Testing Oil As Foreign Policy

[Lord Bitememan]

I used to post a lot on a political debate forum. For general amusement I thought I'd share some of my more well thought out threads and posts from there, since some will be relevant.

This one is for the people who contantly drummed that the Iraq war was about oil and not other concerns:

Many have found it expediant to boil US foreign policy down to the simplistic theory that the US engages in interventionism only where oil interests are involved. Frequently they point to case examples of the US in Iraq as arguments to the positive of the US invading nations for oil interests, and point to Rwanda and Darfur as examples to the negative of US action (the reason being the US does not intervene in these nations due to a lack of significant oil reserves).

An accurate theory in social sciences (and International Relations is a social science) must be able to accurately explain the totality of events it presumes to cover. When the theory fails to account for these events, it becomes defunct. I would argue that far too many glaring case examples exist to disprove the theory of oil as foreign policy theory of US foreign policy.

1983: Grenada: The US militarily intervened to oust a leftist coup on the island and reinstitute elected governance. No major oil resources exist on the island.

1989: Panama: The US militarily intervened to oust Manuel Noriega from the nation, arresting him and detaining him in US custody ever since. No major oil resources exist in Panama.

1993: Somalia: The US militarily intervened to relieve starvation conditions brought on by the militia of Aidid. Somalia is only suspected of potentially having oil resources.

1994: Haiti: The US militarily intervened to oust General Raoul Cedras and install the "pro-Democracy" Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Haiti has no major oil resources.

1999: Serbia and Montenegro (then Yugoslavia): The US militarily intervened to remove Yugoslav forces from the rebelling province of Kosovo, ultimately resulting in the turnover of Milosevic in 2000 to stand trial for crimes against humanity. Serbia and Montenegro have only some oil resources.

2001: Afghanistan: The US militarily intervened in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban due to backing of the Al Qeada organization. Afghanistan possesses no oil resources.

2004: Haiti, again: The US militarily intervened to help maintain order and oust Jean-Bertrand Aristide (remember him?) in the wake of popular uprisings against him. Again, no oil in Haiti.

From this list we see at least 7 examples since the oil embargo of the US militarily intervening in nations either without oil resources or with only dubious oil resources. On top of this, two glaring examples exist of oil rich nations in which the US has not acted, militarily or subversively, in a manner that would enhance oil supplies.

2002: Venezuela: With the country crippled by a general strike, the US did not act to oust Hugo Chavez and install a US-friendly regime, despite the fact that a clear opportunity to do so existed. Venezuela is one of the world's leading oil producers.

Ongoing: Canada: The US has had numerous opportunities to stoke nationalist divisions in Canada with the possibility of obtaining a favorable situation of access to western Canada's oil reserves. The US has declined to stoke the Quebec seperatists, a move which could destabalize Canadian cohesion, and has likewise declined to stoke western Canadian discontentment which would provide a much more direct route to the oil. Canada is a major oil supplier and the US's second largest oil trading partner.

In light of the inability to preclude US action in 7 major instances since the Arab oil embargo, and the inability to predict action in two clear instances where it should have been predicted under the theory, it seems clear that oil interests simply do not function as an accurate theory of US foreign policy in today's context.  

[Garrett31212]

Well most of those reasons are for various other interests our country has had like preventing the spread of Communism, striking back for attacks such as 9/11, etc. Oil is a big motive for the Iraq war. Maybe not for the initial invasion, and maybe it was a cause for the initial invasion, but if we left now the Iraqi society would crumble, and there's a chance there could be a domino effect all across the middle-east. If there are no working governments all across the Middle East, even dictatorships, we will have no chance of having an oil trade and then our economy too will crumble. So regardless of what the liberals think about the Iraqi war, it is necessary, because without oil, our country is nothing.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

but if we left now the Iraqi society would crumble, and there's a chance there could be a domino effect all across the middle-east.

I would argue that is an end unto itself for staying in Iraq, oil aside. Whether we like it or not, we are stuck in the role of globo-cop because nobody else is up to the task. That means we have an interest in stability in the region. Further, the Middle East is an easy region for us to play this role in because no other major hostile power has staked an interest there. This is, or course, as opposed to preventing instability in central Asia, where our efforts would likely meet with Russian resistance.  

[Garrett31212]

Yeah, well most other countries aren't as interested in Middle Eastern oil, because they don't have "Save the Whales!" type of liberals telling them that they can't drill their own. We're not so much in the role of GloboCop, because if we were we'd be sending our military to many other places such as Darfur and Myanmar. I can agree with you that oil is not our only interest.

I personally don't have a problem for fighting wars for oil. I support the War in Iraq. We should face that facts that right now we as Americans need a source of oil and that our economy cannot survive without it.