Re: "Spending trillions to access sand and dates is a non-sequitur."
Right.
Because it *did not happen* for that reason.
Not only that it didn't happen for that reason, that wouldn't be enough to make your statement a non-sequitur in this situation.
Your implying that it was either "dates and sand", or it was "oil". That's a false dilemma. Not only are those not the only two possibilities, its actually the case that neither of those possibilities are correct. Not that oil wasn't considered important, but the general freedom, and preferable even dominance of the seas grand strategy is not based on oil or desire for oil. If we didn't trade in oil, we would still have the same general maritime strategy and need for a large active navy. Even if oil didn't exist we would have the same grand strategy (just relying on ships that use natural gas, or coal, or nuclear power, or some other fuel or energy source).
Oil is an important commodity (unlike dates, and esp. unlike most sand), but its not the reason we want to dominate the seas, and secure free passage on them. The reasons are similar to the reasons the UK used to do the same, back in the age of sail, long before oil. We are very rich and powerful (so we have the ability to follow such a strategy), we are a major trading nation, relying on the seas for much of our trade, and we have allies and interest around the world. All those facts would remain if we where an oil exporter with huge reserves compared to our consumption, or if we didn't trade oil, or if we didn't use oil, or if oil didn't exist.
Protecting the sea lanes is a public good, not really a subsidy for anything, but if it was to be considered a subsidy it would be one for trade (or perhaps one for other trading nations who don't put much effort in to the attempt, instead free-riding off of our efforts). |
