4 ms·
> The US' military interest in the Middle East seems to be entirely based on the oil reserves in the region. This is such a common trope that's clearly not tru
by legitster 4y ago
> The US' military interest in the Middle East seems to be entirely based on the oil reserves in the region.
This is such a common trope that's clearly not true. Afghanistan doesn't have any real oil production, and Iraq had a tiny OPEC quota. To the extent that oil production had any real strategic purpose in the US conflicts, it was the income they provided local regimes.
- megaman821 4y agoMy answer to that would be that the US was/is very concerned about spillover conflict. A few aggressive countries could easily draw the whole region in. Why is the US so less concerned about South East Asia or Africa than the Middle East?
- ethbr0 4y agoBecause it's no longer the 1960s and the Trotskyist concept of permanent revolution is kaput?
- jcranmer 4y agoIf you're looking at it narrowly in terms of US's actual invasions, perhaps. But the US foreign policy in the Middle East has generally been directed towards "keep the oil flowing" to such a degree that there's not really any other coherent vision or grand strategy at play in that region.
- dpkirchner 4y agoIf you want to get pedantic about hyperbole, let's get even more pedantic! Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East, although some consider it to be in the "Greater Middle East" (a recently coined term).
- hindsightbias 4y agoWe built all that infrastructure decades back after Kuwait. Our entire force structure pivoted and remained that way because it was obvious the only thing that stopped Saddam from rolling into the northern Saudi fields was himself. If he'd been smart, he would have kept going and would still be there. Afghanistan and Iraq II and III are just knock-on effects of all that and we're not doing because like MBS for his personality.