Is oil the most important part in the intervention equation?

[Bucky]

I wrote the following in another thread, but wanted some feedback from people on both sides of the argument. So I'm making it an OP. A few things: I don't support most US interventions overseas, but I do generally support this president. I think oil's a big factor in where the US decides to protect human lives, but I don't think it's the only factor. Specifically, the news from Libya was so horrendous that I have been supportive of US & Nato air strikes there. I only post the following because I naturally wonder "Why not elsewhere?"

I also post this knowing that I may have been manipulated into supporting this intervention by the amount of publicity given to Ghaddafi's attacks on his own people, which has been far greater than the cases that I've cited below. I especially welcome any corrections to my facts or perspectives. Maybe the media attention is closer because Libya is so much more closer to Europe, or perhaps because Moammar Ghaddafi is such a straight up oddball that his behaviors naturally draw more media attention. But he's far from the only murderous eccentric backed by thugs in the world. My questions "Why him now? aren't easy to answer. But read what I wrote and please tell me where I'm wrong.



The world quietly waited out the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. Between 200,000 and 3 million killed. No oil was involved.


America policy was generally to ignore the slaughter of 200,000 in Guatemala in the 60s. No oil was involved.


Burundi has gone through two genocides and neither air cover nor military intervention were brought to bear. In 1973 the Tutsi army killed 80,000-200,000 Hutus. In 1992, Hutus gained power and retaliated against Burundi_genocide Tutsis. Both events struggled for any media attention in America. No oil was involved.


In the 70s, Equatorial Guinea saw so much slaughter and human abuse that it was nicknamed "the Auschwitz of Africa" and yet dictator Francisco Macías Nguema was freely suffered to rule his little country with no western intervention. No oil was involved.


In 1987, threats to Kuwaiti oil from Iranian attacks led to a US reflagging operation called Operation Earnest Will to protect world oil exports. Oil was involved.


In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait and largely exaggerated or fabricated accounts of atrocities led to immediate intervention and America's first full scale war since Vietnam. Oil was involved.


About 800,000 Tutsis and pro-peace Hutus were killed by Hutu extremists in Rwanda in 1994 while the industrialized world fretted and regretted, but did not bring any force to bear. No oil was involved.


While Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge murdered about 2 million Cambodians in The Killing Fields, the world whinged and whined, but did not intervene. No oil was involved.


The Indonesian government used starvation as a weapon in East Timor in the 80s and 90s, resulting in about 100,000 to 150,000 deaths. Oil was involved, but it was easier to get at by ignoring the loss of life. Complaints were registered on occasion, but business was never interrupted.


The Argentine Dirty War went on for seven years and over 10,000 dead without direct external pressure. No oil was involved.


Half a million were killed in Ethiopia's Red Terror, but no one sent in the troops. No oil was involved.


When Saddam Hussein was killing the Kurds, the bombs didn't drop, but then that might have interrupted the flow of oil. China does whatever it likes in Tibet with only words from the outside world to punish them for it. North Korea is a country-sized prison under the grip of an insane man who happens to have no oil. Pygmies in the Democratic Republic of Congo are targeted for murder, cannibalism, and rape under what the Human Rights Watch calls a "campaign of extermination," but no one says we should bomb there. In Somalia, West Papua, and Darfur, Sudan, horrible slaughters either by government forces or by those protected by government forces, but no direct efforts are being undertaken--only sanctions some of the time. The only one of those where discussion of intervention ever got started was in Darfur, where oil was involved. The military interventions of the US in the past ten years have included only places (Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan) where violence threatened the flow of fossil fuels to the industrialized world. Where blood flowed far away from the pumps, the impetus to protect lives seems to lack that same peculiar momentum.

So when I say oil was a critical factor, I think there's enough of a history behind US intervention to back up my generalization.

[polichick]

1. Shhh, we're trying to think of ourselves as heroes.

K&R

[abelenkpe]

2. Yeah

Oil does appear to be the necessary ingredient to get the US to want to 'save the day.'

[Scruffy1]

3. Oil equals money

Oil and other commodities are fungible. Bu only oil has the power to be used as a weapon in the international capital game. In other words it's about controlling the oil and who gets it at what price. But then their are some other factors beside oil. The key to understanding the middle east and North Africa is the maintenance of the US, Israeli, and Saudi hegemony of the region. With friendly regimes in North Africa western supply routes for oil are assured. In my mind Israel is just a US military outpost guarding the region and is too small for the task now that the Iraqi debacle is ending, which could have been aimed at permanent occupation all along, for all I know.
In short the US has never invaded or bombed a country for "Democracy" or "Freedom" since Korea
that I know of. The fact that China and Russia did not veto it shows the power of the oligarchies in both countries.

[Distant Observer]

7. Israel is NOT a US military outpost guarding the region. The US/Israel relationship has other logic

[SpartanDem]

4. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo

all UN interventions with US involvement no oil involved. The simple fact is the international community is fickle and inconsistent on when it decides to intervene, but political will and military might are the biggest factors IMO. If the rebels had needed boots on the ground I don't there was the political will for that level of involvement. If this had been Iran no matter how organized the opposition the UN probably would not have intervened as Iran has a strong military . Gaddafi was weak militarily, internationally unpopular, with an organized opposition asking for help basically the stars were aligned for this one. Moreover the argument if we intervene here therefore we must intervene everywhere else is patently silly, because says that there is one size fits all solution. Just because there isn't the will and means to stop all atrocities doesn't mean should not stop this one if we have the chance.

[Distant Observer]

5. NO. It's a spasm of the "Splendid Blond Beast's" urge for self-righteous domination

The Western powers need these spasms of violence, and all the better if it servers their economic or geopolitical interest.

Nietzsche use the term "Splendid Blond Beast" to explain the aristocratic predators of his time, who instituted and profited from laws they would create. Societal structures, laws, and the rationalizations allows the Blond Beast to act with panache and confidence that it is beyond ordinary morality. Christopher Simpson used the concept to explain how Europeans rationalized or ignored some genocides while justifying ruthless reactions to others.

The Splendid Beast elegantly justifies and delights in the ruthless exercise of power at the expense of others.

As Nietzsche noted, when dealing with those “others,” those less “authorized.” the elite powers

"revert to the innocence of wild animals.... We can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank-convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise."


Thus it is today, the propaganda campaign to assure an image of Western goodness and grace and to make the enemy seem demonic even as they are slaughtered, is just as important as the $Trillions at stake in control of Libya OIL and GAS reserves.

The unabashed brutality of the Splendid Blond Beast as it enforce its own self-interested mandates and rules is the foundation of the modern world order.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x700758

[hulka38]

6. I think it's a given. n/t

[MadHound]

8. Your list, and our country's actions are pretty self evident.

If there is oil involved, we will be right there in a heartbeat. Otherwise, we stay on the sidelines making pious, empty mouthings.

[Turborama]

9. "about 100,000 to 150,000 deaths in Indonesia" But the link you gave says "a minimum of 73,000"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_occupation_of_East_Timor#Starvation

Where did you get the "about 100,000 to 150,000" from?

Plus, Indonesia was under a dictatorship at the time, not a "government" as most people would use the term. The occupation ended soon after the dictatorship fell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_occupation_of_East_Timor#End_of_Indonesian_control

Also, you say "oil was involved". What's the link between the starvation and oil?

[Bluerthanblue]

10. two quick observations

all of those previous situations were before the rise of the internet.

This makes a difference. Had the internet given the voices the volume and exposure that we have today, it is likely that there wouldn't have been silence and inaction when there should have been action.



We got involved in Kosovo in the late 90's- what oil was there?

I'm really exhausted, if you reply, and I don't acknowledge- please excuse me. I will in the am.

[Turborama]

11. What about Nigeria? If your hypothesis was true, wouldn't we have intervened there already?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_in_the_Niger_Delta

Or can you just trump difficult questions like that with, "no need"?

If so, you could say the same about Libya. If Gaddafi had been left to do what he was going to do there would have been "no need". After all, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x696024">multiple transnational oil corporations had already set up shop there since at least 2004.

For your hypothesis to stand true with the Libya situation, surely all we needed to do was let Gaddafi get rid of those pesky rebels and everything could have gone back to normal with "no need" for us to get involved with a military intervention? In fact, we'd have been better off vetoing it.