Iraq and Afganistan

[Zigzagman]

It's pretty obvious that very few Americans really give a crap if our Armed Forces are in Iraq or Afghanistan. We seem to celebrate the "sacrifice" of our soldiers, we love to "Support the Troops" and we most love to think that "we are safer". Most people don;t seem to have a problem with the budget deficits that are created by these actions, after all, we support the troops.

In short it seems that the common attitude is that if the military is voluntary, and if our leaders say we need to be in conflict, then who the hell cares.

We live in a wacky world, but mark my words these conflicts will not produce a outcome that is good for anyone. As a Vietnam combat veteran, I look at the service these days as just another form of "corporate greed". "If you pay me enough money, give me a job, then there is no limit to what you can ask of me" - now let's all go pray for our troops!!

Peace

[bae]

I think the best way we can "support the troops" is to bring them home.

[H-work]

I agree, bring 'em home. I'm all for doing away with a standing army. Let the Navy protect our shores and then gather an defensive army when needed.

[Gregg]

It is a wacky world. We, the USA, are funding BOTH sides of the war(s). Writing checks for military conflict on one side and doing absolutely nothing to curb our insatiable thirst for oil on the other. Much of the oil we buy is found under the feet of the people we are fighting with. How hard is it to see that at least some of the money we pay out for oil gets used against us. The only word that comes to mind is, well...stupid. Time to bring 'em home and spend the money on a rational mix of domestic and renewable energy sources.

ETA: Just to be clear on Iraq proper, the US doesn't even end up with most of the oil produced there. China does. Stupid.

[creaker]

It is a wacky world. We, the USA, are funding BOTH sides of the war(s). Writing checks for military conflict on one side and doing absolutely nothing to curb our insatiable thirst for oil on the other. Much of the oil we buy is found under the feet of the people we are fighting with. How hard is it to see that at least some of the money we pay out for oil gets used against us. The only word that comes to mind is, well...stupid. Time to bring 'em home and spend the money on a rational mix of domestic and renewable energy sources.

ETA: Just to be clear on Iraq proper, the US doesn't even end up with most of the oil produced there. China does. Stupid.

Not really. If you look at it in terms of those with a lot of money are much more concerned with making a lot more money than with the welfare of peoples or countries (including their own), it makes a lot of sense.

[peggy]

It is a wacky world. We, the USA, are funding BOTH sides of the war(s). Writing checks for military conflict on one side and doing absolutely nothing to curb our insatiable thirst for oil on the other. Much of the oil we buy is found under the feet of the people we are fighting with. How hard is it to see that at least some of the money we pay out for oil gets used against us. The only word that comes to mind is, well...stupid. Time to bring 'em home and spend the money on a rational mix of domestic and renewable energy sources.

ETA: Just to be clear on Iraq proper, the US doesn't even end up with most of the oil produced there. China does. Stupid.

+1

[bae]

So, if we don't actually get oil from Iraq, and we don't get oil from Afghanistan, how exactly is "the money we pay for oil" funding "the other side"?

[Zigzagman]

So, if we don't actually get oil from Iraq, and we don't get oil from Afghanistan, how exactly is "the money we pay for oil" funding "the other side"?

Depends on the definition of "the other side"!

If you mean the oil oligarchy, the private mercenaries, the arms dealers, the war contractors - yes these wars are funding the other side and in a big way.

If you mean the terrorists - I think that is about the US occupation versus oil.

If you mean a religious war against Islam - for many that appears to be the case.

These wars were both an example of bad foreign policy influenced by emotion, greed, and empire. As much as I dislike "black gold" I don't believe it has much to do with Iraq or Afganistan. That doesn't mean that we would not go to war over natural resources but at least for now I don;t think that is the case.

Peace

[bae]

Depends on the definition of "the other side"!

If you mean the oil oligarchy, the private mercenaries, the arms dealers, the war contractors - yes these wars are funding the other side and in a big way.

Exactly so :-)

[Gregg]

So, if we don't actually get oil from Iraq, and we don't get oil from Afghanistan, how exactly is "the money we pay for oil" funding "the other side"?

Zig hit the nail on the head, but in terms of simple production and usage numbers here's the current stats. The US imports an average of 414,000 bbl/day of crude oil from Iraq or about 1/6 of their production and around 2% of our roughly 20 mbd usage (late 2010 - from the US Energy Information Administration). It's not that we don't get any oil from Iraq, we just don't get much.

An interesting idea to me is the cost to subsidize Iraqi oil. IF we were to consider the Iraq war a resource war and use a round number of $1.5 trillion spent so far over 8 years and an average import of 300,000 bbl/day (it was nearly zero at the start of the war, up to 414,000 bbl/day now) that would mean we have imported about 1.2 billion barrels of oil from Iraq since the war started. Since we don't get much other than oil from Iraq and since it doesn't appear to be a humanitarian action we are involved in there I just divide the war cost by the amount of oil we get and come up with a "military surcharge" of somewhere around $1,240 per barrel that we in the US are paying for Iraqi oil. Over simplified? Of course, but it does shed a little light for me to look at things this way.