Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News "Unintended Consequences of Military Intervention"

Libya is rich in oil, and though the US and UK have often given quite
remarkable support to its cruel dictator, right to the present, he is not
reliable. They would much prefer a more obedient client. Furthermore, the
vast territory of Libya is mostly unexplored, and oil specialists believe it
may have rich untapped resources, which a more dependable government might
open to Western exploitation.
When a non-violent uprising began, Qaddafi crushed it violently, and a
rebellion broke out that liberated Benghazi....The US then joined in UN
Security Council resolution 1973 calling for a no-fly zone, to be
implemented by France, the UK, and the US, with the US supposed to move to a
supporting role.
There was no effort to institute a no-fly zone. The triumvirate at once
interpreted the resolution as authorizing direct participation on the side
of the rebels. A ceasefire was imposed by force on Qaddafi's forces, but not
on the rebels. On the contrary, they were given military support as they
advanced to the West, soon securing the major sources of Libya's oil
production, and poised to move on....
Some argue that oil cannot be a motive, because Western companies were
granted access to the prize under Qaddafi. That misconstrues US concerns.
The same could have been said about Iraq under Saddam, or Iran and Cuba for
many years, still today. What Washington seeks is what Bush announced:
[b]control, or at least dependable clients.

US and British internal documents stress that "the virus of
nationalism" is their greatest fear, not just in the Middle East, but
everywhere. Nationalist regimes might conduct illegitimate exercises of
sovereignty, violating Grand Area principles. And they might seek to direct
resources to popular needs, as Nasser sometimes threatened....
In the case of Libya, it is likely that the goal is similar in at least one
respect: the hope that a reliable client regime will reliably support
Western goals and provide Western investors with privileged access to
Libya's rich oil wealth -- which, as noted, may go well beyond what is
currently known.

The more complicated the system, the less likely that a simple causality explanation is viable. War is always complicated, so almost always immune to simplistic explanation, and its consequences are almost incalculable.

Zeke
If you cannot predict the outcome, then you also cannot predict who will ulitmately benefit.

And if no special interest really knows whether they will benefit from the outcome of a war, then it is hard to link up a causual connection that these special interests manipulated politians to start the war. The pattern of "causuality" which you assert is really only clear in restrospect when the outcome and who actually did benifit is known.

And, since the american economy has greatly expanded in that last 60+ years, then the pattern is clear: American commercial enterprise must be at the root of alll of the wars of the last 60 years since it is they who have benefitted.

So, albeit, the aggressor doesn't know the outcome, it initiates the aggression with the intention of winning and hence, obtaining an advantage.

When you point out that the U.S. has been a major beneficiary of almost all recent wars it raises an interesting point that perhaps deserves more attention.

People in a bar do not need an economic motive to pick a fight. No one else does either.

And equally impossible to know that economic factors are the most salient in the decision.

But, according to you, if the defender beats Hitler, and achieves economic success, then they started the war for the economic success that they achieved from the war/

It is logically absurd to argue without evidence that US economic sucess was the motivation for those wars, or the major contributing factor for the economic sucess.

When you point out that the U.S. has been a major beneficiary of almost all recent wars it raises an interesting point that perhaps deserves more attention.

Why is it impossible?

Never said that. Doesn't make sense - if one party started it then the other did not, by default.

Never said that either.

When you point out that the U.S. has been a major beneficiary of almost all recent wars it raises an interesting point that perhaps deserves more attention.

Now, no specultation zeke, no controversey... simple fact, You tell me the single verifiable reason that USA invaded Iraq

Iraq is totally different. It is the last corner of the world in which there are massive petroleum resources pretty much unexplored, maybe the largest in the world or close to it. Now they are very easy to gain access to. The profits from that must flow primarily to the right pockets, that is, US and secondarily UK energy corporations. And controlling that resource puts the US in a very powerful position, even more powerful than today, to exert influence over the world.

I mean, serious planners are well aware of this. [Former National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew] Brzezinski recently pointed out that victory and control in Iraq would give the US what he called critical leverage over Asian and European economies, so the US will have its hand on the spigot.

you agree that there are aggressors that start wars....
but somehow the aggressor always turns out to be the USA?

If I say Hitle started WWII, you say USA started it to dominate the world

big corporations are manipulating politicians behind the scene for their corporate profit.

I wonder where you going with that?

I never said there was a single reason. I think economics had something to do with it:

Almost all military intervention is almost always economically motivated.

The superposition of one class over another is the underlying issue, no matter what name it is given. So whatever new "ism" they come up with, it will always be about economic hegemony.

So, as I have already stated on this thread, IMO economic reasons are the motivating factors. The stories that are told to the public to justify wars and interventions are just that, fairy tales.

At the risk of repeating myself: I know that there are many stories, the causes I believe are mainly economic.

just said that IMO the real motivations were almost always economic

I would like to hear from anyone who can find an example of a war or intervention that they believe did not have economic motivation.

I have already stated that I think economics IS the MAIN motivation for war.
The reasons are, as others have said, that there is always some economic component, which I think is the main component because power always seeks to entrench itself and guarantee, not just its own survival (as Scout aptly pointed out), but growth (as a form of "immortality"). Political power IS economic power and, in today's world, economic power IS political power. So, by extension, increasing economic power is increasing political power.

My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit:
ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
In other words, even when there are other motives, the economic ones are the most important.