# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/61 "2011-03-30T21:59:21Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Right! > > Our military controls the oil. It doesn’t pump the oil, or sell the oil. You wouldn’t happen to have any credible sources for this assertion, would you? Of course not. It’s just a ridiculous CT. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/62 "2011-03-30T22:05:27Z")
I don’t think people are denying that oil is a factor. But if that was our primary concern we would have been better off just supporting that guy with the name nobody can spell. ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/63 "2011-03-30T22:19:02Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > You wouldn’t happen to have any credible sources for this assertion, would you? Of course not. It’s just a ridiculous CT. At the risk of giving credit where it may not properly be due (I’m not entirely sure where **Try2B Comprehensive** is coming from on this), US protection of _the flow and free trade_ of oil within the Persian Gulf region, using military means if necessary, is not a tinfoil-hat conspiracy. Jimmy Carter was the first POTUS to [articulate this policy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine), and it hasn’t been fundamentally abandoned by subsequent administrations. Whether the Carter Doctrine can reasonably be applied to the North Africa theater, the mere availability of oil is absolutely a strategic concern for developed nations. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/64 "2011-03-30T22:48:51Z")
That certainly doesn’t mean the US military is controlling the oil. ---
**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, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/65 "2011-03-30T22:55:13Z")
Sure, which is why I’m not sure what the OP actually means. Could be shorthand for “the US uses its military to protect oil commerce” or it could be an Illuminati thing. From context, it seemed like the former to me. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/66 "2011-03-30T23:33:58Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Wait…_whaaaaa_? > > You do realize that the US has been the primary impediment to democracy in the Middle East, right? 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. And as you note in a later post, a key ally in buttressing Israel and maintaining a peace treaty between the two that helped to spare a lot of other conflicts between the two of them as well as maintaining a fragile stability within the rest of the region. Also control of the Suez canal. And encouraging trade between the two countries. Take the good with the bad. > [@hansel](#): > > 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.** Maybe in terms of overall lives lost, but not in terms of total amount of troops and equipment deployed and now _almost_ not even in terms of actual years of deployment (if you discount the Vietnam “advisory” years) nor in dollars spent I don’t think. Of course that doesn’t discount the fact that at least in the case of Vietnam and the Iraq wars, they were murkily idealogical in nature and generally not considered a worthwhile expenditure of blood and treasure. Unless of course history reverses itself on the Iraq war and credits it and the Bush admin for starting the “domino effect” of democracy across the Middle East. That would be interesting. > [@Walther\_Ego](#): > > In Somalia, an intervention was tried. This intervention failed and that is one of the main reasons why nobody wants to send ground troops. It wasn’t much of a “try”, militarily speaking, not by a long shot. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s about oil. Maybe. There are plenty of other humanitarian crises in the world, and even in Africa, that we’re more or less ignoring. As you note later in your post, we are capable of humanitarian military missions (possibly a contradiction in terms), but as to “ignoring” other crises…we don’t. American people amongst many others in the world give generously of their money, time, and even effort to try to make those places better. But we cannot intervene militarily _everywhere_. > [@dbx820](#): > > We are in Lybia for Oil. And for humanitarian reasons too. > > Lybia is a key oil supplier to Europe. Yes, the UN–at the behest of the US & EU–agreed to implement a no-fly zone to protect civilian slaughter and prevent the wave of popular uprisings in the ME from crashing down. I believe it was a good decision and I am all for it. But. . . .Lybia is a key oil supplier to Europe. > > 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. If by “key supplier” you mean roughly 17th on the global oil production list, then…um, yeah. And as I noted before, perhaps we should have intervened in Somalia ages ago, but not with a token force and a limp-wristed effort… It isn’t about oil in terms of _supply_ for the EU (especially Italy and Spain), its about proven reserves that Italian and Spanish corporations have contracts to unearth for future profits. > [@flickster](#): > > What assurances do we really have that the armed rebel forces have any intention of establishing a democracy, or reasonable facsimile thereof? None, but its a worthwhile gamble that the outcome will be better for the world at large than the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/67 "2011-03-31T02:43:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Can you explain how this concept works? If I don’t have physical direction over something, nor do I make decisions about how something is bought and sold, I cannot figure out by what means I can be considered to have control over an item. > > How does our military “control” oil if it isn’t able to direct who owns it or where it goes? Security first of all. There is a war going on. Who knows what could happen to disrupt oil exports? Exports have already been disrupted, but who knows if things may get to a point where one side or the other decides to blow up some key bits of infrastructure such that oil exports from Libya are guaranteed to be on hold for a long time. What happens then? Well, for this argument to have any force you need to accept that we are currently in the peak-plateau period of the oil age. That is, global oil production has more or less peaked and ~86 million bbd/day is the most anyone will ever see out of this world. Is this premise the Gospel Truth or an unassailable conviction? Of course not, it is debatable. Time will tell. But if it is the case, look at the effects of a mid- to long-term disruption of Libya’s oil exports. Libya accounts for only ~2% of global supply, yes, but considering that there isn’t much, if any, spare capacity to be had, taking Libyan oil off the market means shrinking the total world oil supply by ~2% indefinitely. That’s really bad for everyone. Bad enough to be cause for war. How bad? Frankly I can’t say for sure, there isn’t much with which to compare it. I can cite the [1979 energy crisis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis): > [@](#): > > During the period, many people believed the oil companies artificially created oil shortages to drive up prices, rather than factors beyond human control or the US’ own price controls. The amount of oil sold in the United States in 1979 was only 3.5 percent less than the record set for oil sold the year previously.[9] > [@](#): > > The Jimmy Carter administration began a phased deregulation of oil prices on April 5, 1979, when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85 per barrel (42 US gallons). Over the next 12 months the price of crude oil rose to $39.50 per barrel (its all time highest real price until March 7, 2008.)[7] Deregulating domestic oil price controls allowed domestic U.S. oil output to rise sharply from the large Prudhoe Bay fields, while oil imports fell sharply. Hence, long lines appeared at gas stations, as they had six years earlier during the 1973 oil crisis. The world has changed since 1979, and we’re talking about the whole world instead of just the US. AND Libya only has the power to contract supply by about half of what was lost during the '79 crisis. All the same, such an event could cause widespread economic problems around the world, not just for the US. A doubling of oil prices at this time would be a major concern, to put it mildly. So. A military presence, viewed through the oil lens, lowers the probability of a total disruption of oil supply from Libya. Saddam Hussein actively tried to sabotage his own country’s oil production facilities; I’d say he had some success. The world doesn’t want that to happen again. Also, the whole world is on the hook where energy prices are concerned, and so is willing to intervene rather than let one crazy leader make the call for everybody. Also, the US military dominance of much of the Middle East means that if the shit really hits the fan militarily (ie WW III), the US has the military ability to disrupt a significant proportion of the world’s (or an aggressor’s) oil supply. It is a decent argument for everyone else to not bother with WW III, as it’s arguably better than a nuke to starve an army of their go-juice. That said, I want to thank everyone who has responded so far. I’m glad I started this thread- it has broadened my perspective on the issue. Thanks, 'dope! ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/68 "2011-03-31T02:54:38Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, and Afghanistan was about a natural gas pipeline and Iraq was about getting cheap oil to the U.S. The fact that neither of these things ever happened is no impediment, right? I’m sure _this_ time it’s about the oil. They wouldn’t do that to you three times in a row. No, no. Afghanistan was never about a natural gas pipeline. Iraq was never about extracting and shipping oil to the US. You’re putting words in my mouth. What did I ever do to you? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/69 "2011-03-31T02:59:00Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I have to say though that the “No blood for oil!” screamers have an inanely naive view of factors driving foreign policy and on occasion, military intervention. In this worldview no intervention in any foreign conflict may be countenanced unless it is strictly for humanitarian reasons and does not benefit the U.S. in any way. If an action can be seen even in small part as being in the national interest (especially in (gasp) some economic way) it is Stone Evil. I clearly stated in the OP that I wanted to debate the motive and not impose a morality on the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/70 "2011-03-31T03:01:59Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > And why the lack of intervention in Southern Sudan, where there _is_ scads of oil? Or is that just inconvenient? _Could_ be more inconvenient. Depends on what happens when one fleshes out the situation. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/71 "2011-03-31T03:18:07Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > _Could_ be more inconvenient. Depends on what happens when one fleshes out the situation. Until order is established in that excuse for a country, there’s no way to determine how much, if any, of their oil reserves we might exploit. /King George III ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/72 "2011-03-31T03:30:56Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > You wouldn’t happen to have any credible sources for this assertion, would you? Of course not. It’s just a ridiculous CT. I don’t appreciate being personally attacked like this by mods. Do you deny that we have a military presence in some major Middle Easter oil regions? And that now there is a new one in the collection? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/73 "2011-03-31T03:34:53Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > No, no. Afghanistan was never about a natural gas pipeline. Iraq was never about extracting and shipping oil to the US. You’re putting words in my mouth. What did I ever do to you? 😕 In case you’re kidding, both of those were put forward as the “real” motive for those wars. Seeing as how those were false… ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/74 "2011-03-31T03:53:16Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In case you’re kidding, both of those were put forward as the “real” motive for those wars. Seeing as how those were false… Fallacious reasoning. Ok, so you don’t think oil is a factor. To which of the various theories offered do you subscribe? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/75 "2011-03-31T03:55:20Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Fallacious reasoning. It’s not fallacious. It’s the historical record. > [@](#): > > To which of the various theories offered do you subscribe? I thought I explained in post 34. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/76 "2011-03-31T04:12:54Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I don’t appreciate being personally attacked like this by mods. Do you deny that we have a military presence in some major Middle Easter oil regions? And that now there is a new one in the collection? [ol][li]I am not a mod.[/li][li]I did not personally attack you.[/li][li]I asked for some kind of proof of your assertion, instead of you simply announcing it as fact and expecting it to be accepted as such.[/li][li]I characterized your assertion, not you.[/li][li]I said nothing about our military presence. Heck, the US has a large military presence in South Korea. If we’re controlling this country, then the dictionary definition of control is very far off the mark.[/li][\*]And you still haven’t posted any kind of proof at all for your assertion.[/ol] ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/77 "2011-03-31T04:41:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. I was surprised that someone like you said this. Oil is a world commodity. It doesn’t matter who sells to who. It only matter that it flows. The wild spikes at the pump show this. The Libyan war is affecting the market bidding for future deliveries. We don’t get first rights from our suppliers because we’re a golly group of buyers. He who pays the most gets the oil. If Iran stopped pumping oil tomorrow the price of oil would rise around the world regardless of who bought their oil. The mere threat of a lack of Iran’s oil would raise the price of oil. ---
**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 31, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/78 "2011-03-31T17:34:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Cite please. [http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/anne\_marie\_slaughter\_accuses\_obama\_of\_prioritizing\_oil\_over\_values](http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/anne_marie_slaughter_accuses_obama_of_prioritizing_oil_over_values) She didn’t resign over this specific issue but she resigned over our Middle Eastern policy in general. But here she’s definitely saying oil is our major interest over there. As far as what you said earlier about us not getting any oil goes, we’ve done fairly well as regards getting oil over the years, or at least getting access to ME oil for US oil companies who are the people who run US energy policy. Recently we haven’t done all that well, ever since the OPEC crisis, the Iranian revolution etc. and the whole Iraq thing\* backfired pretty badly. But historically we’ve done a heckuva job. Here’s a very anodyne apolitical look at the history of US involvement in the region and the evolution of the oil industry in general : [http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/115CH13oil.html](http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/115CH13oil.html) - If you remember we wenr into Iraq determined to convert the entire country into a free market paradise, including total privatisation of all Iraq’s government-run industries including the oil industry. Our plan was to have had a US-appointed governing council write a constitution which would have privatised all of Iraq’s oil and then an Iraqi government kept in power and protected by the US military and advised by American advisors with Iraqi leaders who’d been on the US payroll for decades would have been in charge of deciding which oil companies got the rights to Iraq’s newly-privatised oil. Yeah. ---
**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 31, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/79 "2011-03-31T17:40:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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.” Other than stuff relating to Israe, pretty much everything we’ve done there over the last sixty years is about oil. There are much worse atrocities going on in Africa right now, far more people being denied freedom. And we don’t give a shit, except for arming/supporting various groups in resource-rich countries. But if a country has no resources we couldn’t care less if they all hack each other to death with machetes. We really aren’t interested. You might get a few words of concern at a White House presser if things are approaching genocide somewhere but otherwise radio silence from the government and the media. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468/80 "2011-03-31T17:46:19Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t think people are denying that oil is a factor. But if that was our primary concern we would have been better off just supporting that guy with the name nobody can spell. That’s what They want you to think. :mad::smack:😕 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-admit-we-are-in-libya-for-oil-reasons/576468.md?page=5)