Went to war for oil meme ...
I will not criticize or speak against a man who has lost a son in the war. I hope that that is a feeling I never experience. Bacevich has a right to hold any position he wants. But the one proferred here is the tired "we went to war for oil" meme, so incorrect that it doesn't warrant the time spent to refute it. Discussion threads at the SWC have graduated beyond that meme.
I'm all in favor a national energy policy, something we have never had as a country. But assuming that we have the grandest policy imaginable in the future (drill for oil off our own shores, start up another hundred nuclear reactors, electric cars, etc., etc.), it will have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with battling militant, Islamic extremism where it exists.
As for whether we do this overseas or within the homeland, well, take your pick. Don't be surprised if you choose to wage counterinsurgency on the homeland soil and that's actually what happens. In other words, be careful what you ask for. The "evils" of imperialism have kept the battle off of the homeland soil thus far. We have enjoyed peace and stability, including Bacevich who believes it's all about oil.
I understand the dangers of imperialism. There are consequences - and unintended consequences - to both isolationism and imperialism. But the long war - as Abizaid called it - will go on until one side or the other capitulates, one way or the other, one place or the other.
The interesting thing about all those testifying and
cited here is that they were testifying truth to power in every sense.
Most of their testimony is essentially correct; one could quibble about war for oil and reindustrialization plus a few others but those cited are basically correct in their assertions. We need to fix a lot of things.
Every thing we need to fix that we can indeed actually fix can be laid directly at the feet of Congress. This or that President may have facilitated what Congress wanted but those guys only serve for four or eight years -- as all the testimony above shows, we've been headed downhill since the '60s. Only the Congress has been around that long. So congress can do the fixing. Somehow, I doubt Congress will fix itself...
Thus, we need to fix Congress.
If Iraq was rich in carrots, isntead of oil...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Danny
But the one proferred here is the tired "we went to war for oil" meme, so incorrect that it doesn't warrant the time spent to refute it. Discussion threads at the SWC have graduated beyond that meme.
Well, I guess we went to war in Afghanistan because of the attacks on 9/11.
As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.
The primary thing concerning Oil in Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tacitus
...As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.
was that it could be invaded with minimal disturbance to world oil supply -- and we really want China and India, two large users of ME Oil, to have all the Oil they need with no interruptions. There were some other synergistic effect involving oil but they were minor and paled into insignificance alongside the no-disruption factor and Iraq's geographical centrality in the ME and its pariah status at the time.
Thus the oil issue is not Iraq's oil but that in the greater ME.
Turkey is a nice idea but . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Turkey is ideal.
. . . there's that little sticking point known as Cyprus, which is also a problem for EU admission. The Turks' official positions wrt Kurds and Armenians are also concerns. And, we've already had trouble getting cooperation from Turkey--remember the 4ID debacle in 2003?
I totally agree with the sentiment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
I apparently am in the minority, but think Prof Bacevich is spot on in his whole interview. I also sympathize with his diagnosis of how our foreign policy should be re-toolded.
Here's my favorite quote, which I have stated here before:
that Bacevich expresses in the quote that Cavguy has highlighted. I have observed the same thing in CONUS and down under. I think he is spot on.
I had the opportunity to meet Andrew Bacevich and spend some time talking with him and TX Hammes after dinner at an event in Oxford (UK) last year. It was an enjoyable evening - he struck me as honorable and smart. I think that it would not hurt a few more folks to spend some time reading his material and thinking objectively about what he writes before jumping to conclusions.
Speech of & discussion with Bacevich
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2009...evich-usa-ret/
I agree 95%.
I do not tend to publicly agree with others often, so this is quite exceptional.
(The only thing that irritated me was the supposed theft of California by Mexicans, maybe I just misunderstood something - it doesn't fit into his speech.)
Andrew J. Bacevich: The Revisionist Imperative
Andrew J. Bacevich: The Revisionist Imperative
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
The US military deserve better
A WaPo review of 'Breach of Trust : How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country’ by Andrew J. Bacevich:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...cd6_story.html
I do like this phrase for describing (US) All Volunteer Forces:
Quote:
....a civil-military relationship founded on the principle that a few fight while the rest watch.
The reviewer's best passage:
Quote:
Evading civic responsibility is the order of the day, replaced by a politics of insult, enmity and evasion. The men and women we so blithely send off to fight wars in places we’ve never heard of deserve better than that, but there’s no reason to believe we’re going to give it to them.
Whilst I appreciate the book is about the USA, the principles have an application in Western Europe, where conscription has dwindled, but I cannot recall any public debate about an all volunteer military except on the far left.