A War for Oil?

Brendan O'Neill of Spiked fame takes a jab at the "war for oil theorists":

Rather than understanding the war and what is driving it, many of the opponents of the war have evaded the real issues - instead going for a one-size-fits-all explanation by wheeling out well-rehearsed arguments about the West's interest in oil...[Instead] It is a war with no clear strategic aims, carried out primarily for domestic and political purposes and to galvanise audiences at home and abroad. In this sense, the oil-critical opponents have completely missed the point...

One of the better points O'Neill makes is that those who buy the war-for-oil thesis run the risk of embracing a position that is actually an "expression of powerlessness in the face of big bad corporate interests," thus making them "more cynical of Western powers than critical of them."

Fair enough. His overall argument is useful in exposing the pitfalls of the leftist tendency of adopting the "economic determinist" worldview. However, the conclusion that the war in Afghanistan is being perpetuated because "everything is out of control" seems extraordinarily weak.

True, the war against Afghanistan came about partly because Al-Qaeda's amorphous structure meant there wasn't a clear adversary. But while 9/11 was a massive blow, there has been no credible reason or logic given for attacking that country. The war so far has clearly bypassed the rule of international law, and, quite frankly, has never even been justified, in any sense, with a show of evidence. Plus, considering the relationship the US has had with the Taliban, it's ridiculous to be triumphant about displacing them from power. To take the moral highground on that position - which the US has done, almost exclusively, because it's the only tangible "benefit" the war has brought - requires a distinct sense of historical amnesia.

In short, we did not go to war against Afghanistan solely for oil. O'Neill, like many, seems to accept the assumption that the US needed to strike a blow at someone, in order to maintain a sense of credibility, and assuage the grief at home. But accepting such a premise doesn't discount the "war for oil" thesis. Military planners, I would expect, can hold more than one idea in their mind at once and seem to have a historical tendency of using certain "noble" aims to mask the more insidious ones that would be less palatable for the American public. At base, oil is the prime reason for our involvement, and concern, with the "stability" of the Afghan country. The US and several related multinationals have a clear interest in making Afghanistan safe for their investments. 9/11 seemed to give us carte blanche to launch a campaign which would have been politically impossible, even though it was politically desirable, before September.