Ulterior motive - UK in Iraq?

Dauphin · March 26, 2003, 20:33

France and Russia are said to be against war because of their economic interests there that will likely be diminished.

Germany is against because the leadership was elected on anti-US sentiment

The US is said to be there for oil, global willy wangling, and revenge.

So why is the UK in this war? What's their angle? I haven't heard a potentially convincing argument. Wanting to remain Bush's poodle is hardly an incentive to play fetch with hand grenades.

Skanky Burns · March 26, 2003, 20:36

Why? It works for Australia.

Sandman · March 26, 2003, 20:43

Tragically, Blair does actually think that he's doing good. And he's too proud to back down.

Spiffor · March 26, 2003, 20:50

There are several reasons the UK might want to participate in this war.

IIRC, the UK is heavily dependant on the US for its military technology. The UK cannot afford to radically piss the US if it wants to keep a modern army. The UK is also playing its international status : by being US' top ally, it has a diplomatic importance to be reckoned with, and has an influence on US policies. In this crisis, the UK has been the only country with some influence on the US.
The UK would have to reconsider its grand diplomatic scheme radically, if it stopped being the US' lapdog.

There is also a European reason : until now, the UK has always been an opponent to further European integration. Every time a new step is being made to a more supranational Europe, the UK has dragged its feet. The UK has been consistent in trying to limit Europe to a Free-market zone. Call this "splendid isolation" or a sheer will to keep as much independance as possible from Brussels, the UK has always been cautious / hostile to the evolutions of the EEC or the EU.
From the beginning of the crisis, France and Germany, the 2 other European majors, opposed the war. At the end of January, they even tried to push for a common European stance on the issue. The UK will try to undermine the emergence of such a Common Foreign and Security Policy. Since the unifying factor of such a policy will be the opposition to US' interventionism, you can expect the UK to continue being on the side of the Americans.

Lastly, I suppose the UK wants contracts in post-Saddam Iraq, like everybody else. BP could make much money if it gets a hand on Iraqi oilfields, and the market for reconstruction will be huge, and accorded to American and British companies.

Ned · March 26, 2003, 20:52

Sandman, why is that true for Blair and not true for Bush?

Think about this. The US formed a coalition to take Iraq. A coalition! Why would it do that if it's goal is the oil or something like that.

Next think about this, Bush and Blair have commited to UN help in post-war humanitarian aid.

Finally, the UN will undoubtedly supervise the transition to a new government.

Where does the US or the UK profit from this?

VetLegion · March 26, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Finally, the UN will undoubtedly supervise the transition to a new government.

I guess you didn't hear what Powell said recently.

Spiffor · March 26, 2003, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Finally, the UN will undoubtedly supervise the transition to a new government.

That would be absolutely great !

Do you have a link ?

Case · March 26, 2003, 21:01

I thought that the US government had already anounced the all US group of retired generals, beurocrats and corperations which are going to 'rebuild' Iraq...

VetLegion · March 26, 2003, 21:07

Powell: UN can't have control

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E25778,00.html

About UK, I don't think anyone has any idea whatsoever why they are involved in this.

My guess is lack of democracy, monarchy and so on

KrazyHorse · March 26, 2003, 21:11

My guess is that Blair didn't see where things were going.

He thought Bush cared about disarmament (through the UN).

Then when the US stance (we're going in no matter what you say, so give us permission) ended up pissing off some Euro powers enough that they took a similarly intransigent line and the US ended up doing what it was going to do anyway, Blair couldn't very well back down.

He got in over his head because of criminal stupidity, but can't admit that now.

VetLegion · March 26, 2003, 21:16

Britain was always the power that insisted most on balance of power. This is a total departure from their tradition.

I am watching Yes minister TV series these days. Great stuff, I wonder if that is how british politics really work. (everything being run by evil civil servants

)

Ned · March 26, 2003, 21:36

That link about Powell said the coalition had no intention of letting the UN take over the new government after the coalition, and not the UN, had made the investment.

This still means that the coalition will supervise the transition.

The coalition.

Not the US.

DanS · March 26, 2003, 21:46

If the UK has ulterior motives, they aren't that clear. The UK has been enforcing happily the no-fly zone thing with the US for the last 12 years, for instance.

I take Blair at his word. He doesn't want to see a split between the US and Europe. Over the long run, he's making the right choice, since Germany and France just don't have the math on their side when compared to the US.

Btw, the balance of power system is soooo over.

KrazyHorse · March 26, 2003, 21:52

So his solution is to back the US 100% and then at the last instant propose a compromise which consisted of things the US had pretty much already rejected (specific checklists)?

DanS · March 26, 2003, 21:55

Actually, I think the stance was more coordinated than that. The UK was scouting out the territory, which the US would "bless", if successful. If insufficient success, then the US falls back on its original position.

It's true that Blair and co. were much more sanguine about success than was Bush and co. Blair must have overestimated the cohesion of Europe, the persuasive power of the US, and the friendliness of Chirac.

KrazyHorse · March 26, 2003, 22:00

Dan, can you at least admit that telling the UN the US doesn't care what they had to say might have been a bad idea?

That's not the way you get people to agree with you. And the diplo war was lost there. Blair should have had the brains to act more as a middleman than an obvious agent.

cinch · March 26, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Tragically, Blair does actually think that he's doing good. And he's too proud to back down.

Quote:

Sandman, why is that true for Blair and not true for Bush?

Personally, I think it may actually be true of Bush. Well, the "he may actually think he's doing good" part... I don't fear/hate Bush. He is a simple man, with possibly good intentions, whose policy is mostly controlled by the sorta-kinda-behind-the-scenes group of "New American Century" fellas: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rowe, Perle... These are the people I fear and dislike.

Bush is just a minor figure in all this. Doesn't make him noble, but doesn't make him evil, either.

End Unrequested Rant... Now.

DanS · March 26, 2003, 22:19

Dan, can you at least admit that telling the UN the US doesn't care what they had to say might have been a bad idea?

Not at all. You have to realize that this line of thought (force to overthrow, if no disarmament) had been shut down by France and Russia in 1998. So Bush was pessimistic about the Security Council from the beginning.

Having a clear policy about it at least pushed France and Russia to show their cards. Maybe they would change positions--worth a shot. 1441 showed that it was possible, even if still unlikely.

Kontiki · March 26, 2003, 22:30

I think a large part of it is that Britain is eager to reinforce its role as the number two power in the west.

Drake Tungsten · March 26, 2003, 23:46

Britain's there for the oil. That's why they're taking control of the southern oil fields right now. The British are out to gain access to cheap oil, despite being a net oil exporter...

Kontiki · March 27, 2003, 00:59

You know, I'll be the first to admit that this war isn't just about oil (although it's definitely a factor), but one of the stupidest counter-arguements you can make is that the US, Britain, or anyone else doesn't need Iraqi oil because they get it from somewhere else. There is an enormous amount of money to be made from Iraqi oil, just as there is from Canadian, Saudi Arabian, Venezuelan or oil from any other country which oil companies can reap. Do you really think that there is a national government stupid enough to not care at all about who gets to make that money? Do you think that after the US/UK take over the country, all oil contracts will go to, say, French or Russian companies?

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 01:03

Do you really think the US is spending $80 billion dollars and risking the lives of our soldiers so that some oil companies can make some money a few years down the road?

KrazyHorse · March 27, 2003, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki
You know, I'll be the first to admit that this war isn't just about oil

Kontiki · March 27, 2003, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Do you really think the US is spending $80 billion dollars and risking the lives of our soldiers so that some oil companies can make some money a few years down the road?

As Frogger quoted me....

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 02:48

I'm saying that it's not a significant factor (addressing the part of the first sentence you didn't quote).

Worthingtons · March 27, 2003, 03:23

I think there are several reasons why we are there

To back our great Allies - America and the UK have always been good allies, and Blair doesnt want this to end (for obvious reasons, Technology,trade ect). Even if you are 100% commited to the cause, if you're allies go to war you do.

For Blair to boost his personal Image - Blair likes to play this Mr World Peacekeeper, 'I'll try and solve everything nicely but if you piss ME off then woe be tied' , now that Saddam has defied him he's out the single handely show the world he can regardless of International Law,the UN and the backing of his own people, some could call it a 'Hitler binge' with a touch of democracy.

Oil - This new the US puts in will no doubt be biased to trading thier oil to the UK, who may be able to set up several companies there. A nice incentive to spend that money for the above aims, since a return will be round the corner.

I'm not convinced with the European argument myself tho, I was personally delighted when we threw another 'spanner in the works' so to speak by creating the split, in fact overjoyed might be a better word, however i dont think this was intentional. The Reason the UK are always 'dragging it's feet' is becuase of the PEOPLE here, the govt wanted Europe but the people don't, and Blair is not keen to commit us yet. Who'd want to be part of an inefficient,beaurocratical body run by sausage munchers and frog-eaters anyway!?!?

Kramerman · March 27, 2003, 04:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
There are several reasons the UK might want to participate in this war.

IIRC, the UK is heavily dependant on the US for its military technology. The UK cannot afford to radically piss the US if it wants to keep a modern army. The UK is also playing its international status : by being US' top ally, it has a diplomatic importance to be reckoned with, and has an influence on US policies. In this crisis, the UK has been the only country with some influence on the US.
The UK would have to reconsider its grand diplomatic scheme radically, if it stopped being the US' lapdog.

There is also a European reason : until now, the UK has always been an opponent to further European integration. Every time a new step is being made to a more supranational Europe, the UK has dragged its feet. The UK has been consistent in trying to limit Europe to a Free-market zone. Call this "splendid isolation" or a sheer will to keep as much independance as possible from Brussels, the UK has always been cautious / hostile to the evolutions of the EEC or the EU.
From the beginning of the crisis, France and Germany, the 2 other European majors, opposed the war. At the end of January, they even tried to push for a common European stance on the issue. The UK will try to undermine the emergence of such a Common Foreign and Security Policy. Since the unifying factor of such a policy will be the opposition to US' interventionism, you can expect the UK to continue being on the side of the Americans.

Lastly, I suppose the UK wants contracts in post-Saddam Iraq, like everybody else. BP could make much money if it gets a hand on Iraqi oilfields, and the market for reconstruction will be huge, and accorded to American and British companies.

These are all good reasons, but like with the US, this is just the tip of the ice-burg. The reasons for war all not all alterior, mind you

. None-the-less, i agree with your points for the most part, except for your first one, which is pretty weak. The Brittish are not dependent on the US, they have made many independent advances (for example, they invented Cobholm armor, the 'indestructible' composite stuff on the M1A1 Abrahms...) and could just as easily get military tech from the other Euros as they could from the US.

One thing is for sure, if I had to choose between the US and Europe for a key ally, Id have to go with the US

Tolls · March 27, 2003, 05:04

There was a very good report on the BBC last night (BBC2, about 7,7:30?) that dealt with the current oil situation in the world.

In essence oil output in the US has been in decline for several years...oil output from the North Sea peaked in 98/99 and is now in decline. There are fewer and fewer new fields being discovered, the report quoted that annual new discoveries were half of global consumption.

The US is already a net importer (half or thereabouts?), and the UK will be in a similar position within 20 years.

Now here we have a vast store of oil that is currently not being tapped efficiently, but also that is under the control of a dodgy leader, and in an area which is unstable. Overthrowing Saddam and installing a west-friendly regime will help to protect this source.

When Venezuala had their strike at the end of last year look at how the cost of oil leapt in the US. This is not a good thing for the economy, consequently ensuring a steady energy supply is crucial.

Luckily it happens to coincide with getting rid of a complete git, but don't delude yourself that oil is "not a significant factor".