I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?

I'm sure we could make the argument that "if the US doesn't invade x country then China/Russia will".

But for me, I just focus on the outcomes, not the motives. If Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton and Raydeon shareholders are making 100k or 1m or more, and hundreds of thousands of civilians are dying, those are two cold hard facts that can't be ignored.

Either the ends justify the means or they don't, in the eyes of the beholder.

A still-relevant classic analysis of US military-commercial ventures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

One of the most distinguished veterans of the Marine Corps, and simultaneously one of the only Marine generals to NEVER feature on the Commandant's Reading List. I love posing that question to junior Marines as introspective food for thought.

It's not remotely that simple.

It's also shocking to see the EU tout mass migration from Syria as a solution to the demographic problem of dropping birth rates. There's a perverse incentive here that's scary.

The same is true with the US, ignoring the political angle, it's not motivated to help stabilize countries that are sources of mass migration.

I think it's more complicated that naked corporate interest pushing for conflict. There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. (I'm absolutely NOT saying that makes it "okay") I think the disaster-capitalism aspect of things is just an unfortunate byproduct.

>There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas.

These are access to resources in event of war, and control of trade routes. Such a war would only benefit corporate interests, the people stand little to gain. And control of trade routes is only useful for war and corporate interests.

Resources, and therefore trade of those resources, are necessary for the country to function. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum separate from other considerations. They don't, for example, care about oil in and of itself. Yes, they make money on it, but only because petroleum and it's byproducts are a necessary feedstock at all levels of the global economy. Reducing complex issues of geo politics and economics to "corporate greed" is overly reductive. Demand for their products is what gives rise to them in the first place. I'm not saying corporations don't influence things, but they cannot be isolated and analyzed separate from the system in which they operate. Google wouldn't have much influence on foreign policy in the middle east. Oil companies have influence there precisely because there are factors outside of their corporate greed that makes them relevant. Things just aren't as simple as "because money".

>Resources, and therefore trade of those resources, are necessary for the country to function.

Then they should pay a fair price for those resources. Any use of force in this matter is unnecessary, and can be effectively boiled down to corporate greed outweighing human empathy.

Corporations are resources, in and of themselves, however distasteful that may seem to swallow. They are value generating machines, and lower level resources (like oil) are their inputs. If they generate value efficiently enough, they start generating influence beyond their home nation's borders. If that carries on, influence turns into dependence. And so long as a nation is able to keep the corporate interests aligned with their own - or at least more aligned than they are with anyone else - its probably a win for the corporation, the government and the people (although those benefits will not always be distributed evenly...)

People may be the pawns on the board... corporations might be more like the knights or the rooks.

>influence beyond their home nation's borders. And so long as a nation is able to keep the corporate interests aligned with their own - or at least more aligned than they are with anyone else - its probably a win for the corporation, the government and the people.

Often this "win" is a huge loss for the foreign groups involved. So still a losing situation in my eyes.

Sure, I agree in a sense. But nobody actually knows how to generate a true win, where we all live globally together in harmony and understanding - its all a big mess, and no one has the magic formula. At best, we only know how to slow our competitors down. Its like a chess game, but one where nobody knows what a checkmate really is.

If we knock the American tech giants down several pegs, as a hypothetical example, it might be beneficial in some ways. But we're also helping to clear the path for companies like Huawei to fill the void. That in turn, helps China project influence around the globe. Every nation-state in the world wants to position its resources (like corporations) as advantageously as possible, and they'll seize on any and every opportunity to do so.

We might not like wars for oil - we might like the alternatives even less.

> But nobody actually knows how to generate a true win, where we all live globally together in harmony and understanding - its all a big mess, and no one has the magic formula. At best, we only know how to slow our competitors down

Slowing down fellow people is also a loss, and I don't buy that our "best" purposefully takes us further from the goal.

>We might not like wars for oil - we might like the alternatives even less.

Do you think I'm arguing that the US should stop engaging in wars for oil but other countries should go for it? Everyone should find these wars to be despicable and avoided at all costs. Yes, this is difficult. It's impossible if you think that they're necessary to prevent others from doing it.

But the US civilian administrator firing all of the Iraqi military was just stupid. Or sadistic.