Robin is, to be sure, correct that our military does not perform the traditional libertarian task of protecting our borders from invasion. Instead, it protects our interests abroad--and does so well enough that Europe, for all its complaining, is happy to free ride. This suggests that we are, for all our faults, doing a fairly good job of protecting the broader interests of liberal capitalistic democracy. A world in which China and Russia and Iran were using their military might to protect their interests, while we squatted behind our borders, would be possibly a nobler one, but I find it unlikely that it would be a better one in any utilitarian sense.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
That's an odd definition of noble.
It would certainly be a more interesting world, but I'm very glad I don' live there.
The Department of Defense is a nightmare of waste and graft, but the sad reality is that absent that waste and graft for the past six decades, the world would have seen violence and tyranny which dwarfed what has occurred in that period.
Are those the only two scenarios you can imagine?
Megan: The problem with your analysis is that it is very outdated, like Cold Warish.
We once used our army to protect our friends and ourselves. But we do not use our army to do that anymore. A time came when we had no enemies that threatened us or our friends. But we had a big army so what were we to do. We had to use it. For what is the sense of having so many mens ready to fight and so many airplanes ready to drop bombs unless you use them.
So we turned from protecting our friends and ourselves from a pending threat to where we decided to protect all of us from an imaginary threat. Well, if not imaginary, at least a threat that may exist some time far off into the future.
Now having done that, we found that our big army, designed to fight two wars at once, is not big enough protect us from all threats that may occur in the distant future.
So we now plan to make our army even bigger. And with this even bigger army, we will have to use it. For what is the sense of having so many mens ready to fight and so many airplanes ready to drop bombs unless you use them.
And it appears, we will keep fighting off these imaginary threats and increasing our army until some day a real threat comes to pass. Then joy of joys, we can even have a bigger army.
We no long protect with our army, we project with our army.
Iran's military might? Don't forget Brazil's!
Well, it always comes down to figuring out what the real threats, where our real interests lie, and how best to handle them.
As far as increasing our military, I personally think Thomas Barnett has the right take on it. There is a place between war and peace which we are currently not handling very effectively. It is peace keeping, relief missions, stability projects (such as training other countries military,) it is aid projects to help build infrastructure.
All of this, the everything else between the Dept of Defense, and the Dept of State, is what needs to be increased and focused on. If you discount any "great war" happening within the next 50 years, say between Russia and US, or China and US, then what you have is what we've been doing since the early 80's. Taking care of nations which can be described as dysfunctional.
Barnett gave a 25 minute presentation of his ideas at one of the TED conferences. It's well worth watching.
We no long protect with our army, we project with our army.
This shows an appalling lack of context with regards to the history of our nation and military.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/33
An interesting 20 minute talk at the TED conference by Thomas Barnett on restructuring the military into 2 distinct groups, a leviathan force and a sys-admin force.
Llynnoc wrote: So we turned from protecting our friends and ourselves from a pending threat to where we decided to protect all of us from an imaginary threat. Well, if not imaginary, at least a threat that may exist some time far off into the future.
That flotsam only works if you remember to include the part where the WTC towers were taken down by a covert US government action as a pretext for Bush to pull a 180 from something alot like isolationist talk, to the extensive use of the military in foreign theaters.
So we turned from protecting our friends and ourselves from a pending threat to where we decided to protect all of us from an imaginary threat. Well, if not imaginary, at least a threat that may exist some time far off into the future.
So, how do you feel about anthropomorphic global warming???
Really, you should check out the US Navy, and what we've used it for in our history, before making such grand statements.
So we never use our army to protect oil interests, rather we are "protecting the broader interests of liberal capitalistic democracy".
How cute! You actually buy that bunk!
So we never use our army to protect oil interests, rather we are "protecting the broader interests of liberal capitalistic democracy".
How cute! You actually buy that bunk!
So are you saying that protecting a critical component of not only our economy, but the worlds economy, is not in our national interests??
Rickm, oil interests are the interests of liberal capitalistic democracy. Of course, being on the hard left was more fun when you could go to demonstrations (or stand in front of a Harvard classroom) and denounce liberalism, capitalism and democracy. Nowadays, leftists have to phrase it as denunciation of some temporarily unpopular business interest. (Oil companies today, auto companies tomorrow, etc.) O, Rickm, how far you and your comrades have fallen!
Remember that thread about why conservatives are underrepresented in academia? Well I think y81's comment illustrates the point that for many nationalist conservatives, suggesting that oil interests shape American foreign policy is anathema, regardless of the evidence.
oil interests are the interests of liberal capitalistic democracy.
Rickm - how is agreeing with the principle also denunciating it???
Keith-
I never said that you were 'denunciating' it.
My larger point, and complaint, is that oil interests are disproportionately the interests that the architects of foreign policy favor, especially when one limits the analysis regionally, such as the Middle East. There are competing interests to those that shape policy--putting all of those under the rubric of 'capitalist liberal democracy' does little to denote what those interests are, and forces critics of foreign policy into intellectual blackmail ("Are you for or against the interests of liberal capitalist democracy, comrade?"). Complaining that oil interests are overrepresented is not tantamount to complaining that advancing the interests of liberal capitalist democracy is bad. Category error and all that.
So, this "libertarian" thing you're into -- how is it different from neoconservatism?
Thanks for clarifying. Your complaint makes more sense now.
Rickm, I think you ignore the demand of the much larger interest, that of the American consumer/voter to obtain transportation at the cost which is consistent with uninterrupted oil extraction from the Persian Gulf, and thus added to the world's fungible oil stocks. Yes, oil companies are poiwerful, but only because consumer/voters make them so.
Will Allen-
You are right. I do ignore what you pointed out, because it has nothing to do with anything I'm talking. What are you suggesting anyway? That its impossible for oil companies to have a disproportionate influence of foreign policy, because consumers buy their product, and in effect are giving tacit support for the companies to pursue their interests? Why do you assume that one cannot simultaneously buy oil and complain about the oil companies influence on US foreign policy?
RickM wrote: Why do you assume that one cannot simultaneously buy oil and complain about the oil companies influence on US foreign policy?
Actually, one can, but it's a little hard to follow the reasoning of "disproportionate" influence when oil stocks are the primary reason anyone has been puttering around in the Middle East for any reason since oil first obtained mainstream economic uses.
Especially when 80% of everything in the room you are sitting in -- particularly the computer that enables your postings -- is made of oil products or depended upon them for energy, which in turn depends on the uninterrupted flow of world oil stocks. It may be a little unsettling to see the fundamentals of western lifestyle summarized in the periodic military adventure, but I somehow doubt that most of the respondants would really be willing to undergo the kind of pains necessary to break free from foreign oil.
"... Instead, it protects our interests abroad ..."
Our military is not protecting our interests in Iraq, it is saving face for cowards in Washington who don't have the guts to admit that the Iraq war was a disasterous mistake.
anony-mouse,
Let me clarify: By 'disproportionate' I mean crafting policy in order to satisfy short term oil interests at the expense of long-term national security.
Yes, RickM, you can complain about anything you want. It is silly, however, to complain about the disproportionate power that a corporation has, when is only has the disproportionate power because you demand the products the corporation provides. One might even say it is childish.
Precisely, anony-mouse. Let me know when people stop demanding cheap gasoline, along with many other products, and then, and only then, will complaining about the disproportionate power of oil interests have any relevance. The disproportionate influence of oil interests is only a proportionate reflection of what the vast majority of people value. Rickm's complaint is really that the vast majority of people do not value what Rickm thinks they should value.
So let me follow this logic:
One can only complain about a corporation's power in foreign policy if and only if one derives no benefit from that corporation's power in other realms. Otherwise it the complaint is irrelevant and/or childish.
"The disproportionate influence of oil interests is only a proportionate reflection of what the vast majority of people value."
That's assuming consumers KNOW what the impact of their decisions are. Thats a silly and childish assumption.
That's assuming consumers KNOW what the impact of their decisions are. Thats a silly and childish assumption.
I suspect 90%-plus of US consumers do know that a lot of oil comes from Middle East. In fact, they probably overestimate the percentage in their minds because it is the "Middle Eastern oil" the media is always talking about -- not Norwegian or Canadian or Scottish or Russian... or local... maybe Alaska and Venezuela get a little air time.
I suspect 90%-plus of US consumers do know that a lot of oil comes from Middle East.
Max, there is a significant difference between knowing "where it comes from" and knowing what effect something has.
No, RickM, whether or not people grasp what the impact of their decisons are is irrelevant to what forces are put in motion by those decisions. Now, it may be true that if they were more fully grasp the impact of their decisions, they MIGHT decide differently, and thus put in motion different forces, or the same forces to a different degree. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that those forces are set in motion by people's ignorance of the impact of their decisions. If you want to complain about how oil demand shapes U.S. policy, fine, but oil demand is not a function of oil interests, unless oil interests are so broadly defined as to include everybody who consumes the stuff.
I've never understood the claim that the war was about protecting oil interests.
If that is what we cared about - all we would need to do is avoid anything that would threaten the status quo in the Middle East. It doesn't matter who controls the oil, they are still going to sell it on the market. We were never threatened by the oil embargo in the 70s (at least until we screwed ourselves with price controls).
It's just silly (right or left) to pretend the war was about oil. Upsetting the status quo in the Middle East, which is what we very deliberately did, would be the last thing we would do if keeping the oil flowing was a priority.
If we fought the war over oil, why didn't we at least make an effort to control the oil?
Rob-
I never said "the" War was about oil. I said US policies in the Middle East are largely driven by US oil interests, especially in the Cold War. Its no coincidence that the merger of ARAMCO and the announcement of the Truman Doctrine occurred on the same day.
If you are looking for academic treatment on the subject, check out Irene Gendzier's Notes from the Minefield: US Intervention in Lebanon.
RickM -
I wasn't directing my comment at you or anyone else specific. Just the common refrain you hear from the left (no blood for oil) AND the right (protect oil interests). Both of which I think are equally silly.
I'm of the opinion the US policy towards the Middle East during the cold war had more to do with containing the Soviets than 'protecting oil interests.' But I had to look up Aramco and I confess I didn't read the article you cited - so maybe I'm just ignorant.
Not to say that oil interests don't have an effect on policy. But in my opinion, the big decisions like supporting less than nice regimes in the Middle East during the cold war or invading Kuwait or Irag, or opposing Iranian nukes just aren't driven by oil interests.
French and Russian policy towards the Middle East seems to be much more driven by mercantilist oil interests than the US.
Rob, if the oil in the Persian Gulf suddenly appeared underneath Australia tonight, we would have our troops out of Iraq and the greater Persian Gulf within a year, because there would be no more reason to have them there than in, say, Zaire.
To answer your question, Rob, we aren't ruthless colonialists anymore, and we never were as ruthless as the European powers. That isn't to say that we aren't going to protect our interests with regard to the natural resource which is most crucial to the gobal economy, and thus to the U.S. economy.
Rickm's complaint is really that the vast majority of people do not value what Rickm thinks they should value.
Will, that's EVERYONE'S complaint.
Otherwise, there would be no complaining going on.
if the oil in the Persian Gulf suddenly appeared underneath Australia tonight, we would have our troops out of Iraq and the greater Persian Gulf within a year
That's not what our President keeps saying. He says we're there to fight The Terrorists. Who weren't there before we were there, but now they are there so we have to stay there.
Are you saying that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was primarily about oil?
It's just silly (right or left) to pretend the war was about oil. Upsetting the status quo in the Middle East, which is what we very deliberately did, would be the last thing we would do if keeping the oil flowing was a priority.
You're missing the better conspiracy theory, Rob. Remember, Cheney had that secret Energy Task Force meeting with the heads of Big Oil shortly after taking office? And now we have evidence that the admin. was looking for ways to start a war in Iraq almost from day one?
You assume that "keeping the oil flowing" was their priority. What is the primary consequence, economically, of Middle East instability? Who benefits from a runup in the price of oil? What better way to instigate a runup in the price of oil than artificially stimulating a shortage by taking a huge chunk of production off the market, and generating fear of threats to the remaining supply?
Could the Bush/Cheney admin have secretly plotted to allow 9/11 to go forward, with the President just happening to be safely in Florida that day, knowing that the resultant surge of anger and desire for revenge would give them the leverage they needed to initiate their war in Iraq, thus destabilizing the oil market and pushing the price of oil to all-time highs?
It's a tinfoil hat theory. It sounds ludicrous; and yet, it's not easily disprovable.
No, liberalrob, people frequently complain about supposed cabals of various types which thwart the majority from getting what they value. As for President Bush, he is dishonest, as all Presidents are, because the electorate of the United States has as much interest in electing an honest person as they have in giving up television. We are drawn into the conflicts of the Persian Gulf and wider muslim world because our citizens, like people all over the world, demand that the oil in that region be extracted.
Whoever controls the oil is still going to sell it on the market. The Middle East matters because of militant Arab and Persian terrorists, Israel, insane bad guys with WMDs, etc. Much of that is no-doubt influenced by oil. The natural resource curse allows corrupt regimes to stay in power AND gives them funds to export problems abroad. Oil is relevant, but not for the obvious reason.
We don't need to control the oil. We don't need friends to control the oil. 'The natural resource which is most crucial to the global economy' is going to keep flowing regardless. There's just no credible threat that anyone could cut off the flow of oil to the US.
We might not want real bad guys to get rich off the oil and cause trouble, but that is more than just a semantic difference from what many are claiming.
liberalrob,
I'm going to stick with theories that don't assume politicians are evil mad scientists. It's hard to disprove that flying purple monkeys aren't circling just out of sight, but I'm not going to waste my time refuting the idea.
-- classicallyliberalrob
In the long run, yes, Rob, the oil will flow. The electorate doesn't care about the long run. They want the oil to flow tomorrow, and the tomorrow after that, etc., on an uninterrupted basis. Persian Gulf politics has shut off the oil for short periods in the past, and could do so again in the future, and billions of people all over the world simply won't stand for it, and politicians would lose their jobs if it did. As a result, we are inevitably forced into alliances with despotic regimes in the area, Saudi Arabia most importantly. Being aligned with the House of Saud carries with it conflict with other entities in the region.
The House of Saud didn't want us invading Iraq. They'd prefer we didn't stir up trouble over there and they'd really prefer that we keep Persians and Shiites from controlling Iraq. Like most alliances we're together when we are and aren't when we aren't.
The embargoes of the 70's could've and should've been ignored. The oil shortages in the US were self-inflicted.
And being somewhat just a little bit in the electoral business - it's my opinion that the electorate doesn't have a coherent general foreign policy preference towards the Persian Gulf or other oil states and certainly not any preference that has been electorally significant.
The war won Bush a second term, but I think attitudes towards terrorism and Islamo-fascism had far more to do with opinions on the war than oil. (Please spare me the comments about vote stealing - I've heard them all before).
I'd want to see some pretty compelling evidence that public opinion on the availability of oil is influencing elections in the US to any significant degree.
I'm going to stick with theories that don't assume politicians are evil mad scientists.
You're no fun. :-)
Rob, please point out where I wrote that being in an alliance with a state meant doing everything that ally desired. Could've and should've are as meaningful as New Year's resolutions. The fact is that there is no American Presdient who will risk the fallout from having Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi, oil extraction interrupted for even a few weeks, and that has nothing to do with any lack of coherence regarding foreign policy on the part of the electorate. If you truly believe that the price of oil in unimportant to economic conditions generally, or the price of gasoline more specifically, and that those conditions do not have an impact on politicians' popularity, and thus their behavior, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough, Will, you didn't say that. I merely thought one significant contrary example would cast some doubt on the theory.
US policy towards the Middle East just isn't consistent with the theory that US actions are predicated on never risking the flow of oil.
Of course oil prices are significant. I just don't agree that the availability or price of oil is or will be much affected by who controls one (very significant) source of it. Even if they don't sell to the US, they sell to someone else freeing up other oil to be purchased for US consumption. It's a commodity after all.
I'd also have to say that the past several years' gas price swings in the US have had remarkably little fall out politically.
You are right about at least one thing. Could've and should've are weak word choices and muddied the point I attempted but apparently failed to make. My point was that the disruptions to the US economy were caused by bad US policy decisions in response to the embargo, not the embargo itself.
Rob, point out one U.S. action which has in the past 30 years ever entailed increasing the risk that Saudi extraction would ever be interrupted for even a brief period. This of course doesn't prove that uninterrupted Saudi extraction is the paramount goal of U.S. policy in the Gulf, but it sure is sure is consistent with the notion.
Again, however, you seem to focus on the long term inevitability of extraction while ignoring the fact that politicians don't live in the long term. George Bush over the next 14 months is as likely as any President is ever going to be to run the risk of even a somewhat short term interruption, because most President are either trying to get re-elected, or their VP elected, and having the price of oil shoot to $200 a barrel or more just ain't going to be very helpful in that regard. That means that it is overwhelmingly likely that any U.S. President is going to be interested in the House of Saud remaining in power, because it is hard to envision a situation where the House of Saud falls, and there is no interruption in extraction. Being interested in the House of Saud's retention of power inevitably brings us into conflict with other entities in the region.
I will also point out that there is a non-trivial correlation between the price of gasoline and Presidential popularity. No, correlation doesn't prove causation, but if you think politicians are so fine in their discernment between the two, well, we'll have to agree to disagree yet again.
Actually, it might be that the presence of the US prevents the Iran/Russia/China type states of the world that keeps them on the same side. Given that up until recently China and Russia were as likely to fight eachother as to band together against the US, without the common enemy one would imagine the PRC and Russian Federation butting heads more often (Of course, Russia has petroleum too, but possession of valuable natural resources can incite antagonism as often as it prevents it, especially when lots of those gas fields are right next door)
Without having to worry about the 800-pound American gorilla, states would probably start up a number of arms races, simply because you'll get more "return" on military investment when you only have to build up your military strong enough to beat your neighbors. US military power probably encourages a state to seek political and economic associations to oppose the US, rather than building up its military (or at least seek military alliances with neighbors), which in turn might decrease the likelihood of regional conflict. Of course, I could be entirely wrong but it's interesting to think anti-Americanism prevents some conflicts.
This is all sheer idiocy. Russia is not going to "take back" any lost territories, as Megan imagined in her earlier post, because those territories ARE NOT POPULATED BY RUSSIANS and Russia learned a fairly clear lesson from 1979-89 in Afghanistan. It is transparently clear that the US would do nothing to intervene in an interstate war in sub-Saharan Africa, yet such wars do not occur - because there are no benefits to them. No one wants to govern more territory; it's a loser for modern governments to have to take care of more people who don't currently owe them allegiance.
In the Congo conflict of the late '90s, Uganda and Rwanda sent troops to take over sections of eastern DRC not to govern or incorporate them, but to a. eliminate non-state military actors who were raiding and threatening their own territories, and b. to profit from resource extraction in the mineral-rich territory without actually conquering it. Notice two things: 1. US military might did nothing to deter this; the key variable was the complete breakdown of the Congolese state. That situation will never be replicated in Europe or Asia. 2. Even with the military conflicts, MINERALS CONTINUED TO FLOW TO THE MARKET UNIMPEDED. There is no economic rationale for the US's vast military forces. They are protecting exactly nothing.
To put things another way: the reason why Russia is not going to invade Latvia is approximately the same as the reason why the US is not going to invade Cuba.
If the question (and pardon me for restating it, I don't mean to changes the terms of the discussion)is US foreign policy towards the Middle East driven (or should be driven) largely by concern that oil exports continue unimpeded from the region and particularly from Saudi Arabia - I don't agree for the simple reason that no significant effort would be necessary on the US's part to be assured that oil exports would continue.
I would agree that the US prefers the current Saudi regime to any other likely successor regime largely because the regime is stable, predictable, and avoids doing anything very contrary to US interests. I don't think that preference requires much effort on the US's part nor do I think it trumps other US interests in the region.
Finally, cutting off oil to the US isn't a very credible threat for any Saudi government. If it's just a threat to cut off oil exports to the US market, the markets will adjust, oil flows will redistribute and the US will import just as much oil as before at largely the same prices, with only some disruption. It's a silly threat. By limiting their market, the Saudis would hurt their price as much or more than they would hurt the US.
There simply is no credible threat that the Saudis would shut off all oil exports. It would implode the Saudi regime internally and threaten Europe and Asia as much or more than the US. And frankly, I think the US public would rally around any President who had to face that threat.
In my opinion, the idea that US foreign policy is driven in any major way by oil policy is just goofy.
And to answer your question - invading Iraq carried with it a risk of interrupting oil extraction in S.A. It wasn't a likely risk, but it was possible. Frankly I'm at a loss as to what US policy short of a direct threat to remove the Saudi regime would be likely to risk an interruption is S.A. oil exports for the simple fact that the current Saudi regime would be risking their own survival from internal dissent if oil revenues stopped flowing.
" And now we have evidence that the admin. was looking for ways to start a war in Iraq almost from day one?"
Is this why the Bush administration, "almost from day one", made a major push to improve the UN sanctions against Iraq? During the spring of 2001, before Sept. 11, the administration tried hard to make the sanctions work more efficiently at letting in legitimate items while blocking those with military uses. Bush bought off Chinese opposition by agreeing to overlook the role that companies such as Huawei had played in helping Saddam. France also had objections, but in the end I think it was Russia that blocked the changes.
Why would Bush make such an effort to fix the sanctions regime, when more efficient sanctions would take away a major reason for invasion?
In my opinion, the idea that US foreign policy is driven in any major way by oil policy is just goofy. - Rob
Well, apparently you think the President and Vice President are "goofy", since "ensuring safe access to Middle Eastern oil" is among their stated priorities for US Mideast policy.
In any case, the chief concern hasn't been ensuring cheap and abundant oil -- not since the recession of the OPEC embargo threat in the '80s. The chief concern has been insuring that it is American oil extraction and consulting firms that reap the profits from the Mideastern oil business. The reason the oil industry financed Iraqi opposition groups and neo-con think tanks was because an invasion of Iraq presented a golden opportunity for American oil firms to wrest control of Iraqi oil fields away from French and Russian firms. Halliburton already reaped its billions from the invasion. It turned out to have miscalculated, though: due to the insurgency and civil war, the security costs of operating in Iraq turned out to be so high that they couldn't turn a profit. Or at least, that's what they claim.
Good grief, Rob, it is hard to have a dialogue with someone who imagines that were never written. No, the Saudis aren't going to cut off oil exports, but that has exactly nothing to do with the U.S. preference for the House of Saud's rule, or more accurately, that is why the U.S. has supported the House of Saud. That support inevitably entails conflict with other entities.
Good grief, Rob, it is hard to have a dialogue with someone who imagines that were never written. No, the Saudis aren't going to cut off oil exports, but that has exactly nothing to do with the U.S. preference for the House of Saud's rule, or more accurately, that is why the U.S. has supported the House of Saud. That support inevitably entails conflict with other entities.
To restate, to ensure there is not another misunderstading, the U.S. supports the House of Saud, for the reasons you state, and support for the House of Saud inevitably entails conflict with other entities.
Why would Bush make such an effort to fix the sanctions regime, when more efficient sanctions would take away a major reason for invasion?
Political pressure at home. He needed to make at least a token effort at diplomacy, to defuse the argument that he was shortchanging diplomacy and rushing into military action. It was a win-win, too: if the sanctions improvements had been passed, he could "discover" violations of them and use that as further pretext for war. If they were not passed, he could argue that he had tried diplomacy but his hands had been tied. In either case he was forced to act to "defend" the country by invading Iraq.
Aren't conspiracy theories fun? In the absence of verifiable evidence to the contrary, they are self-sustaining.
Rob, point out one U.S. action which has in the past 30 years ever entailed increasing the risk that Saudi extraction would ever be interrupted for even a brief period. This of course doesn't prove that uninterrupted Saudi extraction is the paramount goal of U.S. policy in the Gulf, but it sure is sure is consistent with the notion.
Good grief, Rob, it is hard to have a dialogue with someone who imagines that were never written. No, the Saudis aren't going to cut off oil exports, but that has exactly nothing to do with the U.S. preference for the House of Saud's rule, or more accurately, that is why the U.S. has supported the House of Saud. That support inevitably entails conflict with other entities.
??
brooksfoe -
I think that politicians often use rhetoric that sounds good but is not a true reflection of their reason for taking an action. Citing access to oil in the mid-east as justification for invading Iraq certainly qualifies as goofy.
As to the claim that the US invaded Iraq in order to enrich US oil companies and defense contractors - I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I think the claim is out there in tin-foil hat land; but, there's really no point in having that conversation. If you honestly think that, we are so far apart in our views of the world that intelligent conversation between us probably isn't possible.
Ah, I see the point of confusion, and I apologize for the unclear writing. When I wrote "Saudi extraction", I should have written "extraction from the area now governed by the House of Saud."
Well, Rob, it may be true that the conversation would not go well, but I think if you don't believe that oil companies have gotten their money's worth with the subsidies they've provided to neo-con think tanks who promoted regime change in Iraq, you're naive.
I don't think that these companies' influence was the ONLY driver behind the US's invasion of Iraq. I think it was a substantial enabling factor, and that if US oil companies had been opposed to a US invasion of Iraq, the idea never would have gone anywhere. The invasion of Iraq, like most large-scale historical events, was greatly overdetermined; it had multiple causes. But if you're looking at why the US invaded a brutal secular dictatorship called Iraq, while it would never invade a brutal religious dictatorship called Saudi Arabia, you can't discount the fact that the oil companies making money in Iraq largely weren't American, and the ones making money in Saudi Arabia are.
I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory. I'm talking about the very obvious fact that US policy in any area is always heavily influenced by powerful constituencies tied to the governing party, and that oil companies are such a powerful constituency, particularly under a GOP administration led by former oilmen and Texans. This is not tinfoil hat stuff; it's democratic politics in action. It's simply absurdly naive to pretend that big industries don't have influence and don't act to promote their interests.
Will, I agree that the US prefers the current Saudi regime to any likely successor regime. I don't think that preference is largely due to the concern that the successor regime will stop exporting oil (or reduce their exports to any significant degree). Whoever controls Saudi Arabia is going to export oil.
Brooksfoe, I'm sure we could have a civil discussion, but, we wouldn't find many areas of understanding, much less agreement and the tail end of this thread certainly isn't the place to try. I recognize that lots of people agree with what you are claiming - so I don't mean to be dismissive, just practical.
Rob, for some reason you continue to think that I have asserted that there may be an entity which would control that area and not extract the oil. Again, I have not. That isn't even close to saying, however, that extraction would definitely not be greatly disrupted in the transition from the House of Saud to another government, or that the new government would place the same sort of emphasis on extraction as the House of Saud. Saddam Hussein and the Baathists certainly didn't. This is why American Presidents support the House of Saud, despite the conflicts which inevitably flow from such support.
I believe it is conventional wisdom that any successor regime to the Saudi monarchy would most likely be some variety of theocracy inimical to our interests in the region (i.e. oil and Israel) to an even greater degree than we now face.
Personally I believe such a successor regime is inevitable.