Peak Oil

aapride · May 25, 2008, 8:00pm

Great thread.

aapride · May 25, 2008, 8:15pm

“No matter what I believe about Greenspan’s abilities as our Fed chairman, I believe he had some knowledge about why the US went to war with Iraq. I remember reading somewhere that he was obsessed with oil in the later years of his tenure and fearful of its deleterious effect on the US economy.”

World is addicted to Oil. We indeed went to Iraq for Oil. BUt GW messed up. Ask any american, this high oil prices are killing us. With Oil going HIgh, US and the rest of the world is in trouble. All other countries opposed us as they thought US oil comapnies will benefit from it. GW messed up.

razorsharp · May 25, 2008, 9:18pm

Then why didn’t American take the Iraqi oil?

After all, we won the war, if we went there for oil, we should taking their oil, right?

aapride · May 25, 2008, 9:31pm

Because it would created problems with Europeans and Chinese and Russia. Do you think they would have supported us in Afganistan.

mapesy · May 25, 2008, 9:44pm

Damning evidence that the Iraq War is about oil.

I used to have a link to a great article, but I can’t seem to find it. This will have to do:

[Asia</a> Times Online :: Middle East News - The Iraq oil grab that went awry](<a href=“http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II27Ak01.html]Asia”>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II27Ak01.html)

aapride · May 25, 2008, 10:55pm

We need alternative energy sources like wind, solar etc. And fast in next 20 years otherwise - it will be a problem.

mapesy · May 25, 2008, 11:07pm

^^The Asia Times link mentions a 2001 DIA document titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts” with attached maps.

Does anyone remember Cheney’s secretive Energy Task Force? It was created by President Bush in 2001 during his second week in office. Cheney fought mightily to keep task force documents from being released to the public through the the Freedom of Information Act. As a result, the organizations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in an attempt to gain access to task force documents. In 2002, the US government was ordered to make a full disclosure of documents, but it has yet to happen.

In 2003, the Commerce Department made a partial disclosure of documents, including a map of Iraq’s oil fields. Here’s a link to the actual map:

<a href=“http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf[/url]”>http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf</a>

So why did Cheney’s Energy Task Force have a map of Iraq’s oil fields back in 2001?

SmittenWithSmith · May 26, 2008, 2:06am

“So why did Cheney’s Energy Task Force have a map of Iraq’s oil fields back in 2001?”
Oil = energy? Come on! ;)

I find it interesting that even though oil prices are ever increasing, major oil companies are still making excellent profit. We’re not yet completely screwed…but we are getting there.

Worse, I’ve heard that there is an existing car that gets over 15,000 miles to the gallon and that it is a U.S. government website. I don’t know much about researching cars and statistics, but is this true? I am curious. There are small-time car companies that are creating cars at 300 miles to the gallon. I’m amazed that we believe that getting 45 gallons is impressive when clearly it is possible to make cars that are more fuel-efficient. Are car companies being greedy or are they just clueless…or is all of this nonsense?

Mr_Payne · May 26, 2008, 2:34am

I would hope to God that an “Energy Task Force” for the world’s biggest energy consumer would have maps of Iraqi oilfields. I would also hope they’d have maps of Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE, Omani, Russian, Venezuelan, Canadian, & Nigerian fields.

Mr_Payne · May 26, 2008, 2:36am

Nonsense.

You don’t think Toyota/Nissan/Honda would absolutely jump at the chance to make a 300 MPG car? The competitive advantage they would have would be immense. They could sell every car at a 100% markup. They’d gain marketshare by leaps and bounds.

Mr_Payne · May 26, 2008, 2:40am

Things our government needs to do:

1) Open up all areas within the US for drilling oil. Nothing is sacred.
2) Offer R&D tax breaks for alternative energy research & manufacturing.
3) Streamline the process for permitting & building a nuclear power plant. We are gonna need a ton of electrical energy as people get weaned off of chemical energy for transport.

The free market & profit motive will take care of the rest. Idiotic legislation like CAFE is not the answer the free market should determine what car makers build. Magically, as the price of oil became higher, the value & demand for trucks declined.

mapesy · May 26, 2008, 8:37am

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, some friends and I were obsessed with figuring out the real reason for the war. None of us believed the WMD story, so we read everything we could get our hands on and developed various theories. Below is a letter I wrote to my friends in March 2004 detailing what I believed at the time. My conclusion: The real reason for the Iraq invasion was Peak Oil and energy security.

(Sorry it’s so long, but I was attempting to justify my opinion with facts.)

<hr>

I think xxxxxx said it best. It went something like this: If you want to figure out what’s really going on in the Bush administration, don’t listen to what it says. Look at what it does.

So that’s what I decided to do.

Rewind back to the early days of the Bush presidency. What were the priorities of the new administration? I think I can safely say it wasn’t terrorism. The National Security Council met nearly 100 times in the months prior to Sept. 11, yet terrorism was a topic during only two of those meetings. This was despite numerous warnings from the FBI, CIA, and several foreign government sources that a large-scale terrorist attack, possibly involving airline hijackings, was highly probable in the near future.

At the time, anti-terrorism strategies and planning were the role of mid-level committees at the NSC, and not Cabinet-level players. President Bush commissioned a counterterrorism task force, headed by Dick Cheney, in May 2001. Tragically, the group never held a single meeting prior to Sept. 11.

Critics of the lack of emphasis by senior government officials on terrorism say the administration’s priorities were elsewhere. But where?

Early in Bush’s presidency, he established a principal’s committee that focused on missile defense, Iraq, China, international economic policy, global warming, and the US stance towards Russia, according to an article in the New York Times. The principals were National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Gen Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This group met regularly in 2001.

Hmmm. This powerful group met regularly to discuss missile defense, Iraq, China, international economic policy, global warming, and the US stance towards Russia. Could there be a common thread underlying all those issues?

After much study, I can only conclude there is one common thread.

Energy.

From various sources, I’ve gleaned the following:

<ul>
<li>Russia is important to the US because of its oil reserves. Russia has recently been building up its missile defense capability, ostensibly to protect its oil. </li>
<li>The US is building up its missile defense to protect against countries such as Russia that are building up their own defenses. We also need to protect our global oil interests. </li>
<li>The Bush administration’s record on global warming and the environment is abysmal. Most experts feel it’s because of energy concerns. </li>
<li>The health of the international economy is dependent on the health of the US economy as a result of globalization. Whenever the US has a sharp rise in oil prices, we have a recession. The global economy suffers as a result. </li>
<li>The PNAC document reveals that one of the primary goals of the US is to contain China. Since China is oil-import dependent, experts say China can be contained by controlling its supply of oil. </li>
<li>Finally, Iraq. As I’ll show a bit later, the document Strategic Energy Policy says Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the international community. </li>
</ul>

Bush established an energy task force within the first two weeks of his presidency. Cheney chaired this group, formally called the National Energy Policy Development Group, or NEPDG. The principals in this group were the Vice President, 9 cabinet-level officials, and 4 senior administration officials. The purpose of the group was ostensibly to gather information, deliberate, and recommend a national energy policy.

The importance the Bush administration placed in this group is obvious when one considers the number of meetings this high-level group held. Between January 29, 2001 and May 2001, this group formally met 10 times. Group principals, support staff, and other advisors held dozens of additional meetings during those months.

Revealingly, the NEPDG included the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. This excerpt from an article in the New Yorker remarks on the melding of seeming unrelated areas of policy in the NEPDG:

*For months there has been a debate in Washington about when the Bush Administration decided to go to war against Saddam. In Ron Suskind’ s recent book The Price of Loyalty, former Treasury Secretary Paul O Neill charges that Cheney agitated for U.S. intervention well before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the melding of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: the review of operational policies towards rogue states, such as Iraq, and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.

A source who worked at the N.S.C. at the time doubted that there were links between Cheney’ s Energy Task Force and the overthrow of Saddam. But Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially huge. He said, People think Cheney’ s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues, referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’ s energy policy. But if this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.*

In May 2001, a high-level Pentagon document emerged, entitled Strategic Assessment 1999, that acknowledged oil war was considered a legitimate military option.

One of the first actions of the NEPDG was to commission an energy report by the influential US council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute of Public Policy. The purpose of this report was to help shape the administration’s new energy policy.

The Baker report, Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st century" was released in April 2001. Among other things, it said:

<ul>
<li>Tight markets have increased US and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. </li>
<li>The US should immediately review its Iraq policy, including its military options. </li>
</ul>

In addition, the Baker report forecast critical energy shortages unless oil and gas production were substantially boosted or conservation measures pursued. It called upon the administration to admit these agonizing truths to the American people.

Agonizing truths? What agonizing truths???

In May 2001, the NEPDG released its final report to the President. At the time, the GAO requested information from the group in order to satisfy certain legal requirements regarding use of taxpayer money by the federal government. After Cheney refused to release information, the GAO filed suit to obtain the information. The GAO dropped the suit when the Bush administration threatened to reduce its funding.

The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, which also filed suit to obtain information, had enough money to follow through with their suits against the NEPDG. This is the case that is before the Supreme Court, and which involves the now infamous duck-hunting trip.

The question must be: Why is Cheney so secretive about the workings and proceedings of the NEPDG? What is so important about the energy task force that Cheney feels he must take the case all the way to the Supreme Court, and especially since energy seems to have been a primary concern of the Bush administration from Day One?

I tried to gather information about various advisors to the energy task force and what might have been discussed, but there’s not much available. I was able to find a few things, however.

Matthew Simmons was an advisor to NEPDG and the Council on Foreign Relations, and he had this to say about Peak Oil at the May 27, 2003, international conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil:

*The uh, I think basically that now, that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is leaning me more by the month, the worry that peaking is at hand; not years away. If it turns out I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. But if I’m right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating.

But unfortunately the world has no Plan B if I’m right. The facts are too serious to ignore. Sadly the pessimist-optimist debate started too late. The Club of Rome humanists were right to raise the ‘Limits to Growth’ issues in the late 1960’s. When they raised these issues they were actually talking about a time frame of 2050 to 2070. Then time was on the side of preparing Plan B. They like Dr. Hubbert got to be seen as Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf…*

He also said regarding the dire consequences of Peak Oil:

The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies.

And in another speech, Simmons said:

The only alternative is to pray, but that will give us only an additional two years, at best.

So…

Mr. Simmons, an advisor to the NEPDG, believes we are at or near Peak Oil.

I also found that Petroconsultants, Ltd., one of the world s most respected oil industry analysis and consulting firms, released a document in 1995 called World Oil Supply 1930-2050 . This report, which was written for oil industry insiders and cost $32,000 per copy, predicted that global oil production would peak around the year 2000 and decline to 25% by 2025. A long-standing rumor is that the CIA was Petroconsultant s largest client.

Analysts at Petroconsultants included Colin J. Campbell, Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Albert Bartlett, and Matthew Simmons again. It s important to note that these analysts have been making the rounds recently warning that Peak Oil is at hand, and not years away.

In addition, I found a recent speech by Robert L. Hirsch, a Department of Energy insider who is the senior energy program advisor for SAIC and who was a senior researcher at Rand. He said:

*"Peaking will be catastrophic, beyond anything I have seen in my career.

Reports are out that Saudi Arabia has high water cuts in all of its fields.

Russia has said that their reserves are the maximum possible that they could come up with in their calculations.*

Based on these clues by government insiders, I can only conclude the Bush administration is concerned about Peak Oil. In researching Peak Oil, I found out the following:

<ul>
<li>Shell Oil slashed its proved reserves by 20% in January, and cut them again in March. In February, El Paso Energy cut its estimated oil and gas reserves by 41%. I wasn’t able to find the actual percentage, but BP also slightly cut its reserves recently. </li>
<li>China recently stopped buying US treasuries, and is instead concentrating on establishing oil reserves. Rationing has already begun in some areas of China because of insufficient supply. Crude oil output is falling in China, and it recently predicted crude oil output of its largest oil field would fall 7% a year until 2010. </li>
<li>The US is establishing new military bases overseas in areas that are rich in oil. </li>
<li>Saudi Arabia s oil fields are in decline. </li>
<li>Swedish scientists recently predicted that global warming will never bring about a doomsday scenario, because oil and gas are running out much faster than originally thought. </li>
</ul>

So, here we have it. High-level officials in the Bush administration spent months coming up with an Energy Policy, but is it obvious to the American public how it is being implemented? Are there any obvious changes in US energy policy? Why is the administration being so secretive about its energy policy?

I would argue that the Bush administration IS implementing the policy, and Iraq is part of that policy. Remember that the Baker report forecast critical energy shortages unless oil and gas production were substantially boosted or conservation measures pursued.

The Bush administration has chosen to boost oil production by ensuring we have Iraqi oil.

What bothers me is the fact that the Bush administration is doing little in the way of energy conservation.

There are signs Bush administration officials are doing things on a personal basis. Several high-ranking Bush administration officials recently remarked that they have hybrid vehicles currently on order. And President Bush built his ranch in Texas to high energy-efficient standards.

The Baker report urged the Bush administration to “admit these agonizing truths to the American people.” I believe the agonizing truth is that we’re running out of oil and gas. We’re at or near Peak Oil.

This is probably the most important issue of our lifetime. Peak Oil potentially has catastrophic consequences.

Let me know what you think.

Regards.

Bullet · May 26, 2008, 10:26am

mapesy, although I don’t agree with a lot of your conclusions on some issues, I think you have hit upon the primary reason for the war. Please allow me to explain.

As a military officer and War College graduate, I have a pretty decent understanding on how strategic interests impact National policy. Now, IMHO, why did the Bush Administration push so hard to remove Sadam Hussien from power? Some will claim that they wanted to gain control of the oil fields. Well, again IMHO, they are a little off. They were looking at maintaining a steady access to the oil, which has to be one the most important strategic issues, if not the most important, facing this country right now.

A little academic lesson (again, from the War College and other academic sources on Government) : there are 4 types of “power” that any soveriegn nation can influence: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic (famous in Government circles as the “DIME” model). As the world’s sole Global Power in the early part of this century; we enjoyed the enviable position of being the world leader in every one of these areas, especially Economic ( a little cold hard fact: we still do, despite some recent hard times).

Now, you’re the leader of this country. Perhaps not the smartest man in the room, but you at least had the intelligence to surround yourself with people you thought were smart to advise you and guide your policies (sound familiar?). These same people are familiar with the DIME principle, and use that model to see what threats, if any, are out there to any one of the four areas. Should we as a nation dictate to the rest of the world what needs to be done and how to act to keep us at Numero Uno? That’s a debate for a different thread. But IMO, that’s why we hire these guys in the first place, to protect our interests. And what is the biggest threat to our economy? Our reliance on OIL, and the fact that without a steady supply, our economy comes to a screeching halt. Bad JuJu. This is why Bush had Cheney create the NEPDG, one of his primary objectives for his administration was to protect the key strategic interest.

Now, here you have a guy (Sadam) who is a loose cannon in probably the most strategically significant region in the world, the Arabian Gulf (with it’s oil fields and strategic ports). He has already attacked neighbors (twice!) trying to control an even bigger portion of the Oil pie (don’t fool yourself, WHERE did he attack and try to annex? The ports used to ship the oil supply). He has a 10-year old fued with the American government (who is still patrolling his airspace, attacking his assets when he “sabre-rattles”, and using international sanctions to prevent him from becoming an even bigger influence in the Opec nations / Arab world). To the Bush administration (and to be honest most of the Western World), Sadam was THE biggest threat to strategic stability in that area. Removing him from power WAS (to BOTH the Clinton and Bush Administrations) a primary strategic goal to protect America’s economic interests; we couldn’t let him have a strangle hold on our access to oil.

Did Bush go looking for any excuse to remove Sadam? Again, a debate for another thread (and covered ad nasuem in them). My opinion: yes. Not saying it’s right, not saying it’s wrong, just saying my interpretation of the situation. (where they really screwed up is Phase IV: what do you do when your army beats their army and you now have to control the land). No, what I’m trying to point out is the UNDERLYING reason we got where we got to. Not a conspiracy to “control” the world’s oil sources by evil and greedy men(we WANT other nation’s with money to spend on our movies, Ipods, and cars), but concerns on our leaders’ part to ensure access to something we have only marginal control over, unrestricted access to the “demon oil” flow. Now, the debate should switch to whether this is the right thing or the wrong thing to do at the time.

Just my interpretation of the motives…

Now, let me explain to you how to build a Military campiagn, to include the differences between the Strategic, Operational, and Tactical levels of battle, and you can consider yourself pretty close to being a War College Graduate as well. :)

mapesy · May 26, 2008, 11:35am

Thanks for the great post, Bullet!

Unfortunately, I’m not a War College graduate. I’m only an average US citizen who was trying her best to understand the motivation behind the Iraq invasion. I think your conclusion is much, much better than mine, but remember: I wrote that letter four years ago. I didn’t have much information to go on at the time!

I absolutely agree with this.

And thanks again, Bullet!

StitchInTime · May 26, 2008, 5:26pm

Because convenient amnesia sometimes settles in:
[ul]
[li][Google</a> Search of Clinton 1998](<a href=“clinton iraq 1998]Google - Google Search”>clinton iraq 1998 - Google Search) Where you will find ‘[CNN:</a> Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance](<a href=“http://edition.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/]CNN:”>http://edition.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/)’ among other links that refresh the memory.[/li][/ul]

Great post/analysis Bullet.

mapesy · May 27, 2008, 8:58am

<ol>
<li>Yes.</li>
<li>Yes. And why not have a miles-driven or gas-guzzler tax, along with fuel rebates for efficient use? Shouldn’t the consumer as well as the manufacturer be involved in the process? </li>
<li>Goes without saying.</li>
</ol>

Disagree about CAFE standards (although you make a valid point about the free market), but they would have had a substantially greater impact if they were implemented BEFORE the price of oil shot up. I doubt it would make much difference now. The Big 3 automakers have fought CAFE for years, but look where it’s gotten them. Japan is light-years ahead in the fuel-efficient vehicle market.

mapesy · May 27, 2008, 9:16am

Remarks by Colin Campbell at an ASPO Switzerland assembly last week:

…after Peak Oil, the oil producing nations will keep more of the remaining oil for themselves, i.e., oil export will dwindle faster than oil production.

…one of the consequences of Peak Oil and its accompanying high fuel prices will be a shift of wealth from the consumer to the producer nations.

…peak of conventional Oil is taking place right now. There remains lots of unconventional oil in the ground, but those oil reserves are expensive to produce, and their EROEI is very low. It takes at least as much energy to produce this oil as one can get out of it. Hence he does not believe that unconventional oil, like tar sands for example, will ever play more than a marginal role in meeting our energy needs. He told us that the current high oil prices are caused by supply no longer meeting demand, and that the time of cheap oil is over for good.

Colin also mentioned Peak Gas. He told us that gas is different from oil, because it expands on its own. Thus, the percentage of cheaply producible gas is higher than that of cheaply producible oil, and consequently, Peak Gas does not occur when 50% of the gas has been produced, but only, after maybe 75% will have been used up. The good news is that Peak Gas will occur a few years later than a Hubbert-type analysis would suggest. The bad news is that, once gas starts declining, it will do so very very fast…

mapesy · May 27, 2008, 12:31pm

Bullet (or anyone else), I’d really appreciate your views on the following idea.

I read news from many international news sources every day. Almost everything I read from overseas espouses the view that the Iraq War is about oil.

OK, we’ve pretty much established that energy security IS the primary reason for the Iraq War. But this is what concerns me: Although it appears to be only in a nascent stage, other nations are beginning to voice the idea that maybe THEY should invade other countries for their own energy security.

This morning, for example, I read the following in the Asia Times Online. I know it was meant to tongue-in-cheek, but I’m seeing the same idea floated about in more and more places:

We could invade somewhere. Considered as an oil acquisition exercise, Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a smashing success, and only appalling Wilsonian wimpiness in the US government has prevented the United States from taking full advantage of it. Iraq’s known oil reserves have been increased by about 100 billion barrels since the invasion, as competent US oil companies have been free to explore for new oil employing techniques more advanced than the 40-year-old dowsing sticks used by Saddam’s oil operation. At today’s oil price of $130, less a generous $20 for drilling and extraction, those additional reserves have a value of $11 trillion, or approximately 10 times the most alarmist estimate of the cost of the war to date. 

The problem is that the US did not secure itself a proper royalty on the new oil finds (even 10% would have been worthwhile - $1.1 trillion over the next few decades.) Nor did it ensure, by setting up a privatized oil company and a trust fund for the Iraqi people diverting oil revenues from the Iraqi government, that the new oil finds would be exploited in an efficient manner and the supplies directed properly into the world oil market. Any future invasion of an oil-producing country should avoid these two mistakes and thus make itself self-financing. 

The obvious place to invade is Venezuela (even if current estimates of Venezuelan and Saudi reserves are wrong and there is in reality more oil in Saudi Arabia that could be unlocked if ExxonMobil and the boys were given free rein, the Saudis are nominally our allies, so an invasion would be considered unsporting by world opinion.) Since the 1.8 trillion barrels of Venezuelan oil deposits consist largely of the Orinoco tar sands, a Venezuelan oil-related invasion would impose an additional requirement: to keep the environmentalists away in order that reserves could be exploited with maximum efficiency.

In the future, I’m afraid that many nations, including the US, will find excuses to invade oil-rich regions—especially since oil-producing nations will likely start keeping more oil for themselves as it becomes scarcer. I can’t see how this will NOT happen.

Thoughts? Many thanks in advance.

Bullet · May 27, 2008, 10:40pm

mapesy,

Glad to oblige with my $.02 (which I must admit, it’s probably over-priced, and will only get me less than a thimble-full of regular at the pump these days )

The scenario you reference above, and the words you quoted, seem to me to be the same old arguement: “America went to war to steal the Iraqi oil”. The quote you posted, and its implied reference, only adds to your concerns: America did it (it just couldn’t seal the deal in the end), what’s to stop other countries from doing the same?

Well, like I said before, I honestly don’t feel it was the Bush administration’s ultimate goal was to go into Iraq to take control of the Iraqi oil fields (oh boy, I can see the replies now! ) No, we went there because the Bush Administration was convinced that we needed to remove a loose cannon in one of the globe’s most economically strategic regions. (again, we can debate the merits about the legitimacy of their approach in another thread. I’m just stating my observations on the logic used). We didn’t want to permanently “plant the flag” in our newest, 51st state – we wanted to ensure the global economy couldn’t be put into a strangle hold by some despot. (although I’m sure that a few neon signs on newly refurbished pumping stations saying: “This facility proudly operated for the Iraqi people by your good friends at Exxon/Mobil” wouldn’t have been frowned upon by the boys in the beltway. And don’t believe the public words of some of our “ally nations” who loudly protested our actions. There were many a French and Russian company with contracts in hand just waiting for the UN to lift the sanctions so they could go in and put up their own neon signs.) That part of the world is, unfortunatley, too important to the entire global economy to let something or someone attempt to “distub the peace”. And as the strongest nation (with the most to lose economically) the Bush administration (and every adminsitration for the past 20+ years before them) had to act in America’s interests to protect and support regional stability in the Middle East.

Interference by an imperialistic global bully? That’s one way to see it, especially if you’re the one being “interfered” with. But isn’t every developed nation currently intimately tied to this region economically, and thus doesn’t every one of them have an interest to be somewhat involved in ensuring that this part of the world doesn’t go kablooie? Trust me, you want our leaders concerned and “interfering” in this region (which is why Ron Paul is a fool IMO.) Maybe some of the decisions we made weren’t the smartest (pauses for laughter over the amount of understatement contained in that last sentence), but each of our leaders has to be involved, it’s just too important to ignore.

Besides, I always get a laugh when I see the crowds in the Middle East complaining about our interference, burning our leaders in effigy while chanting “Death to America”. Why am I laughing? Because half of crowd is wearing Levi jeans and Nike sneakers, and half of the cars in the background are Ford pick-ups. I just love irony, and I can easily see that NO, WE WILL NOT LOSE THIS ONE, not when even these idiots are addicted to the global economy.

As to another country just going in to take someone else’s oil fields. Well, let me give you another example, the waters around Indonesia and Malaysia. Guess what - the world recently discovered that this vast area of the Indian and Pacific Oceans has nearly as much oil as the Middle East. And guess what else? Every major nation in the region has recently claimed “soveriegn rights” to these waters. I wonder why that is (he says sarcastically) ? China is VERY interested in building up it navy. Why? Do they need that many subs to invade Taiwan? India is busy expanding it’s navy as well (Hey, wait a minute! Why does India need a big navy when their biggest threat is their land neighbor, Pakistan? Why does India need to project NAVAL power? HMMMMM…) Australia is in the hunt as well. What is to stop them? 
How about the US Carrier groups stationed within days of the region, they might have a say in everyone playing nice. Again, we don’t really care who “owns” the oil (OK, not so much, but we’d rather have a friend run the pumps than a rival. “G’Day Mate. 'Nother shrimp on the barbie while we fill your tanker?”), we just want to make sure we can get some shipped to us, by people who may want to buy our Levi jeans in return.

So what’s to stop another country from going “Mine, Mine, Mine!”? It’s in everyone’s interest in this global economy that we all “play nice and share”. Trust me, a lot of allies complained, LOUDLY, that we went into Iraq, but deep down they knew we weren’t doing it to take control of this precious commodity for ourselves. If they thought that, we would have had a much tougher fight (as in facing Iraqi, Russian, Chinese, and maybe even German and French tanks as we crossed the border). They wanted Sadam gone as well, they just wanted to be the ones to re-build and run the oil stations themselves.

It’s a pretty simplistic and popular on-line arguement that says we just wanted to go into Iraq for oil. But few in the world wide web truly understand strategy and its implications to National policy. Bush decided to go because he saw it as strategcally neccesary to our economic strength.

Another cheery thought for you about a different topic. A large portion of the world’s population currently doesn’t have access to clean water sources. A LOT of thirsty people out there, especially in the under-developed areas of the world, and the population is just getting bigger. Think nations would go to war over oil? Just wait a few more years when it becomes an issue of survival versus keeping your car / factory running. Pleasant dreams on THAT one…

mapesy · May 28, 2008, 8:31am

Bullet, As soon as I read the Baker Report Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century(commissioned by the NEPDG back in 2001), I understood the motivation for the invasion of Iraq. These parts in particular were quite revealing:

*-Tight markets have increased US and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.

<ul>
<li>The US should immediately review its Iraq policy, including its military options. </li>
</ul>

The Baker Report forecast critical energy shortages unless oil and gas production were substantially boosted or conservation measures pursued. It called upon the administration to admit these agonizing truths to the American people.*

There you have it. Saddam was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets, so the Baker Report urged the US to consider military options. We can argue about terrorism and the War on Terror until were blue in the face, but the US has never engaged in war unless it had favorable economic implications for our country. As far as Im concerned, the War on Terror is really a war to protect the economic lifeblood of the US: a cheap, stable flow of oil.

I appreciate your insightful post of last night, especially your discussion of how the overthrow of Saddam is important to the entire global economy. Ive got some thinking to do here, as I dont understand the global political nuances of the invasion. Its long been a concern of mine that other countries will form strategic alliances and gang up on the US. Russia and China, for example, have been closing a number of deals lately. (Much of my information comes from Stratfor.)

You said: So what’s to stop another country from going "Mine, Mine, Mine!? Besides the global economy, what about fear of the US? The Iraq invasion proves the US will do whatever is necessary to protect its economic interests.

Yes, Ive been reading about the global water supply problem along with the Peak Oil problem. Another day.

Oh, and keep an eye on Venezuela.

Peak Oil

CONNECT WITH US