- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I agree. I think access to oil, leases, pipeline routes, etc. are real geostrategic concerns and potential sweeteners to push a war, but I don't think they are the 'reason' for these wars.
Add to the reasons you gave: Petroleum markets appear to loathe uncertainty and volatility above all else. Their denizens lose billions on fluctuations, not least because they disrupt time lines on new high-risk exploration projects, lease negotiations, financing, the acqquisition of partners to assume risk in field initiation, access to refinery facilities, downstream marketing lags, etc. (I know, poor oil companies!)
I think these wars are about exercising power, fundamentally. And I think the people who push them, the entire apparatus of them in all their complex interconnections, really believe they are doing something important and righteous. That is a lot scarier, to me, than the idea that it's 'blood for oil'. But it also seems to fit.
