You get minor bottle necks and the working system breaks.
To start or rebuild the system you start will all the bottle necks and have to add the pieces one at a time until you have something working.
Younger me was appalled when I learned most everyone seems to operate in a just-in-time fashion. Remember when you could go to the supermarket and ask if they have any extra in the back room? Stores don't even have that any more, everything shipped to the store goes straight to the shelf. Then COVID comes along and fucks that up.
Supermarkets don’t usually have much extra stuff because they carry a lot of perishable stuff. This is no different than outdoor markets for millennia. If anything, we’re a bit better off due to refrigeration and better preservation techniques, but if you have too much slop, that just means greater food wastage.
There is still a backroom for places I go. You can see it behind the milk cartons.
After 20 years of failed Western imperial warfare over several countries, this statement is really, really incorrect.
The problem is, in fact, that imperialism got back on the menu in 2001, and in 2003 it became the main dish. At that point, anyone who had a doubt on what to choose, followed the chef's advice. It would have been silly not to.
The US absolutely wanted Iraq as a puppet regime, not just on its own but as a toehold for a project to transform the region into a set of US economic satellites. Numerous people who went on to senior defense and foreign policy roles in the Bush Administration wrote about that intent before Bush was elected, and agitated to use 9/11 as the pretext for that war immediately after it happened, but were initially drowned out by people that thought we ought to address the people that actually launched the attack first.
The US also very much wanted to exploit Iraq’s resources to fund that project and insulate the US against the economic power of other oil producing states to influence domestic economic conditions.
Because the definition of "puppet regime" in US terms is "a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set". Only where that fails, like in Egypt or Pakistan, they support overt strongmen.
The first 5-10 years or so of post-Saddam Iraq were an attempt at achieving the former. Then Iran brought some stability and it was accepted as the lesser evil, because resources and political support for the occupation were over.
That is not what a puppet regime is...especially when you consider that "ideological confines" for the US means free trade, civil liberties, justice system, free elections. Calling that a puppet regime is whitewashing the truly horrible puppet regimes that Russia is installing.
Because state production policy, not nationality of the firms involved, was the mechanism of influence sought.
> And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
They did; for quite some time after it was established, the post-Saddam Iraqi government took direction from the US.
It didn't turn out to be durable nor did the US manage to use it as the planned lever against the rest of the Middle East, in part because a substantial part of the war and post-war planning was coordinated by “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet” [0] (to quote Gen. Franks) and as a result the occupation/counter-insurgency phase was both botched from the beginning and, arguably, not really a realistic way of achieving some of its broader objectives even if it had been planned competently and executed ideally, and in part because the US changed policy priorities and executive administrations during the occupation away from the original objectives (in part because different policy makers has different ideology, and in part because of recognition of the how badly the situation was botched.) Hence the upthread description of failed imperial warfare, which would not be used of if the imperialist objectives motivated the war had been achieved.
[0] it's looking like the planning for the Ukraine operation by Russia may have had similar levels prioritizing what the ruling clique finds to be ideologically-appealing fantasy over hard-nosed practicality in its planning.
And just because these conflicts existed doesnt mean imperialism guides everything. If it did, and the US practiced full imperialism they would own half of middle east by now, and millions of arabs would be dead.
IMO this about sums it up, the fierce American Imperialism. You just cannot put American imperialism and Russian Imperialism in the same paragraph without being a Russian troll or apologist.
Russian Imperialism: conquer nations through medieval, brutal wars, for no reason other than "they border us, so we must attack them first", displace 30% of the population to Siberia (10% in gulags), move in your Russian colonists to take their place, install your own people at the top of the country, you can only do good trades with Russia and its allies, maybe you'll have your entire resources stolen anyway.