Today marks the 75th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. While it is important to take a moment and remember those that died upon that day, it is also important to recognize the impact in US international policy that arose from the tragedy of that day.
While WWI initialized the US entrance onto the world scene, its participation and impact on the outcome of WWII was when the US began to formulate and enforce an international theme. One that ties energy, nation building, and the spilling of American blood in ways that make one ill.
Before December 7, 1941, the US was on the sidelines. Watching, observing, positioning itself to protect its own interests. It is not a secret that FDR was not a fan of the current policy. However, I do not believe in any manner that FDR purposely wanted the Japanese to attack. Rather, I think FDR was naïve on how determined the bad actors of WWII were in meeting their goals. We call Japan by its singular name now; pre WWII it was the Empire of Japan. Empire creates an unmistakable desire to grow through the acquisition of land. That is why we called it the Roman Empire, The British Empire, etc. The conquest of lands grew an empire, granted access to resources, and required the spilling of a significant amount of blood. It’s why England, France, and Spain all came to the new world we now call America…..
Japan’s target with the south pacific and Korea, but it needed the resource of oil for the conquest of war. People forget the US was a major exporter of oil in the early part of the 20th century. We had a glut and our own internal appetite was not yet mature. While FDR’s cutting off the oil supply was morally correct in not supporting imperialism, its unintended consequence was the attack by Japan. Blood for oil, or in this case, a lack of it for Japan.
This theme keeps re-occurring now in US policy. Sometime the US has been the aggressor and sometimes the responder. The answer is not always obvious, but obfuscated in political garbage. Here are some, but not all, examples in recent history:
The Gulf War with Iraq 1990
Over as quick as it started, the US led coalition had very little to do with the liberation of Kuwait and the interest of freedom. It had everything to do with keeping world oil supplies safe and prices constant. While most Americans think this was a “one and done”, this operation kept US forces at odds with Iraq through most of the 1990’s under both the Bush 41 and Clinton Administrations.
Was this the precursor to the Iraq War?
The Iraq War 2003
On the surface, this was part of W’s Bush Doctrine, since Iraq was no doubt a state sponsor of terror. Did it require an invasion? Could we not have bombed the crap out of them and left them to rot? Did the fact that Iraq had oil reserves in the top 3 globally have anything to do with it? I personally think that 43 hit the button for several reasons – finish the job 41 was accused of not doing, wipe out a terror state, build a democratic republic, and get the inroad to that huge supply of oil. Well, we know how that ended.
Operation Odyssey Dawn Libyan Intervention 2011
Didn’t know this one had a name, did ya? It was known as a military intervention enforcing UN Resolution 1973 with bombing of the Libyan forces. But why? Let’s think back – Qaddafi had not been an issue since Reagan dropped a bomb on him in 1986. He had renounced terrorism and WMD in 2003 to the world. Libya had been removed as a state sponsor of terror in 2007. They were quiet and not causing any trouble to anyone.
So what happened? Fear of terrorism plays a part – Al Megrahi, the mind behind the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 was released in 2009 and returned to Libya as a folk hero. This causes a stink internationally. Libya starts seeing some internal issues with this mans return, starting fires they don’t want. In turn, Qaddafi makes a move to bolster defenses. In 2010, Russia sells Libya a weapons deal worth 1.8 billion USD and this places DC on alert. Could the US have been the one to make this deal? Absolutely if Obama had had any sense of the region.
Also, the US Senate is having a fit the oil giant British Petroleum (BP) lobbied to get Al Megrahi released…
Did all of this intersect?
Of course. Let’s look at oil production. From 1990 to 2009, Libya averaged between 1400 and 1800 barrels a day of production. That falls off a cliff in 2010. That is the same year BP starts drilling off the Libyan Coast. 2010 is also the year Mother Russia comes onto the world stage as a new leader in oil production. What’s a few weapons for slowing down production of free market oil…..
In March of 2011, The Libyan Civil War officially ensues as part of the Arab Spring. For some reason, the US and its allies back the rebels against Qaddafi. My guess is someone got pissed off over the slowdown in oil production and what appeared to be an alliance in the making with Russia. From the US military support in March 2011 until the summer of 2012, Libyan oil production went back. All of this is at http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?country=ly&product=oil&graph=production
Well, we know what happened on 9-11-2012 don’t we?
Now you why.
Syria 2012, 2014 to present
Bet you thought this was about overthrowing an evil dictator to spread freedom in the middle east and protect the helpless, right? Well, there is some degree of truth in that. But if Barry O hated the Iraq War so much, then why do similar actions in Syria? Let’s dig around for some facts.
In 2009, the Arab state of Qatar, a MAJOR supplier of natural gas, proposes a new pipeline to the EU that would cross Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. That pipeline would have brought an entire new supply line of gas to the EU. Why is this important? Well, our comrades in Russia sell 80% of their natural gas supplied by state company Gazprom to the EU. Lots of energy dollars here. LOTS…. The US under Barry O likes this plan of disruption, as it would hurt Russia.
Deceased Syrian President Hafez Assad learned to fly jets in Russia. In 1970, he visited Moscow and they got a weapons pipeline going. Syria was even counted as part of the Eastern Block of the former Soviet Union. In short, Russia and Syria have a history. Here is more on this topic: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-22
Bashar Al-Assad came into power in 2010 when his dad Syrian President Hafez Assad croaks of a heart attack. Putin moves in like a hawk to befriend Bashar. Bashar refuses to grant permission for this pipeline. Russia has been at his beck and call ever since and will continue to be. So, for anyone to think the US, UN, or ANY coalition is going to knock out Bashar without getting military with Russia is nuts. Here is a great article on the topic: http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74
So why people says it’s about making Syria a democracy (nation building), I think it’s about the money involved in energy. And you libs thought Barry was benevolent? The deaths involved around this conflict, pushed by Obama, are one of the many reasons I penned him Barry the Butcher some time back.
Paid for with the blood of the brave and of the innocent.
75 Years and no one has learned a damn thing.