasn’t any oil there does anybody honestly believe that we’d give a shit who ran any of those minging desert armpit countries? - before we started getting Orwellian and renaming the department “Ministry of Defence”). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/50 "2011-03-30T17:17:35Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > FWIW Hillary Clinton’s top aide at State just resigned complaining that the intervention in Libya is all about the oil. Cite please. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/51 "2011-03-30T18:02:24Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > If there wasn’t any oil there does anybody honestly believe that we’d give a shit who ran any of those minging desert armpit countries? Of course the region is important in large part because of oil. That doesn’t mean that the war is about oil. Paris Hilton is rich. If I make insulting remarks about Paris Hilton, am I doing so because she is rich? Certainly I know about her because she is rich, but she is also a total whacko bitch. If I call her a whacko bitch, it is remarkably short-sighted – and probably willfully so – to boil the reason for my comments down to “I hate rich women.” ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/52 "2011-03-30T18:03:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Very well – but I suppose the question still stands: how is it that we know that low sulfur oil is so important to France that they are willing to go to war over it? I don’t think it is. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/53 "2011-03-30T18:45:12Z")
> [@dbx820](#): > > Why was there no UN/NATO military intervention in Darfur where hundreds of thousands have died? No precious resources benefical to whoever would intervene were at stake. Alternatively, Libya is substantially coastal, whereas Darfur very much is not. Darfur probably hasn’t been seen as worth the logistics by the military bean counters. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/54 "2011-03-30T18:51:45Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > 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. Not quite true. If some random guy goes on a politically-motivated rampage and gets his dumb ass shot by the cops, that does not magically mean that his views represent popular will. Attempted insurrections happen all the time; where they are not aligned with popular will, they get put down. The only way to make the determination is to let the civil war play out and see who’s left standing. > [@](#): > > 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. That’s a naive view, and is somewhat akin to arguing that the US let the Iraqis freely decide how to evolve after invading their nation and destroying their government. You really think that the West will get all hands-off if the rebels win? You don’t foresee a sudden glut of oil contracts with British, US, and French oil corporations? Maybe an “offer” to have a base or two in Libya? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/55 "2011-03-30T18:53:59Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Why not just admit that after 41 years of putting up with this crazy assed Gaddafi motherfucker and his terrorism, we’re quite happy to latch on to ANY reason to take him out? > > We’re dancing around it, whereas I think this is the perfect job for the French Foreign Legion. Heh, I don’t know, there doesn’t seem to be much opportunities for glorious last stands. That’s what the Legion traditionally does you know. If they don’t get surrounded and massacred by vastly superior forces once in a while they get grouchy. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/56 "2011-03-30T19:00:41Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > If some random guy goes on a politically-motivated rampage and gets his dumb ass shot by the cops That’s not relevant to what we’re discussing. It’s not even close. Of course it’s also simplistic to say an insurrection (against a much better armed opponent) will succeed if it represents the popular will and will fail if it doesn’t. One doesn’t become dictator of a country because one wants to bow to the popular will when it goes against you. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/57 "2011-03-30T19:30:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not relevant to what we’re discussing. It’s not even close. It is highly relevant as a rebuttal to the argument that an insurrection inherently represents popular will. The example can be scaled up. What if the crazed gunman is joined by ten buddies? One hundred? One thousand? When does it become a representation of popular will? > [@](#): > > Of course it’s also simplistic to say an insurrection (against a much better armed opponent) will succeed if it represents the popular will and will fail if it doesn’t. One doesn’t become dictator of a country because one wants to bow to the popular will when it goes against you. Simplistic, sure. Do you have a better alternative? As for strong dictators: nonsense. The bigger and better your army, the quicker you lose when it turns against you. Soldiers are no more immune to popular will than anyone else. Have you already forgotten what just happened in Egypt? When the dictator most needed his army, the army abandoned him, and he fell. Now _that_ is popular will. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/58 "2011-03-30T19:37:22Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > It is highly relevant as a rebuttal to the argument that an insurrection inherently represents popular will. Have you ever heard of a one-person insurrection? > [@](#): > > The example can be scaled up. What if the crazed gunman is joined by ten buddies? One hundred? One thousand? Ah, then your example of one person doesn’t apply after all. The least that can be said about the revolt in Libya is that it’s supported by a significant number of people there. I don’t know how many. It was enough to have some successes against the better equipped forces loyal to the government. > [@](#): > > Do you have a better alternative? Yes: I propose we stay on topic instead of being dragged into nonsense. The rebellion in Libya is not a revolution of one, and the military is commanded by people loyal to Gadhaffi (several units are lead by his children), so I don’t expect too many of those to turn on him unless the pressure on them becomes overwhelming. Now, what’s your opinion on the reason the West and the Arab League are involved? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/59 "2011-03-30T20:12:13Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > What if the crazed gunman is joined by ten buddies? One hundred? One thousand? When does it become a representation of popular will? Due to my extensive education in matters of foreign affairs, diplomacy, and national security, I have determined the exact number that is required to represent an expression of popular will. That number is 47. Your attempts at reducio ad absurdam fail, because there are more than 47 armed men attempting to overthrow a kleptocratic government. Why are you standing against the popular will of 47 Libyans? But in all seriousness, a sustained insurrection facing annihilation from an overwhelming military force is a significant matter, and can’t be dismissed because of the Chewbacca defense of questioning how many insurgents must dance on the head of a pin. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/60 "2011-03-30T21:32:33Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > 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. What assurances do we really have that the armed rebel forces have any intention of establishing a democracy, or reasonable facsimile thereof? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468.md?page=4)