[chaostheory]

This is bad logic if you look at the bigger picture. So you’re saying that the US spends money for coups only to have China swoop in for the diplomatic win? Instability is also bad for US conglomerates to take advantage of the situation.

[ericmay]

Not to mention everyone always assigns extreme competence to these conspiracy theories… yet the US couldn’t see that China would swoop in for a diplomatic win? C’mon.

[jessaustin]

Don't believe the marketing for our many stupid wars. It's never about democracy or women's rights or education or business or terrorism or even oil. (You know this, because none of our wars have ever improved any situation with respect to any of these supposed values.) The only point, ever, is to sell more weapons manufactured in USA. All of our stupid media and stupid politics are subordinate to this tawdry motivation.

For this purpose, it's actually better if Africans can momentarily imagine better lives, before their hopes are dashed again by more violent coups.

[chaostheory]

It is actually not about selling weapons. It is about getting access to natural resources such as oil and rare earth metals for things like chips. For that, you need stability in order to do business. Constant coups and armed insurrections is counter productive, which is why these types of conspiracy theories fall apart.

[jessaustin]

The first Iraq war could credibly be argued as improving USA commercial access to resources. A more tenuous argument could be made for our current ongoing occupation of Syria. However, which of these African interventions has improved the access of USA interests to natural resources? I can't identify any? Were you going to suggest Libya?

This thread is funny, because at the top the "fallacy of USA government competence" is invoked to argue in favor of our ghastly policies, and here you argue in favor of those same policies by assuming such competence. CIA, "special" forces, and less well known unsupervised services aren't in any sense a part of our government anyway. They are separate entities, and they pursue their own agendas.

[chaostheory]

> However, which of these African interventions has improved the access of USA interests to natural resources? I can't identify any?

It didn’t happen because China beat us to it with their One Belt Road. Despite bad strategy and poor foresight, it doesn’t weaken my argument that US intervention is mainly about getting access to natural resources.

In certain cases like Libya, it was to protect US strategic interests like maintaining USD as the global reserve currency. It was rumored that Libya was willing to deal with euros instead of dollars for oil.

Nothing you wrote backs up the nonsensical conspiracy theory that the US intervention is primarily for sowing chaos and disorder, or selling weapons. We can’t even compete price wise with modern manufacturers of weapons like the AK47 in Eastern Europe or Asia. Of the few countries in Africa that the US sell arms to, they tend to be more stable than other countries in the continent.

[jessaustin]

You keep typing the phrase "conspiracy theory", but that shibboleth is only potent for weak minds. Adults understand that temporarily coinciding interests are sufficient to coordinate action. We don't have to locate any particular smoke-filled backroom. We observe actions and results, and attribute repeated results to the actions that typically precede them.

We spend a trillion dollars a year on our military, without even considering military "aid" or the spending of allies. Unlike the AK47 you cite, American military weapons are mostly not fit for the purpose of "winning" wars: we haven't "won" a war since 1945. Since our armaments manufacturers don't have to worry about value or functionality, a great deal of money sloshes about in search of media producers, pundits, think tanks, retired officers, and politicians to influence. USA itself is completely safe from "conventional" military threats (of course all humanity lives in the shadow of nuclear annihilation), so talk of "security" is just more marketing. In the first half of the twentieth century, resource firms like United Fruit did control policy in the way you describe. Since then, because they must spend most of their money actually extracting resources, they've been outbid by the armaments manufacturers.

"Belt and Road" is investment plus a clumsy marketing campaign. American firms are certainly capable of that. Why haven't they chosen to invest in these areas? One possible reason would be the ongoing violence; perhaps they had a better idea of the schedule than the Chinese had. I've seen no evidence that China has reaped huge profits from this project, particularly in Africa.

Suppose you're right, though. Suppose that none of the carnage is for its own sake. Your preferred justification then is colonial resource extraction? What kind of justification is that? Why should the average American care about Chevron's profits? Why should we care what currency Libya accepts in exchange for its own oil? (Do you suggest that Russia's preference for rubles or even renminbi is a justification for the current mess?) Why should we kill and bleed and toil and pay, for that?

[ericmay]

Yea I agree. I wish Republicans would stop creating new ones ya know?

I’m also surprised at how small the defense industry is. What do you think we do to support tech companies? Do you think wars in Africa can be traced back to government support for Netflix and Stripe? Maybe we’re not supporting the defense industry, but actually supporting someone else behind the scenes yea?