Saeko wrote:People often criticize American foreign policy in the Middle East and other places by pointing out that it is imperialistic, and that there would be less terrorist attacks in the West if it just left the ME alone.
But if America or other Western nations did not control the oil and natural gas resources of the ME, then Islamic states certainly would. By ending imperialism, we would be putting Muslims in control of a huge chunk of the world's energy resources.
Why would anyone want this? Does anyone here really think that Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia etc would play nice with the rest of the world and charge "reasonable" prices for the sale of oil and natural gas? Or is it more likely that they would take advantage of the opportunity to build up their country's infrastructure and military forces and start carving up the rest of the world?
Illusion governs human nature. We are irrational to the core.
You will never stop believing in the efficacy of you so-called control (you and millions of other people around the world). Actual evidence is irrelevant - it is the deep seated emotional need for control (or more accurately, the illusion of control) that is the basis for your delusion, rather than any actual monetary or security benefit. Which turns out to be zero, or in many cases negative.
imperialism, America does not "control the oil and natural gas sources" in the Middle East. We do not control the price of oil. Even the Saudis don't control the price of oil. They can reduce their own production, but they can't even stop other producers from stepping in and making quick profit at their expense.
Saudis have never "played nice" with the price of oil. They are not in business to be nice. They may cut the US some slight (very slight) slack for guaranteeing their security, but in the final analysis the US is the poor neighbor from the wrong side of the tracks. Being a paid security guard does not make you the boss. We are not the boss.
In strictly rational hardheaded business terms, it does not matter who controls the oil. It does not matter who controls the oil
. Oil is fungible, international. It exists only to be sold, it is a pure commodity. ISIS will sell us their oil. Iran will sell us their oil. The Islamic Caliphate will sell us their oil. The Saudis are a few generations from being brigands. ISIS is a now a collection of brigands, but once they subject themselves to logic of commerce, they will become the Saudis redux.
It is in our overwhelming interest not
to control the oil in the ME. It is the Saudis who face the day to day responsibility of securing their pipelines, and pacifying wayward tribes. All we have to do is chase a few pirates away in the Gulf...and that is all we should be doing.
So you have oil delivered to your 'doorstep' in tankers. What could be easier? Why do you insist on controlling that which cannot be controlled? Why do you insist on interventions when every single intervention lays the groundwork for the next crisis? What actual monetary or security benefit do you gain from this illusory control?
You cannot rationally answer these questions, because you cannot bear to face the truth that imperialism is actually a losing proposition in the long run. The short term windfall for the elites will soon evaporate...even for them. For us the citizens, there was never a windfall only endless mindless war.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.