I think we were still under the impression that Saddam was using intimidation to acquire limited territorial concessions from Kuwait. In any case, we were not in a position to warn of anything. As it was, Bush had to jump through hoops to get Congressional and UN support for Desert Storm. Had he overthreatened early on, we would have lost credibility.
There is no such "big picture". Most corporate executives want peace and prosperity throughout the world, because that enables them to make secure investments and develop new markets. Trade is a relatively peaceful pursuit. Lenin's tale of the greedy capitalists using government to promote imperialist exploitation doesn't quite capture what happened in the 18th and 19th century. For the most part, the imperial powers were trying to supply a lack in the territories they conquered or annexed. Although there were purely exploitative ventures, such as the Belgian Congo, for the most part the civil administration, infrastructure, and investment brought by the imperialists were superior to the local authorities and the searing poverty of the natives. They also brought medical relief, schools, such necessary features for participation in the world economy as currency and banks, and helped ease the transition into the modern world. Finally, most colonies barely paid for themselves, and were more a matter of national prestige than of enrichment. The post- colonial world has been more chaotic, known more despotism, and become poorer.
At the same time that the imperial powers were largely divesting themselves of colonies, most of which became dictatorships with burgeoning economic and social problems, we were involved in a strategic competition with the Soviet Union. Not only had the Soviets dishonored their commitments at Yalta, and subverted elections in the territories under their control in Eastern Europe, in order to install their own regimes, but they did not adequately demobilize, and developed an offensive posture in the center of Europe, which is why NATO was developed.
Most of this strategic competition played out in the chaotic regimes of the Third World. In that context, yes, we sometimes toppled governments (often dictators) because of our perceived strategic interests, and even to ensure access to strategically important commodities. More usually, though, we dealt with the existing regimes, trying to keep them friendly, as the Soviets also tried to win their trust. War was never a normal way of doing business, nor was it merely for profit. |
