Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Does the US military really believe that it must fight wars to "secure" oil for its own use? Your use of antediluvian units obscures things a little, but actually the figures you quote for the fuel consumption of US combat operations is only 0.4% of total US oil consumption or maybe about 1% of the gasoline consumption of US cars. Attacking other countries for this 0.4% used by the military is a very flimsy fig leaf.

I also don't understand the need to go to war to preserve the US "way of life", also known as "obscene energy waste". As long as you don't have a world war or a foreign power strong enough to mount a naval blockade against you, you can just buy the oil on the world market. Finland doesn't seem to feel the urge to go to war to ensure its oil supply. The Iraq war did not supply oil to US consumers while excluding the rest of the world, nor did it reduce prices in the US relative to other places. Again, a fig leaf.

The only people who benefit from the US going to war to "secure" oil while at the same time blocking any attempt to reduce consumption at home are of course the oil companies. They seem to have much more political power in the US than everybody else combined, including Pentagon. The wars are run exclusively for them.

Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.

by tomhuld (thomas punkt huld at jrc punkt it) on Mon Dec 6th, 2010 at 04:48:06 PM EST
Does the US military really believe that it must fight wars to "secure" oil for its own use?


This is basic to any understanding of US strategy over the last half century.  

If you can buy it (cheaply!) that is fine, else seize it by government coup, and if that fails, seize it by main force.  

Most US actions in the world follow directly out of this principle.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Tue Dec 7th, 2010 at 06:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series