Recent US war history in a nutshell: Responding to an ’01 terror attack on NYC by activists from Saudi Arabia, funded by Pakistan, and trained in Afghanistan, the US in ’03 attacked Iraq, supposedly because they had “weapons of mass destruction,” never found. US denied it wanted control of the strategic resource-rich Persian Gulf, saying it remains there to “nation-build.” In ’07 US geologists reported Afghanistan has $1 trillion in mineral wealth, and then in ’09 the US more than doubled its Afghanistan troops, supposedly to fight terrorists and “nation-build.” It now denies it wanted the minerals:
Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Monday that the $1 trillion figure didn’t surface until recently because a military task force working on the issue had been focused on Iraq. … It wasn’t until late last year that the task force got around to looking at a 2007 study by the U.S. Geological Survey. That’s when the group estimated the minerals’ value, Lapan said. The New York Times first reported the $1 trillion figure on Sunday night.
Many are suspicious of US motives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. An ’04 world survey:
Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world. … There is broad agreement in nearly all of the countries surveyed – the U.S. being a notable exception – that the war in Iraq hurt, rather than helped, the war on terrorism. … Solid majorities in France and Germany believe the U.S. is conducting the war on terrorism in order to control Mideast oil and dominate the world. … Large majorities in almost every country surveyed think that American and British leaders lied when they claimed, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction.
Today in Afghanistan:
The Pentagon’s announcement that Afghanistan possesses $1 trillion worth of unexploited minerals will have the unintended consequence of confirming one of the most deeply entrenched conspiracy theories among Afghans. Many Afghans I have spoken with believe firmly that America wants to permanently occupy the country in order to take Afghan land and resources. Even educated Afghans friends who generally support a temporary US presence have told me the same. I had to laugh when one suggested that Americans would want to move to Afghanistan to snatch up Afghan land for homes. … For many Afghans, it makes no sense that the US cannot wrap up the Taliban – so an imperialist land grab becomes a plausible explanation.
Historians agree that once upon a time colonial powers, including the US, did invade nations to try to gain their natural resources. (Not clear they benefited overall though.) The world is now asked to believe that the US has lost this inclination and ability – gosh, the US folks who chose to attack Afghanistan didn’t even know it was a gold mine, honest. Nor did Iraq’s oil influence invading it. So why didn’t the US invade lots of other nations similarly plagued by terrorists, or nations like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan that threaten nuclear instability? It’s just random, the world is asked to believe.
I can see why the world is skeptical here. Now I can also understand the position that the US is no longer organized or capable enough to purposely target and gain advantage from invading resource-rich nations. What I can’t understand is how folks who believe this can simultaneously believe the US is organized and capable enough to “build nations,” a task where we’ve seen little success lately, and a task made even harder by widespread suspicion of US motives. Really, that’s your story?!
Added 17June: Some question the trillion dollar figure.
Imperialist US?
The fact of the matter is that the US is an imperial power with hundreds of military bases throughout the world. They seek to dominate global markets, resources, and labor, as do the European Union. The fact that billions of dollars are spent , and thousands of lives lost in the course of war are immaterial because it is we they tax payer and the 'little people' that pick up the 'bill' while the global elite become ever richer.
Once the conquest is complete, the Trans National corporations move in and reap the rewards. The IMF and World Bank dish out 'Aid' and in return the 'conquered' open up their markets, sell the rights to their mineral wealth, allow cheap subsidized foreign imports to flood the country, thus bankrupting the local farmers/businesses. And all the while the puppets that are are allowed to rule fill their pockets and the people become impoverished. Impoverished people equal a force force prepared to work for peanuts in sweat shops.
But we are the dumb ones because we know that politicians are liars but we believe the BS about 'spreading Democracy, Nation Building, WMD, war on terror,.
THE SIMPLE PLAIN FACT IS THIS, CHECK HISTORY, WARS ARE THOUGHT OVER LAND AND RESOURCES. Yes sometimes they are fought in self the defense, but in defense of land and resources!
Even hardcore leftists like Michael Albert at ZNet have nothing but ridicule for the idea that we were in Vietnam to get access to whatever puny pile of tin, zinc, copper, or whatever.
I must be even more hardcore, then. The primary sources speak for themselves. It may not have significantly influenced U.S. policy, but folks invoked the allure of natural resources at the time.
Compared to those adventures, our involvement in the Middle East has been a sideshow.
Until 1991, perhaps so. These days it's the main attraction.