Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Found the internet!
56

I Want To Know For Real

56

I Want To Know For Real

Did the United States really fight in Afghanistan and Iraq for Oil and Metals? I want a real answer, and I came here because from what I suppose you all don't hold loyalty to any given group, country, or people.

So tell me, what did we fight for over the last 20 years? What was our goal?

I'll check back on this in the morning, don't hold back!

99 comments
86% Upvoted
Log in or sign up to leave a comment
User avatar
level 1

The US isn’t galaxy brained enough to invade counties for resources and then subsequently forget to take those resources.

138
User avatar
level 2

It's not about stealing resources directly. Having a country with those resources on our side is vital too.

9
User avatar
level 1

We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban harbored the organization that committed 9/11 and refused to turn them over.

We went into Iraq primarily because a group of Neoconservatives were drunk on the unipolar moment and believed the US could spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and remake the Middle East. Haliburton definitely made money in Iraq, but we did not go in for oil.

243
User avatar
level 2

Good answer, but there's a bit more nuance behind the reasons for Iraq.

For that one, it was also seen a finishing the job of the 1991 Gulf War. Maybe more accurately as making up for the failures in the ceasefire agreement (that allowed Saddam to keep armed helicopters for peaceful surveying, which were subsequently used to commit mass murder / human rights abuses). That happened on Bush Sr.'s watch, and went unanswered during Clinton's presidency - so no doubt the sense of responsibility / frustration had festered for Bush Jr. during the 90s.

If it was just about toppling a dictator, Iran would've given more bang for America's buck (with 2x the population, a less effective military, and a population that's already experienced liberalism).

82
User avatar
level 2

This is essentially it.

22
User avatar
level 2
· 6 hr. ago
Chama o Meirelles

My tankie high school teacher said that France and Russia were working on a secret deal with Iraq that would have given French and Russian businesses access to Iraqi oil, so the invasion was essentially an Anglo-American big oil preemptive strike against their competition, and the neocons in the US government needed little convincing so they just rolled with it. I don’t know how much of that is urban legend and succ conspiracy theories but it made sense to me as a gullible teen lol

9
User avatar
level 2

Yep, this. What I'd like to wrap my head around is why NATO, as an org, involved itself in Libya and Kosovo. Afghanistan was based on Article 5 as a NATO member state was attacked by an organisation whom Afghanistan harbored. And while NATO members were in Iraq, NATO itself only conducted non-combat missions there. But Libya and Kosovo? Don't get me wrong, I thinl genocides require intervention, but why NATO and how was it justified?

5
User avatar
level 2

I would add to the first point that the Taliban offered to give up OBL if he were to stand trial in a third party country. Bush admin refused the offer and proceeded with the invasion.

3
User avatar
level 2

Its part of the truth, but Iraq was also an important state because of oil. We didn't go to steal it,but having Iraq as an ally was also seen as important because they had a lot of oil reserves.

1
User avatar
level 2
-2
User avatar
level 2

Ironically Iraq war has been more successful

0
User avatar
level 1
· 6 hr. ago
Ben Bernanke

Afghanistan was run by the Taliban in 2001 who were allied with Al Qaeda, who had just done 9/11. That invasion was simple revenge.

The invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that Bush and Cheney were neoconservatives, which means essentially liberal Trotskyites. They believed that human rights were universal and it was legitimate to uphold them by force. So in their logic, Saddam Hussein was a bad a guy and Iraq was a good candidate for showing that the US can start rolling into places and giving the people their freedom, just like that.

The basic assumption was that stable democracies grow on their own once you get rid of the dictator. So show up to a country, get the dictator, rinse and repeat. Now you have nice democracies all throughout the world. In that view, not invading is immoral because it means you’re condemning millions of Iraqis to live under Saddam’s dictatorship.

The basic lesson from this is that countries don’t act out of material self-interest as much as armchair cynics assume. Instead they’re frequently operated on an emotional or ideological basis.

69
level 2
· 6 hr. ago
Chama o Meirelles

Ngl my mind was blown when I learned about the Trotskyism-Neoconservatism connection.

30
level 2
· 4 hr. ago
Liberal-Bidenist Vanguard of the Joeletarian Revolution

The basic lesson from this is that countries don’t act out of material self-interest as much as armchair cynics assume. Instead they’re frequently operated on an emotional or ideological basis.

Constructivism ftw

13
level 2

fuck why do you gotta make neoconservatives sound based.

7
level 2
· 4 hr. ago
European Union

The invasion of Iraq was based

11
level 2

Pretty sure Cheneys interest came from the military industrial complex, who made a fortune off the war.

4
level 2
· 12 min. ago
Milton Friedman

Though Iraq is doing quite well right now, all things considered.

1
level 2
· 5 min. ago
Immanuel Kant

That invasion was simple revenge.

I know I am nitpicking, but I wouldn't call this revenge. To illustrate, if someone stabs you and you shoot them in self defense, you wouldn't call that revenge, right?

1
level 1

Lol no.

10
level 1

no

7
level 1

I'd recommend the slow burn podcast to help.

No the war wasn't over oil. Thats more of a liberal conspiracy theory.

One of their seasons was on the lead up to the invasion. Sadam Huisain was the boogy men for neoconservative thought. He flouted weapons inspectors, massacered Kurdish villages, and used chemical weapons. In 2000, Republicans were calling for support of Iraqi liberation.

After 2001, there was an effort in the government to link al-queda and Iraq, but no such evidence was found. The WMD link became the justification after that. Sadddam did have a weapons program in the past and as mentioned before, often prevented weapon inspector acess. There was a sizable anti saddam ex pat population abroad who was willing to offer "evidence" to the US of WMDs. The Bush administration was willing to take this evidence without any real vetting.

In short, it was a justified desire to overthrow Saddam by neoconservatives coupled with willing confirmation bias and a panicked insecurity after 9/11. The aftermath of the invasion was a shot show because the Bush administration believed that democracy could arise organically if dictators were just overthrown.

28
level 2

No educated liberal would ever say that the Afghan war was about oil. Why are you gaslighting within an otherwise accurate reply?

7
level 2

It's a liberal conspiracy that it was about stealing oil. But from a geopolitics pov Iraq is important because of oil, and it ensures more stability in the Middle East for America to have Iraq on our side; mix that with naive neocon ideas about replacing hostile dictatorships with democracy .

0
level 1

Not an american but I would say no. Afghanistan is mountains, wtf is there to exploit?

4
level 2
· 4 hr. ago
Bisexual Pride

The idea is that facially they have huge rare earth deposits. They’re just basically impossible to extract, and those that are arnt cost effective. Literally not one major mine has opened since the invasions. There was an attempt to get a copper mine near Kabul opened but it couldn’t get investment

2
level 2

A lot considering that Pete Buttigieg has a giant a mineral and resource map of Afghanistan in his living room.

-1
level 1

I mean the best proof against this take is where the hell is all that oil then?

3
level 1

What kind of oil cost trillions of dollars?

3
level 1
· 3 hr. ago
Henry George

Oil is important to the world’s economy. The most abundant, cleanest, and easiest to extract oil is in the Middle East. Iraq had invaded two of its neighbors in order to get more oilfields. It was widely believed that the first gulf war would result in regime change, but that did not happen. Sanctions and a no fly zone were imposed to keep Iraq down.

The US had to keep a sizable contingent of troops in the area to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and enforce the no fly zone. This presence near the holy sites of Islam inflamed extremists and was the stated reason for the 9-11 attacks. Sanctions were also a humanitarian disaster, killing an estimated 50,000 kids a year.

9-11 brought things to a head. Sanctions, inspections, and the no fly zone was not sustainable for another decade. So they had to decide to invade or leave.

Leaving would have meant Iraq rebuilding their military and their nuclear program. This threat means Saudi Arabia has to go nuclear which means Iran goes nuclear as well. Israel probably attacks Iran to keep that from happening and the whole region destabilizes.

A successful invasion means a democratic country controlling the holiest sites in Shia Islam which puts a lot of pressure on Iran. It puts pressure on Saudi Arabia reform because suddenly there’s a rival for western allies in the region. It surrounds Syria with democratic western allied countries.

4
level 1

To some extent yes, but also no, because we expended more in the conflict than we stood to gain tax revenue wise. For example, Afghanistan has an estimated $1 Trillion or so dollars in mineral wealth, but we spent well over $2T over the years there.

To a major degree, the tax dollars is the goal. If you're a high ranking general, military intelligence specialist, civilian military consultant, military contractor, state department head, etc. you can greatly improve your station in life if the war continues and escalates, wheras you will only lose power, money, and influence during a time of peace. So if they ask you as an expert "should we continue this war?" It is in your best interest to say "yes, because..."

2
level 1
· 2 hr. ago
John Rawls

The US fought invaded Iraq for really dumb reasons, but for the most part, taking their oil wasn’t one of them.

Afghanistan doesn’t really have natural resources worth taking. I’m sure if you looked hard enough, you’d find some mineral that’s rare elsewhere, but useful for some important industry. But the market value of the resource would be low and probably outweighed by the logistics starting a mining operation in Afghanistan.

2
level 1

As with everything, there are multiple reasons. Resources are one of them, but played a support role instead of primary. The resources were seen as a way to mitigate cost. War is expensive. By using local resources, you don't need to run supply lines and logistics for those resources from depots.

The contractors and privateers saw the opportunity to make money. Think organizations like Halliburton, Raytheon, CACI, and Blackwater. The military uses these companies to fill out roles that are otherwise burdensome for an agency that needs paperwork for everything. The downside is that there is almost no accountability when things go wrong.

The key thing to keep in mind is that these are not wars. Declaring war must be authorized by Congress. Instead, we got the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. This Congressionally-approved law is not against a country. We did not go to war with Iraq nor Afghanistan. We went to war with Saddam, Bin Laden, and "terrorism". This allowed the US to target them wherever they went, and set up infrastructure wherever terrorists were believed to be.

In my opinion, the only reason these military operations were possible is because neither had nuclear weapons. We were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, biological "dirty" bombs and such. In order to prevent him from building a launcher capable enough to hit America, it was imperative we invade and dismantle his regime. The power vacuum left arguably led to the rise of ISIS.

The AUMF allowed the military to target Bin Laden. The US had Intel that he was around Afghanistan, so they installed smaller outposts and attempted to find him. In the process, an arguably puppet government was set and trained by the US military to support democracy. For a while, people had more Western-style lives. When we pulled out, well.. Rights weren't quite as important as food. Current regimes are more like tribal warlords. That's more akin to how Afghanistan has been but it's rougher transitioning back under that type of Islamic rule.

When the military eventually killed Bin Laden, they were too embroiled with nation-building that all projections foresaw things returning to how they were. That was an untenable PR move for any president/party. The previous administration's decision to pull out, honored by the current, was done by design. It would have just been lost in another Trump news cycle if he won, and if he lost then he could bludgeon the Democrats/Biden with a botched procedure.

Afghanistan has trillions in mineral wealth, Iraq tons of oil. Trump suggested, on more than one occasion, that we jack it. The only way to do that is with a stable government/local military that could protect business interests. Given Afghanistan's landscape and history and people, that was almost certainly never going to happen.

Democracy was the long term goal. That would lead to better living conditions, and to a more stable government. Eventually, the US would reap the benefits by having almost a monopoly on the trade of those resources. Stopping Saddam and Osama were the short term goals. Weapons contractors were able to test, refine, and train personnel. Look at Russia's current military situation to see the benefits of that.

2
level 2
· 2 hr. ago
Chama o Meirelles

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't wars in pretty much the same way the one in Ukraine isn't.

1
level 1

Recommend reading To Start A War by Robert Draper

no one has any idea why the fuck the US invaded Iraq lol

2
level 2
· 4 hr. ago
Bisexual Pride

For the memes

3
level 1
· 8 hr. ago · edited 8 hr. ago
level 2
· 7 hr. ago
Zhao Ziyang

As another posted said Iraq wasn’t about oil, if it was about oil the easiest thing to do would be lift oil sanctions. Iraq was the consequence of neo-cons drunk on the unipolar moment of Afghanistan thinking they could spread democracy at the point of a gun. Credit to u/thomas_baes for the unipolar quote

10
level 2

Lol I didn't know this was the r/basicgeopoliticsdenial sub.

1
level 2

Afghanistan:no.

For Iraq, let me copy paste an old comment I made:

if it was about literally stealing the oil, why would trump complain that we didn't steal the oil? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

That seems to point to it not being about oil

I went to the store and buy vegetables, not donuts. My child complains and asks why didn't we get donuts. This to you proves I went to the store with the specific goal of buying donuts?

0
level 1

In my opinion, it's a fair possibility that the US intentionally caused the destruction of Iraq. Because Iran is naturally an imperialist country, and prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iraq used to be the shield on which the Saudis relied (they also used to support them economically during the Iraq-Iran wars). What happens if you destroy the shield? They will look for another one, that one is America.

Now they have been paying billions for the American weapons since the invasion of Iraq.

Of course there're also other intentions, like getting some oil and building a weak democratic country in Iraq.

1
level 1
· 43 min. ago · edited 38 min. ago

Early in 1999 Cheney hired high level NSC’s in the government to draft a causality report for a “hostile takeover of foreign oil fields”. The routes and maps used are the exact maps we were given to armed forces during the invasion just a few years later.

In 2001 Cheney asked how much money companies would pay him PERSONALLY if he were to acquire oil fields in countries who previously weren’t willing to sell oil to our drilling contractors.

Sources: https://www.foxnews.com/story/cheney-energy-task-force-documents-detail-iraqi-oil-industry.amp

The Halliburton documents exposed in 2004 show express payments made to bush and Cheney for oil for oil fields in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Further documents leaked by Chelsea manning contain emails between Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. One of these emails contain the quote: “these bastards are so dumb to go to war for a resource they’ll never see the benefit from in their life.”

So yes, they were for oil only. My squad was in charge of security for these oil fields until PMC’s eventually took over the security (groups like Academi and xe)

1
level 1

No. Think about the decision makers involved, on an individual level - do you think the Senators who approved the war resolution were thinking about resources? Does anything in the extensively documented internal work at the Bush White House indicate that they were focused on oil or minerals? And if they were, how did they fail so badly to actually acquire anything of significance?

Governments are just made out of people. They generally say some approximation of what they mean, and when they don't there's usually strong evidence of the fact, especially if it involves two decades of very obvious decision making.

Neoconservativism was a very influential ideology for a minute. It was not an elaborate ruse.

1
level 1

Afghanistan was pretty straightforward. The Taliban gave material support and comfort to Al Qaeda who murdered thousands of Americans on 9.11. They deserved what they got. Iraq was a mistake driven by petty revenge, oil and regime building so that we could have a convenient military base to check Iran with. Iran are our enemies in the region and are working towards getting a nuclear bomb which we just can't allow. That's it. That was the whole thing.

1
level 1

This is the internet -- you came to the right place. The best way to find the REAL truth is to post questions on anonymous forums. Congratulations!

1
More posts from the neoliberal community
2.8k
Post image
2.8k
274 comments
2.5k
2.5k
150 comments
2.4k
Post image
2.4k
229 comments
2.2k
Post image
2.2k
356 comments
1.9k
Post image
1.9k
125 comments
1.8k
Post image
1.8k
135 comments
1.7k
Post image
1.7k
120 comments
1.6k
Post image
1.6k
447 comments
1.4k
1.4k
519 comments
1.2k
Post image
1.2k
158 comments
1.2k
1.2k
146 comments
1.2k
Post image
1.2k
390 comments
1.2k
Posted byu/[deleted]3 days ago
Post image
1.2k
102 comments
1.2k
Post image
1.2k
35 comments
1.2k
Post image
1.2k
39 comments
1.1k
1.1k
153 comments
1.0k
Post image
1.0k
105 comments
992
Post image
992
364 comments
991
Post image
991
135 comments
972
Post image
972
165 comments
964
Post image
964
164 comments
884
Post image
884
57 comments
818
Post image
818
31 comments
812
Post image
812
72 comments
796
796
197 comments
Continue browsing in r/neoliberal
Free trade, open borders, taco trucks on every corner. Please read the sidebar for more information.
131k

advisors to Governor Polis

1.2k

online now


Created Apr 14, 2011