Big Picture Thinking

[Chaerophon]

...but to some extent, they become 'American' nonetheless. Aye, I know, not strictly speaking. America is not imperialist in this sense; however, once the American 'way' becomes the way of the people, there is no turning back and countries become VERY susceptible to becoming branch plant economies to that of the United States. To that extent, democratic "friends" of the United States, without the presence of a "pro-independant ownership" government (such as that in France), will have a large proportion of their corporate infrastructure bought up by American firms - so long as it is profitable.

A variety of news reports caused me to think a little bit, and to think in depth. Your comments appreciated. Exception: 'it's all about oil'

Indeed, this conflict is not "ALL about oil". However, I am extremely curious as to how the imposition of an American-style "free democracy" will impact the American GNP in the long-term. I find it curious that the current administration has done so much damage to the economy at home to (I would contend) markedly little response from the corporate community. Could it be that access to between 220-250 billion barrels of (potential) Iraqi oil reserves would have some lasting impact on the American economy? (sarcasm intended) I'm not suggesting that Americans are attempting to "take over" Iraq in any military sense; rather, it seems apparent to me that with the placement of a "free-trading" democracy in what was formerly a hostile regime participating in the potentially harmful trading practices of OPEC could provide an incredible, perhaps unparalleled, REAL (as in not bogus, read: tech) boost to the American economy.

Let me put it to you this way - I live in a country in which upwards of 70% of our corporate structure is controlled by American interests. Yes, we are neighbours, but I have seen the impact of American corporate imperialism firsthand. Once the material benefits of American ownership are reflected in one's domestic economy, there is no turning back. The diplomatic hostility of the American government towards governing bodies resistant to trade is well documented. Case in point? Pearson's election over Diefenbaker (who, perhaps, could have done himself in on his own), whose pro-Canadian ownership, pro-Canadian independence (yes, this was partially to do with Diefenbaker's unwillingness to arm nuclear warheads; he would not allow himself to be dominated or railroaded) stance enraged Kennedy to the point of publicly supporting the Liberal, and is rumoured (perhaps even documented) to have partially funded his campaign. He viewed Canada as a potential branch-plant of America and wanted a government in place who would live up to those expectations. With the election of Pearson, it became all but formality. (Of course, recent events suggest otherwise... I'm going to assume that this will be the exception, not the rule) Traditionally, Canadians had been anti-free trade; however, once we became 'American', there was no turning back, as our own corporate infrastructure would have no part in it. The values of the Canadian people experienced a marked shift with the influx of American wealth into the economy.

A friendly Iraq with a democratic regime imposed under American supervision would seem to me to be much easier pickings for American corporate interests than was that here in Canada. The conditions need not be set nor supervised by the United Nations for such a democracy - they're not involved, and even if they become involved, the Americans have already demonstrated their relative unimportance. Thus, it seems likely that this war is at least partly motivated out of concern for the economic benefits that will be reaped from its success. Athough you have asked me NOT to respond with "oil" concerns, I do believe that in the long term, we will see a definite, marked impact on the American economy if all goes as Bush and company hope. To my mind, although it may have some greater diplomatic, regional objective, a large portion of this war is motivated by a 'Big Picture' that includes oil and consists of an American economy that is a.) no longer as dependant upon OPEC pricing (I know that you contend that they are not particularly dependant; however, the early and late 70's speak for themselves) and b.) a GNP and GNP per person that could vastly improve, impacting millions of Americans in the long term and ensuring the economic supremecy of the United States for decades to come. Direct access to that kind of a market for oil will, provided the conditions of trade are what the US is hoping for, have just such an impact.

The diplomatic impacts that you discuss are quite intriguing - I would have to say that, with the possible exception of number two which seems a tad fanciful (given the highly organized status of many of these terror groups), they all seem quite credible.