The financialization of war has passed under the radar of many. It is easy to see how the economy and everything or everyone dealing with money and investments have become financialized but the problem with the topic of war is that people hardly look at it from the perspective that war itself is an investment in many different ways. It is used as a risk investment with the hopes that something more can come out of it rather than just fighting for peace or humane purposes or whatever other justifying reasons that people give to go to war.
One very common belief to many people is that Bush went to war with Iraq for oil. Oil in the 21st century is considered to be black gold since there is a wide belief that the world will soon run out of it.
Randy Martin, author of “An empire of indifference,” examines the theories of other researchers and shows various links to how the world, people and wars have become sucked into the system off financialization. He examines ideals suck as race, indifference and power to explain why exactly war is becoming financialized.
According to Martin, Bush went into the war with Iraq for far more than an investment on oil. He went to war to win the hearts of the people; something that Martin points out to be “winning over domestic power.”
Since the war on Iraq seemed to be a largely preemptive war, Martin believes that “preemptive war is a domestic strategy, rooted not only in calculations of American global power, but in calculations geared to storing up the Bush’s regime’s domestic power and it’s ability to pursue it’s domestic agenda.”
Since the “War on terror” started, Bush has had the support of many politicians to pass laws like the patriot act which empowered the federal government in many ways to get into people’s private lives. I also believe that if this war was won easily, the support for Bush would have been off the charts, but, just like any other risky investment, it acted like a backlash and Bush was looked down upon by many.
As I examined the financialization of war, there were more relations to politics than I thought. But why would anyone discuss war without discussing politics? They are actually so closely related that we can look at them as one thing.
Like an investment, Americans widely believed that “it was worth it going to war.” On April 9th, 2003, 76% of Americans had that belief. One month later, that number fell to 44%.
“The idea that war is won before it is joined undermines the steady state of support needed to continue to endorse a war without end”
In the beginning, Bush had all the support he needed, but everything changed when the war went on and wasn’t won as everyone anticipated.
If we look at war as a risky investment and our country as fictitious capital, we can invest our country in a war and hope to win. Winning a war in more historical terms often meant taking over that place financially and using them much like bigger countries used their colonies for a financial return on their investment.
This is still a work in progress, but I will be back!!! Comment please!!
