Imperial theorists of the 19th century distinguished between the economic and the strategic empire. India was economic empire; Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Suez, Aden were strategic empire, garrisons and bunkering ports guarding the trade routes to the jewel in the crown. This is still a useful distinction. The conquest of Afghanistan was certainly not driven by economic motives. Although significant in .Great Game. terms, strategic motives by themselves would not have prompted so costly a campaign, but coupled with motives of vengeance, the impulse to conquer was irresistible. With the US finding itself already in control of the real estate, old economic motives resurfaced and Unocal, for example, has begun talks with Hamid Karzai about reviving plans for an oil pipeline.
So was the invasion of Iraq, like that of Afghanistan, a strategic conquest with the economic empire manifesting itself in its wake? Or was it primarily a war for oil, an economic conquest? Or was it mainly to exploit Iraq.s location in the heart of the Middle East to carry out some demented, neo-con policy of democratization, waving the neomagic wand, making Iraq so shining an example to all the Middle East that all would flock to the democratic banner?
Read the full article