Modern wars for the arguably imperialistic United States have, according to many cynics, been about money. Yes, they cost a lot, but to offset the monetary costs of war (and the massive human tragedy they inflict), the possibility of bountiful spoils is truly influential. Indeed, the spoils of oil appear to be the causal factor in why the US has got so heavily involved in the Middle East and has been so interested in Venezuela.
Trump, the day after his inauguration at the CIA headquarters, let slip some absolute clangers that I only heard the other week (time linked):
He appears to be saying:
- When we went into Iraq to help them, we should have kept the oil.
- We might get another chance.
Is this the ramblings of an inexperienced and naive man, then recently elected as President? Or is it reflective of something more integral to US foreign policy?
Military action in Venezuela seems to be on the cards as a distinct possibility.
Of course, the UK is just as complicit (as I talked about here); I always wondered/knew why we went into Iraq/Kuwait a number of times and Libya and whatnot, but steered well away from Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe had no natural resources to offer.
We often see the US and UK as the global police force, morally enforcing good throughout the world. No, it’s always been about money, and still is.
“I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I always said it for economic reasons…” Well, it sure as hell wasn’t for moral reasons! You could argue that this was refreshing honesty. Or naive cluelessness. Either way, this is arguably the most brazen admission of American imperialism from a sitting US president.
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook: