Bush, imperialism, Haliburton, and Jesus

Since no one ever leaves any comments on my blog (hint hint), I’m going to respond to a comment left on someone else’s blog.

Matthew Yglesias has a post where he seems to be saying that the U.S. has an imperialistic relationship with Iraq. And he opposes imperialism, saying that “in popular mythology imperialism, though perhaps morally wrong, is beneficial to the imperialists, though this is not, in fact, the case either historically or currently.”

Then someone said the following in a comment:

[I]mperialism can be very beneficial to SOME groups in the imperial nation. In the case of Iraq, the obvious gain is rents from control of oil production, which will go to different groups now that Saddam is out of power, viz. US oil companies and the political parties who love them.

I have a problem with this comment. I know it’s popular among some Democrats to say that the primary reason for the war was to help out Haliburton and other U.S. corporations, but this argument really doesn’t make any sense. Did Bush really waste hundreds billions of dollars just so some U.S. oilfield services companies could get a few billion dollars in new contracts?

Well that’s not very efficient. Bush could have helped out oilfield services companies with a lot less effort by promoting drilling for oil in ANWR. No, I’m not saying I support that, but once upon a time Bush said he supported that, and like almost everything Bush supported, it got forgotten along the way. If Bush truly cared about oil companies as much as some people say he does, he wouldn’t have forgotten about ANWR.

I really think that Bush could care less about a few oilfield services companies; he only pays lip service to promoting their agenda so they will continue to donate money to him and other Republicans. The Haliburton argument is so weak that I think it hurts us on the left when it’s brought up, because it just makes us look stupid.

I think that imperialism for imperialism’s sake is a much simpler explanation for Bush’s foreign policy agenda. It’s like “manifest destiny,” except Bush thinks the United States’ destiny is to rule the whole world. And somehow Jesus is involved in it. Bush believes that the United States is a Christian nation, and that he’s doing God’s and Jesus’ work by extending U.S. power into the Middle East.

Comments

[Ben]

Here's a comment:

I agree that the Haliburton link is weak. However, it points at a larger trend in modern politics, the increased closeness between government and business. Going to war just to benefit Haliburton isn't enough motivation, but when you consider the very large number of businesses and corporations that gain from our wars (and domestic policies) a firmer connection begins to emerge. The majority of the money and power goes to private entities that generally are unaccountable to government regulation. The Medicaid drug benefit and the AIDS money for Africa work the same way. Tax dollars are going straight through government to private accounts.

Granted, there is a massive imperialist (and eschatological) agenda at work, but I wonder how much of it is rhetoric meant to masquerade a basic desire to increase profits.

Of course, the alternative, the Bush really believes what he says (and more importantly, that the people around him do!) is quite scary! If you believe that we're in end times, I suppose that can justify making a whole lot of messes that God will have the responsibility for cleaning up.

[eRobin]

Here's another comment! :)

Read Naomi Klein's Baghdad Year Zero and you'll see that oil is the tip of the iceberg. But that particular resource did make it easy to get the game started since it's sand oil and easily got. ANWR, the oil in central Asia (which explains Russia's fixation with Chechnya) and the oil in Canada is also all good, but much harder to get at.

What gets me is the way China is quietly going around doing the empire thing the right way - setting up deals with oil companies, helping out countries and regions that the US has pissed on. BushCo's policies are treason.

[Swami]

And another comment

I make no claims to know what Bush's true agenda is. Trying to fit all the pieces together from the many opinions and facts is a challenge. What I have deduced is that Bush isn't a profound thinker, statesman, or man with a vision for the future. My feeling is that he's lost in the real world of international affairs and relies on the directions of others to lead him. I think a combination of external forces have shaped his actions in defining himself as a leader and a visionary.I suspect that the forces behind the PNAC agenda coupled with a sense of divine appointment brought on by 9/11 has been his motiving force.

I am reminded of the presidential debates where Bush on several occasions spoke out in frustration by saying," It's hard", in reference to the task of being the president and the decisions that accompany the office. I couldn't help but think that if articulating his beliefs comes with such difficulty, than maybe he really doesn't hold true to the beliefs that he professes. Bottom line...He's a sham!

[Jason C]

Well I say it's about time that someone from the left finally explained how dumb the Haliburton link is.

But the last paragraph is just typical left-wing Bush hatred with no basis in fact.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why invading Iraq was necessary. Basically, Saddam was violating the ceasefire agreement, and was repeatedly shooting down our planes in the no-fly zone, a no-fly zone that was enforced by President Clinton.

[wiz]

bollocks. it's about oil. "There are plenty of legitimate reasons why invading Iraq was necessary. Basically, Saddam was violating the ceasefire agreement" zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...... what a crock of crap. countries violate ceasefire agreements all the time, you don't launch a full scale invasion! agreement? a new versailles treaty, maybe, with the gun held to iraq's head. sure, whatever. "agreement". none of that was a good enough excuse to invade a soveriegn country. if your lame 'no-fly violation' was strong, george 'AWOL' bush and his extractionistas wouldn't have had to COOK UP THE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO SELL YOU this SHITTY, GREEDY, RACIST WAR! the no-fly zone and all the sanctions that iraq has suffered over the last decade, not to mention the previous bush baby using iraq to make a name as a hot-shit fighter pilot warrior king in iraq 1, have all been merely disgusting bullying that the rest of the world, frightened of pissing of the americans, has allowed. US intel has been the shits for years, and will be for the forseable future with the new crop of wankers running the cia and homeland and whatever the hell you call than new 'ministry of love' they just created. invading iraq is so very much about the oil in the mideast. notice how much oil and gas iran has? duh. my theory, similar to erobin's, is that american power czars are watching the rise of china and realizing they are going to be a serious contender in the global gold rush to eat everything. if america controls the flow of the black stuff, they control china. nuff said.

wiz.

[merlallen]

Actually I don't think they ever shot down even a single plane. Targeting a plane is not shooting one down. I always thought the air defense crewmen had a death wish or something.

[Phil]

It's not just about oil-service companies like Halliburton getting a few huge contracts. It's about the oil companies as well and the billions and billions and billions they will make. And the control of the oil and the leverage it gives US-based multinationals over Europeans and Asian companies, sorta like a clash of empires. It's about the defense companies whose profits have steadily risen (http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2/arts244.html). I really don't think imperialism is done for imperialism's sake alone. There are many real profits to be made for these superwealthy plutocrats.

[Luke Lea]

My take is that Bush went into Iraq because he was being blackmailed (for how see below) not to go into Saudi Arabia, which obviously the home base of Islamic terrorism.

The blackmail, assuming it exists, is probably based on some financial impropriety Bush committed back in the late 1980s in connection with his oil company Arbustro, which became ...aw heck, it's all written up on my blog under the title of Bad Boy Bush and What's a Poor Dem to Do? If I knew how to link I could give them to you.