123 thoughts on “ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Killed, President Trump Announces”

  1. Did I want to read that? Did I want to read those words coming from the President? Speaking nothing of the strategic or moral value of this action, did I want to hear a graphic account of humiliation and mutilation coming from the Commander-in-Chief?

    No I didn’t.

    I’m expecting there were body cams, and footage of what’s described above to be posted on the White House website, and played 24/7 on Fox News.

    What has happened to my country?Report

    1. It’s despicable and pretty messed up. The one thing I’ll give Trump though is at least he’s honest about what this stuff looks like, no sanitized ‘kinetic military action’ or whatever, just the pure horror. Worth keeping in mind with respect to all those other people in Syria everyone keeps saying we have a moral imperative to kill.Report

          1. I’m open to whatever suggestions you provide, though personally I don’t think your fixation with Hillary is Oedipal. It’s more like something from a Grimm Fairy tale about Evil step moms.Report

            1. Mmmm… I think we are talking past each other here. I was mainly thinking about how HRC also, in her own way, provided “nothing of the strategic or moral value of this action” only grim bragging. So, no, this behavior did not start with Trump, and to ask “What happened to my country?” as Dr. Jay puts it, does seem rather ahistoric.Report

              1. Yes, we’re talking past each other since I was pointing out how weird and perversely *psychological* it is to bring up Hillary on a post about Trump’s decision and rhetoric around killing an ISIS terrorist.

                It’s just bizarre to me how Hillary occupies, like, the entire space of your head. Nothing that happens, it seeems, doesn’t constitute an opportunity for you to take a shot at her.

                Commenter on a post: ‘I’m shocked by the psychopathic cruelty of Trump’s language when describing these events.”

                Aaron: “Well, Hillary was a pretty psychopathic bitch herself, too, so….”Report

              2. Wow, that is just pathetic. I use an example from the recent past of the same thing to illustrate how we have been doing something forever, and you react like this?

                Just fucking sad.Report

              4. Aaron: “I was with you when I thought we were both running Hillary down, but now that I realize you weren’t I object to the idea that I was running Hillary down.”

                Me: “Right. I see that, Aaron. Keep talking….”Report

              6. Aaron, if you can’t understand why linking a Clinton video in response to a person shocked at Trump’s psychopathology is weird and wrong and ignorant, then I can’t help you. You’re so deep in your own Grimm Fairy tale that nothing will lead you back out of the forest safely.Report

              8. What hole? I’m not the one who linked a Hillary video in response to a person’s expression of disgust at Trump psychopathology, Aaron.

                That you think the two things should be linked is your own *personal* pathology.Report

              11. Well, not only have you completely missed the point (again!) but you have gone screaming off on some tangent related only to your one mental schema.

                Do you want applause?Report

              12. Aaron, I haven’t missed the point.

                That’s the point. Hillary was never POTUS. More to the point, if you think Hillary’s pathology about killing Gadaffi is worth condemning, then you should *also* condemn Trump’s even worse language about Al Bagdadi.

                But you didn’t.

                You tried to elide the moral depravity of Trump by reducing it to a partisan political position, and in particular, linked to a person who *currently holds no political power*.

                You’re playing a partisan game, motivated by your hatred of Hillary, to race to the bottom while believing the Dems have already got there first.

                But if you gave a rats ass about decency and morality beyond partisan politics you’d see what you wrote for the bullshit that it is . Unfortunately, you don’t. For you, it’s anti_dem partisanship all the way down.Report

              13. Wow, that is some serious blah, blah, blah…

                I mean, yeah, you totally missed my point. Even with two (count them, two!) explanations. But get down with your bad self.Report

              14. Aaron, your point was to show that Hillary *also* engaged in pathological comments about killing folk.

                That’s crystal clear, right?

                It’s you’re conclusion that is beyond repugnant. It’s that because Hillary said pathological things abouit Gadaffi that Trump’s comments are A-OK.

                You’re doing this weird thing rabid conservatives do where they apologize for conservative transgressions by citing Dem politicians breaking the ice to allow them to act immorally, which sorta gives the game away, to be honest. The goal isn’t a better, more moral government, it’s just beating the Dems even if our government isn’t better or more moral.Report

              15. “It’s you’re conclusion that is beyond repugnant. It’s that because Hillary said pathological things abouit Gadaffi that Trump’s comments are A-OK.”

                I don’t think either of them said anything pathological. I don’t remotely give a damn what they said in situations like this. I was remarking that someone that many feel should be president was saying the same thing and that getting bent over this was ahistorical. But reading your weird attempt to make Trump sui generis evil is just funny.

                So you think this is repulsive. So what. Why should I care?Report

              18. Wait, I quoted the conclusion of your own argument. How can citing *your own conclusion* be dodo logic?

                Christamighty Aaron. Just admit that you *might* be wrong here.Report

              19. Oh, I could be wrong, but at every opportunity to show me how I was wrong you went full …idjit… And with that many whiffs, I am of the opinion that you actually have no argument. Just some random feels.

                You assume that everyone starts at the same priors that you have, thus they should draw the same conclusions that you arrived at. This guarantees logic failure.Report

              20. It’s so weird to see someone argue that they’ll admit they could be wrong but *only if* someone challenges them on what they view as the right metric.

                You just admitted you’re not a good faith interlocutor.

                Aaron: “But Hillary already showed she’s not a good faith interlocutor, so it’s all good!”

                What’s especially flaberscating izarre about this discussion is that you, Aaron, know I’m not a hillary fan yet you keep acting like I am. Absolutely bizarre.Report

              21. Yes, the ability to state that one can change their mind if presented with the right argument is somehow acting in bad faith.

                Holy Cow.

                Again, I am just going to say that this is seriously pathetic. It’s sad how you keeping bringing up the part that makes zero difference to a discussion as if it was some trump card. Add in the refusal to see that there could even be another point of view. and it becomes clear that all you say is bullshit. And still with no real argument being made.

                And you want to be my latex salesman.Report

              22. Dude, you’re the same guy who’s said it’s “pathetic” that Dems are investigating Trump on extorting Ukraine for personal political favors. So I’ll just leave it at that.

                Add: For some reason I keep thinking you’re redeemable, Aaron, but you aren’t. Which gives me a bit of insight for busting Andrews balls for dealing with George, who he also probably finds redeemeable. Oh, well. Some people are just too far gone, I guess.Report

              24. Aaron, my argument is that you linkedto Hillary because you have step mom issues. I hold to that view.

                That you’re too far gone to have a rational, evidence-based debate is true. You’ve drunk the koolaid. So if you want to view that as me conceding the argument so you can claim a win, go right ahead. Claim it. It’s all you wanted anyway. You’re long gone, bro.Report

              25. Stepmom.

                Wow. You really don’t have any sort of argument, do you? All feels, no reals. Just a sad attempt at an ad hominem.

                And I should listen to anything you say? I don’t think so.Report

              26. Aaron, I’m done playing this game. Just claim the win without making a bigger fool of yourself. That’d be wise.

                Or keep making an even bigger fool of yourself. Totally up to you.Report

              30. Dude, you are *exactly* the same person who challenged my to provide an argument that Trump engaged in an impeachable quid pro quo and who, on hearing that evidence, said “where’s the impeachable crime”?

                So, no. You’re not an honest broker about these things. You’re not a good faith interlocutor.

                I don’t know why that is, given the evidence as it is. But that’s the way it is. It’s who you’ve become.Report

              31. So, to recap for those at home, not only did you not provide an actual crime in an earlier thread, you cannot provide an argument in this one.

                Just one little argument Still, that is all you gotta do.Report

              32. No, to racap for the home folks, you’re disingenuous about evidence and argument.

                I’ve written them all for people to read. You reject them. That doesn’t mean I haven’t *made* those arguments Aaron.

                Christ, arguing with you Aaron is like arguing with a two year old. A cynical, slightly malevolent two year old.Report

              35. Nope. The arguments are already said, on both topics.

                Again, you seem to have chosen to make a bigger fool of yourself than taking a win I was willing to grant you. Very interesting psychology, that.

                Add: It’s also interesting to me that we both share a dislike of Hillary, unlike many other commenters here at the OT, but for some reason you’ve zeroed in my disagreement with you to go-all in on …. I’m not sure what exactly. Your comments on this site about politics are driven by psychology, Aaron, not by policy or even like-minded individual agreeing with you about over-arching goals. Yours is an internalization of partisanship that will destroy you in the end.Report

              39. That’s a bold statement. You’re speaking for the *entire* commentariat when you say that. Before we proceed further, are you sure you want to commit yourself a sweeping claim that covers the entirety of the OT community, people you don’t know and perhaps don’t know what they’ve read?

                Add: I mean, it’s possible even though I’ve written those arguments at the OT, and they were posted here, no one actually read them. Certainly possible….Report

              40. Well, in that case, you should be able to show me the comment where the argument is, no? Because, in this thread, you have made special pleadings. Those are not arguments, they are logical fallacies. You have asserted that what Trump said was repulsive, but gave no reason. Nor gave a reason when I said that I have no interest in what Trump or HRC said. When what was intended by my comment was explained, again, you insist that something else is going on, yet give no proof for that. You have cast aspersions about my family, called me a liar, and so on. And every time I called you on it, you change the subject.

                It would be simple for someone to refer me to the quote that shows what you are arguing, but every time you are asked, you to repeat the same process. Ad nauseam.

                So, I can only surmise that you know you have no argument. And you know this.Report

              43. So, I can only surmise that you know you have no argument. And you know this.

                Yes, you’ve seen through me. The argument I’ve repeatedly given is the argument I refuse to give. So guilty. So charged.Report

              45. “Aaron says it’s a logical fallacy let’s jump in the pool with our clothes on! Woohoo!”

                Dude, for the life of me I don’t understand why didn’t take the win I offered you an hour ago and just go home. Instead your blabbering on and on about lint caught in the dust trap.Report

              47. yes, Aaron, My argument against your views on this thread and wrt impeachment devolve to fallacies. In fact., as you’ve shown by your expert disquisition, I don’t have an argument and haven’t even presented one!

                Given the absence of any argument on my part, I’m *insulted* by your accusation that I’m ridiculing you in the presentation of arguments that we both agree haven’t been given. This is an outrage! My lawyers will be in contact shortly!!Report

              48. And, again with the same fallacy of ridicule.
                Just present the argument Still.

                But, you don’t have one, thus you can’t. But on the other hand, watching you run through these is actually fun, in a weird way.Report

              50. Appeal to Ridicule
                Appeal to Ridicule is an informal fallacy which claims an argument to be ridiculous or absurd. The fallacy uses this claim in an attempt to invalidate the argument since it is not worth entertaining.

                Appeal to ridicule can be used in conjunction with other fallacies such as appeal to emotion. Sarcasm can also be used as a means of appeal to ridicule.

                Example of Appeal to Ridicule
                Everyone should wear seatbelts. We should also wear bibs and sleep in a bassinet.
                Why should I support the 2nd Amendment, do I look like toothless hick?
                Note
                Alternative Name: Appeal to Mockery, Ab Absurdo

                Like shooting fish in a barrel at this point.Report

              51. Good lord, give it a rest. All the arguments you think I’m not providing appear *in this thread*. Christ, it’s like you’re playing for the TV viewers who aren’t readers of long form, when you’re commenting in *long form” Aaron.

                Your behavior in this thread is silly, grotesque, and astoundingly absurd. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.Report

              53. WEll, I had a comment eaten, unfortunately, but here goes again…

                That people offer arguments you reject doesn’t mean that people aren’t *offering arguments* Aaron. As an example, I’ve offered arguments satisfying many of your demands *in this very thread*. That you don’t accept those as arguments doesn’t mean that they aren’t. That should be pretty clear to a person who likes to site latin wrt argument types.

                But for the life of me I can’t figure out what you think you’re trying to accomplish in keeping this discussion alive. I already told you you won the argument, and that the best thing to do was take the win without making a bigger fool of yourself. Yet you can’t help but keep doing so.

                Absolutely amazing.Report

              54. All you have shown so far are logical fallacies. In the comment above, it’s special pleading.

                So, I win the “argument” but I am the fool? Muy interesante! But you started this thread attacking my honesty. That is a great way to piss me off.Report

              55. Just stop. You’ve acused me of not providing arguments I’ve already given; making claims that I didn’t make; and dodging your inquiries, which I already answered, like I had something to hide. This is bullshit Aaron, pure and simple. Either you’re a propagandist in service of an Agenda or a True Believer of a cause who can’t tell the difference.Report

              57. Aaron, I’m done arguing with you. If no one else at the OT picks up the ball to push back on your bullshit then then that’s the way it is.

                But you’re a cynical evil motherfucker, there’s no doubt. I’m just done playing lead in countering your nonsense.Report

  3. The current funny thing is the headlines on the Washington Post obituary.

    First it was:

    “Abu Bakar Al Bagdadi, Islamic State’s ‘Terrorist In Chief’, dies at 48”

    Then it was:

    “Abu Bakar Al Bagdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48”

    Then it was (now it is):

    “Abu Bakar Al Bagdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48”Report

    1. I kinda like: “dies at 48”

      It plays on the unspoken game we all play with obituaries… “How old was the poor fellow?” and “How did he die” and [Subtract My age from his and contemplate odds of that happening to you in the future]

      In this case I come out slightly ahead by a few years and the unlikely aspect of a special forces raid on my compound. Poor fellow, should’ve eaten fewer carbs and more vegetables.Report

      1. Well, you can’t say “US forces killed him” because, well, they didn’t. I suppose if you say “commits suicide”, it paints a picture that you don’t necessarily want painted. Like, was Kevorkian there? Best to just use the passive voice and get into the gritty details in the story.Report

      2. I think they could add Jeffrey Epstein, John Wayne Gacey (noted children’s entertainer), Lee Harvey Oswald (advocate for political change), and the villains on Game of Thrones. And what about Godzilla, anti-nuclear and urban renewal activist, and King Kong, the parkour and free-climbing enthusiast and noted ladies man, who died in a tragic fall?Report

        1. Not sure how many you looked at — a number of your suggestions were done, some by multiple people. In case you’re not familiar with Twitter, the “they” in this case is just anyone with a Twitter account who uses that hashtag in a tweet. Feel free to add you own!Report

    3. The VP/Communications General Manager tweeted this:

      It kinda raises more questions, if you ask me, but at least they acknowledged that they changed something.Report

      1. What are the questions it should raise?

        I’m serious about that question.

        Like, is the question: Is the Washington Post a terrorist sympathizer who supports ISIS against US anti-terrorist goals (and wants to impose Sharia Law in the US)?Report

        1. Goodness! My questions were more like “how in the hell did it end up like that?” and “who did it have to go past to make it out anyway?”

          I wouldn’t assume that they were terrorist sympathizers as much as people inclined to point out that *ALL* human life is sacred, for lack of a better word, and we should not rejoice in the death of a person who was also made in the image of God.

          Not like that jerk Herbert Walker!Report

          1. I just can’t believe you’re falling for the idea that anything of importance hangs on how WaPo phrases it’s obituaries.

            I mean, we live in a stupid time, but when smart people dummy down to the stupid times we live in it’s a sign that things will get much worse before they get better.Report

            1. I’m falling for the same dumb idea that Ms. Kelly did.

              (And it’s not really that “anything of importance” hangs on the phrasing, but if I wanted to run against The Media as part of my election strategy, I’d thank Allah every day for making my enemies ridiculous.)Report

              1. Right. You’re so smart you’re in the “I’m so smart I can see the mistakes of dumb people as signifying smart things even though they are dumb to have done them” category. Which is …. super smart!!Report

              2. It’s more that I can see the mistakes of smart people as signifying dumb things.

                Quite honestly, I see why they evolved the headlines the way they did.

                The first headline goes up: “Wait, do we really want to come across as cheerleaders?”

                The second headline goes up: “Wait, do we really want to sound like we admire the S.O.B.?”

                The third headline goes up: “Ah… just right.” “Ma’am, we’re being roasted online.” “I’ll tweet something out.”Report

              3. {Deep inhale} It’s more that I can see the mistakes of smart people as blahblahblah yadayadada {long exhale}.

                “They’re not smart. I’m smart. I’m smart!”Report

              6. Some really smart person at this site should write a post about what it means to be *too smart to learn anything new*, cuz there’s a niche of people who’d love to read about how they’ve *already* learned all the information dumb people reject and don’t need to learn any more.

                Cuz they’re so smart, you see.Report

              7. I’d offer, but not only am I not smart enough to write that post, I make no *pretense* to being that smart. And however smart I may or may not be (not that smart), capturing the *pretense* of being *that smart* is the most important part of pulling such a post off.Report

              8. The Babylon Bee will certainly learn something from this.

                It is very hard to be a news parody site when “serious” news organizations are so determined to compete in that field.Report

      2. WaPo should change their banner to “Democracy, the the quaint notion that leaders should be elected by the people, died peacefully in its sleep in a secret committee hearing last night.”Report

            1. You are making my point. We have never had, in this country, contra George, the quaint notion of the people electing their leaders. Before the 17th Amendment, the people were only allowed to elect the Lower House. The states elected the President and Senate, and the President, with or without 5he advice and consent of the Senate, elected the rest of the Executive and the Federal Courts. Little to do with the quaint notion of the people electing their leaders.

              I do note for the record that there’s an ongoing campaign to repel the 17th Amendment, and that close to 100% of those so campaigning align with the GOP, a party that has had, at least since the sixties, a deep aversion to the idea of the people electing their leaders.Report

              1. Very well put. Now, can we stop all this popular vote nonsense we have been dealing with in the last three years?

                (This isn’t so much to you, but all the people who keep bandying it about as if it meant something.)Report

              3. But, as you so ably point out, that is not how we do it right now. Sure, we could have an amendment to the con. but as it stands, it means nothing at this point. And yet, people bring it up as if it means something at this time.Report

  5. Late to the thread, but after thinking about this all day, I think Spencer Ackerman pretty much sums up my ambivalence:

    As proficient as U.S. special operators have become at manhunting these past 18 years, and as central as manhunting has been during that time, there is no campaign plan, not even a theory, by which the killings of jihadist leaders knit up into a lasting victory. Asking for one would require reckoning with the catastrophic failure represented by a war that only perpetuates itself.

    There would be no Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had Bush not invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. That war created an opportunity for a mass murderer, Zarqawi, to construct an al-Qaeda franchise more bloodthirsty than even the one bin Laden created.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-is-dead-the-war-on-terror-will-create-another

    We have never conjured up a vision of what “victory” would look like because we have no idea what sort of Middle East would meet with our ostensible interest of security.Report

    1. Well, harumph.

      That last bit is certainly easy to say, since it’s true.

      On the other hand, the ME is hard because it was, and is, a geographical construct which persists despite anyone’s best intentions or desires.. IOW, it’s a fucking mess.Report

      1. On the other hand, the ME is hard because it was, and is, a geographical construct which persists despite anyone’s best intentions or desires..

        It’s no more a mess than parts of Africa have been at one time or another. For basically the same reason…Britain and other parts of Europe basically invented various countries with random borders.

        Weirdly…we don’t seem to involved in wars there.Report

      1. Since the Mughal Empire and the Portuguese explorers were never present in the Middle East as the same time, and since very little to none of the current M.E. ventures can be traced, directly or indirectly, to early XVI century India, I fail to see the connection.

        Where you to say that nothing that’s happening now in the M.E. would be happening if the Ottoman Empire had not lost the battle of Lepanto and started its decline into becoming the Sick Man of Europe, well, that would have made sense.Report

        1. I was mostly thinking about how colonialism is often presented as the issue that causes much of historical terrorism around the world. I could just as easily talked about the British in Kenya helping to foment the Mau-Mau, or the Conquistadores invading South America lead to the Shining Path. The reality, in my mind at least, is that the cause is simply the movement of peoples and the interaction of competing groups.

          As concerns the present actions of the ME, we should probably look to the crusades and the Moorish invasion of Europe. Also, Ghengis Khan has a lot to do with it.Report

            1. That is actually on my to-read list. Sadly, time and the stack of books to my side wait for no man. But, your mention means it should move up the list.

              My great grandfather was a professor of what now would be called ME studies, and the fascination of this area seems to have been passed down to me.Report

              1. By the way, you can get a basic understanding of the (origin of) the Kurd problem in Maalouf’s book

                Yes, the Crusades are a contributing factor to the contemporary Kurd issue. The past is always with usReport

              2. Indeed. And thank you again for pushing this recommendation. Of course, now I will start looking for a hardcover (Folio Press maybe?) version, as I am that dork.Report

      1. The part that I really don’t understand is this “there’s oil, and we have to protect the oil fields” thing.

        To the extent there is oil, it belongs to the Syrian people, or to the Syrian government, (or to Assad personally, like in Saudi Arabia, I really don’t care).

        To the extent that we are protecting that oil, protecting means making sure no one pumps it from the ground (like ISIS did in Iraq for a while). Is the President bringing tanks to make sure no one pumps oil there?

        Or is he under the impression that the USA can/will pump out the oil?

        And to do what with the oil? Sell it and give the money to its legitimate owner, even if that is Bashir al Assad? Or just use it to cover the running expenses of “killing al Bagdadi and protecting the oil”?

        And who would pump the oil? The Army Corps of Oil Exploration and Production? Because no American oil major would touch that oil with a ten foot pole without authorization from its legitimate owner, who, for sure, is not the US Department of Defense.Report

        1. I’ve never understood this either. I suppose the only legitimate reason would be to prevent ISIS from pumping it and selling it on the open market.Report

          1. That would be the only legitimate reason. Inquisitive minds, though, wonder why we are doing it now, and not when ISIS was pumping and selling oil (mostly, or all of it, in Turkey)

            It is not as if the President hasn’t criticized the USA not “protecting” the Iraqi oil fields after the invasion, during the occupation, and afterwards trough the present day.

            I guess we will be seeing the Army Corps of Oil Exploration and Production any day soon.

            Either that, or Trump Yuuuuge Middle East Oil Ventures

            (or are both the same)?Report

          2. We’re just trying to prevent Iranian-backed Shia militias from taking and holding that patch of ground, which would give them enough of a revenue stream to keep them in the game. Syrians are so desperate than anyone with cash flow can keep forces in the field and recruit fighters from rivals by offering more pay.

            I would assume the problem is that remote rural oil rigs are vulnerable to militia raiders in pickup trucks and no US-aligned forces have yet established enough presence in the area to prevent that.Report

        2. Having US companies pump the oil and dole out the proceeds as US (probably Trump himself) sees fit is what he said during the Sunday AM presser. In fairness, this seems to be what is done with most oil money in the region. Only real difference is that it is US vs. local autocratic leader.Report

          1. Only real difference is that it is US vs. local autocratic leader.

            I know trifles like International Law count for little in the current administration, but local autocratic leader is the internationally acknowledged Head of State of sovereign country

            The question, again, is under what authority would a US company pump the oil and sell it? The Republic of Syria is the acknowledged sovereign there, and the only one who can grant the legal authority. it’s been a while since looting was considered a legal activity under the Law of War

            It is one thing for ISIS to illegally pump, smuggle, and sell oil in the black market. A different think is for the USA Army to do the same thing. I doubt ExxonMobil would want to do that, or any company that ever expects to pump one barrel outside the USAReport

            1. I am no way supportive of such a move. However, as an operational matter our current foreign policy seems to operate at a middle school level. So we can use the law of might makes right, the treaty of finders keepers, and the principal of na na boo boo. Barr and the other eggheads can come up with some BS later, if it is really needed.Report

          2. We’ve been in the area for over 15 years and apparently some people still think we slip in a steal the oil, perhaps sending it home in used Pepsi bottles or something. I used to tell such people that I only pay $1.25 for gas because I have my BushChenneyHaliburton Neocon Savings card and get to fill up with sweet Iraqi crude.

            The US doesn’t even have a structure whereby we can make money from foreign oil. Our mineral laws are staggeringly different from most of the world, in that the government doesn’t actually own what’s under the ground except on federal land, and even there it is severely constrained.

            Oil companies only rarely own the oil they pump. The oil is owned by farmers, ranchers, or whoever else owns the land, unless they’ve sold off the mineral rights to their property, as was frequently the case in Appalachian coal fields. The oil companies negotiate contracts with land owners to pump the oil and sell it, and these can be quite sophisticated because both sides have lawyers.

            On federal land or in federal waters the oil companies are negotiating with the US government on drilling rights and leases, and the same can be true of state land (such as in Alaska). That would be the same if they were negotiating with Brazil or Vietnam for drilling rights.

            In foreign countries a US oil company negotiates leasing or drilling rights with whoever owns the oil. In some places that might be the land owner, in others it’s the local warlord. In the Middle East or Africa that was usually the potentate who’d exerted sovereignty and claimed to own everything under the ground – in the name of the people. In more sophisticated places, like Europe, that was also usually the potentate who’d exerted sovereignty and claimed to own everything under the ground – in the name of the people.

            Many countries (OPEC nations for example) finally voided oil contracts with foreign entities and nationalized all the oil to get a better cut of the profits. But often they were negotiating with national oil companies such as ELF, FINA, TOTAL, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleium, or Gasprom. The US has no equivalent because the US government doesn’t run its own oil company, much less just have the one national oil company that is a branch of the government.

            What the US does have is a bunch of privately or publicly owned oil companies, along with car companies, computer companies, potato chip companies, and entertainment companies. There have been times when socialist or business leaning folks in the US government tried to go to bat for various US industries in foreign countries, such as banana companies, which gave us the phrase “banana Republic”, but we try not to act like that anymore because it’s generally wildly corrupt and our soldiers don’t like being corporate stooges.

            In Iraq, the US government decided to spend tax dollars rebuilding Iraq’s oil facilities so Iraq could generate revenue and so, in theory, pay the US government part of the costs of the war. Those promises were pretty infamous. So the US government gave a reconstruction contract to Haliburton, the only US company that did oil field infrastructure work on that scale. Note that Haliburton never pumped any oil, because they’re not an oil company. The oil was pumped by European, Chinese, and Russian companies who were the winning bidders on all the Iraqi oil contracts. US companies weren’t going to go in there because it’s a horrible place to try and work, the optics would look bad, and US oil workers would be sitting ducks. There are far easier places for Exxon or Mobile to drill.

            As for the US military, they don’t even have a field manual for oil drilling, or an oil drilling department. They have plenty on doing environmental clean ups, though, with a staggeringly large budget. We could roll into a Syrian oil field to do remediation and clean up, because we got that. We’ve got nothing for actually pumping, shipping, and selling the oil, though. You’ll never meet a sergeant who ran a pump jack.

            Nor does the DoD have a department of oil sales, or even a department who figures out which camel herder has a legal deed with mineral rights. They can act like cops who make sure person A doesn’t loot the property of person B, or that person C isn’t committing armed robbery of person D, but that’s it. When you call a cop because your store is getting robbed, they don’t show up and claim ownership of it. Somehow the left has got that idea stuck in their heads and they simply can’t let go of it, probably because their extreme wing opposed WW-II as a war for the interests of Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum,. and opposed Vietnam as a war for Vietnamese oil, and just haven’t figured out a new pitch.

            At most, the worst the US will do when we go into a foreign country that has vast energy reserves is make them hire Hunter Biden.Report

    2. Oh of course not and I’m shocked anyone would ask anything so trite. After all we still have ethnicities to protect from other ethnicities and sects to prop up against other sects and make-believe secular moderates to find and dictators to overthrow and dictators to support and other third party interlocutors to intimidate and national honor to protect and world leadership to maintain and…..Report

Comments are closed.

Related Stories

From Marginal Revolution: o3 and AGI, is April 16th AGI day?

Jaybird April 16, 2025 8

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s Residence Attacked, Suspect Arrested

Andrew Donaldson April 14, 2025 28

Open Mic for the Week of 4/14/2025

Jaybird April 14, 2025 124

You may have missed

mashie

Holing a Mashie Shot

Clare Briggs April 17, 2025
triumphantreturn

Weekend Plans Post: Fell For It Again

Jaybird April 17, 2025
faces

Punchable Faces, 1914

Clare Briggs April 16, 2025
nothin

Movie of a Man Who has Indulged in Too Much Black Coffee

Clare Briggs April 15, 2025