> You seem to have confused Afghanistan with Iraq. Afghanistan is not a major oil producer.
It's about keeping oil flowing - at least being extracted if not sold. But yes in Afghanistan that is currently more pipelines than oil-wells. The TAPI pipeline for instance is proposed to move huge amount of Turkmeni oil through Afghanistan.
> indeed the main contract to develop fields there was signed by the Chinese.
Sure. Why not? The goal is to keep oil flowing now, not (rationally) hoarded. Anything other than leaving it in the ground is fine,
But anyways - the point wasn't that 100% of the reason was oil, because the ability to use their airspace, have lasting bases, etc, is also of huge value. My point was that the official reasons were specifically untrue - almost zero utility came pursing from the stated reasons for the invasions - Bin Laden and WMDs (in Iraq). Mainly, of course, because both reasons were essentially fictions.
> ... and the people from the oil reserves (shut the taps off, see the price skyrocket ...
I think ultimately they had roughly the same desires for Iraqi oil: get it the hell out of Iraqi/neighboring soil as quickly as possible before the inconvenient locals have anything to say about it. Even if they have to "share" with them
And then, yes some people want to play it smart and hoard to watch the prices rise. But none of them wanted an economic meltdown so their policy isn't going to be to stop selling oil, but to stop selling their oil and make the other guy sell his. Having the USA (and select allies) being the last ones with oil is the winning position for both factions (as you describe it) of the Bush government - they merely differed on mid-game strategy.
It's about keeping oil flowing - at least being extracted if not sold. But yes in Afghanistan that is currently more pipelines than oil-wells. The TAPI pipeline for instance is proposed to move huge amount of Turkmeni oil through Afghanistan.
> indeed the main contract to develop fields there was signed by the Chinese.
Sure. Why not? The goal is to keep oil flowing now, not (rationally) hoarded. Anything other than leaving it in the ground is fine,
But anyways - the point wasn't that 100% of the reason was oil, because the ability to use their airspace, have lasting bases, etc, is also of huge value. My point was that the official reasons were specifically untrue - almost zero utility came pursing from the stated reasons for the invasions - Bin Laden and WMDs (in Iraq). Mainly, of course, because both reasons were essentially fictions.
> ... and the people from the oil reserves (shut the taps off, see the price skyrocket ...
I think ultimately they had roughly the same desires for Iraqi oil: get it the hell out of Iraqi/neighboring soil as quickly as possible before the inconvenient locals have anything to say about it. Even if they have to "share" with them
And then, yes some people want to play it smart and hoard to watch the prices rise. But none of them wanted an economic meltdown so their policy isn't going to be to stop selling oil, but to stop selling their oil and make the other guy sell his. Having the USA (and select allies) being the last ones with oil is the winning position for both factions (as you describe it) of the Bush government - they merely differed on mid-game strategy.