Remora

It was Napoleon who made the phrase "nation of shopkeepers" famous. As it happened, he was quoting Adam Smith -- who coined the phrase in the chapter that considers the motives animating the building of empires. The passage is arresting:


"To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. Such statesmen, and such statesmen only, are capable of fancying that they will find some advantage in employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens to found and maintain such an empire. Say to a shopkeeper, "Buy me a good estate, and I shall always buy my clothes at your shop, even though I should pay somewhat dearer than what I can have them for at other shops"; and you will not find him very forward to embrace your proposal. But should any other person buy you such an estate, the shopkeeper would be much obliged to your benefactor if he would enjoin you to buy all your clothes at his shop. England purchased for some of her subjects, who found themselves uneasy at home, a great estate in a distant country."

LI has been thinking about this passage in relation to the question of Blood for Oil. In the mainstream press, the issue of Iraqi oil is delicately circumvented with the assurance that the Bush administration would, in pursuing its war, spend more money than the oil is worth. However, as Smith points out, the point of the imperial project, from the viewpoint of the shopkeeper, is to unload the unavoidable costs of conquest on the imperial power while enjoying the fruits of those conquests. The war against Iraq might not be a project fit for a nation of oilmen, but it is extremely fit for a nations whose government is influenced by oilmen.

US policy towards the Middle East cannot and should not avoid the issue of oil. That the U.S. should be spending billions trying to find alternatives to Middle Eastern oil is one part of the political equation; that it should be trying to maintain such relationships with oil producing countries as to mitigate disturbances in the supply of oil is the other side of the equation. We were reading a book on America's imperial power by Raymond Aron, the French gaullist, the other day and were struck by how clearly Aron saw this issue. We were also struck by Aron's remembrance of the U.S. role in the Suez crisis (which was almost twenty years past when the book came out in 1974) -- you remember, the objection lodged by Eisenhower against the attack on Egypt coordinated by a coalition of France, Britain and Israel. That objection was a brilliant stroke on Eisenhower's part. For decades, the U.S. was able to support Israel and Saudi Arabia simultaneously. Aron thought that the Suez incident precipitated the French distrust of American intentions that resulted in De Gaulle's rupture with NATO. Interestingly, the US commentators on the French objection of Bush's war all assume that the French will simply adhere to the fait accompli of an invasion, without pondering the advantages France could reap by not doing that. The advantages would be along lines similar to those that accrued to the U.S. after 1956: the oil producing nations would be able to turn to France/Europe to mitigate the unilateral weight of the U.S. The French, we are assured, would lose out on Iraq's oil wealth. But that of course assumes that 1., the post Saddam government would be pro-American into the foreseeable future, and 2., that the Persian Gulf states would be unappreciative of France's bucking the American initiative.

This view seems to have no supporters, or even thinkers, in the U.S. More typical -- in fact, almost uniform -- is the view of Chris Suellentrop at Slate, who after giving the reasons for France's recalcitrance -- it all has to due with wounded pride, which is a not so subtle way of dividing the case between the belligerents and their opponents as a case of passion (that womanly emotion) on the one side, and reason (represented by, I suppose, Cheney) on the other side. After exploring this worn topic, Suellentrop concludes:

"Which is why, in the end, France will go along with the Bush administration on Iraq. If France vetoes a Security Council resolution, and the Bush administration goes to war anyway, France will have been proved powerless. But if it accedes to the war after demanding more evidence, it will be able to claim that it influenced American policy�whether it's true or not. Germany will likely stand on principle and oppose the war. But France would never do such a thing. As a U.N. diplomat said last week, "It matters to matter for France."

Our assurance that the World will line up behind Bush depends on Bush's successful conclusion of a war that will be successful if the World lines up behind Bush. Otherwise, America occupies Iraq alone, and the mess will be to the advantage of any nation bold enough to play the game among the Arab states.