An Interview with Michael Klare
Posted by Dave Cohen on January 27, 2007 - 12:06pm
Dr. Michael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. One of the world's leading experts on the energy geopolitics, Klare is perhaps best known for his history and analysis Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Klare is a frequent contributor at TomDispatch, where he provides a welcome alternative to the mainstream media's spoonfed pablum concerning crucial issues like America's preemptive war on Iraq, the Iranian nuclear stand-off and the global chess game to control oil & natural gas resources.
Michael Klare
Klare's presentation at ASPO-USA is nicely summarized by Chris Vernon of The Oil Drum's United Kingdom section please read Chris' report along with this interview. At the conference, I arranged to e-mail him some questions which he kindly took the time to answer. Subsequently, we did a follow-up interview on the phone. Both the questions and answers are presented verbatim.
DC: You have written "Beware Empires In Decline", referring to the United States. Generally speaking, what do the historical precedents tell us about the geopolitical behavior of such empires, particularly as regards what you have termed "senseless, self-destructive acts"? Also, please touch on why you think America is indeed in decline.
MK: The establishment and maintenance of an empire is an immensely energy-demanding enterprise. It takes enormous energy and resources to conquer foreign nations, maintain overseas garrisons, suppress rebellions, administer colonies, pay the salaries of soldiers and imperial bureaucrats, key fleets at sea, and so on. Every empire that ever was has struggled with this dilemma, and every empire that ever was collapsed sooner or later when the expense of maintaining the empire exceeded the revenues obtained from possessing the empire. For the United States, I believe, Iraq represents that turning point: before the United States entered Iraq, it was the dominant world power and possessed the strength to exercise hegemony in almost every corner of the globe; but the Bush administration vastly miscalculated the costs of occupying Iraq (now estimated at $1-$2 trillion) and that misjudgment will so deplete the US Treasury that American will never be able to undertake such a costly imperial undertaking again -- not without bankrupting the country and reducing us all to beggars. This having been said, the reality of our altered circumstances may not penetrate the thinking of our top officials, who may falsely believe that we still enjoy our pre-Iraq preponderance of wealth and power, and so undertake Iraq-like adventures abroad that will cripple this nation forever.
DC: Moving on to specific cases, let's talk about Iraq. Skipping over the reasons for the war itself, which have been thoroughly discussed, tell us what you see happening in Iraq going forward. There is apparently a civil war now in progress between the Shia' and Sunnis. You've said that something like the Dayton Accords (agreed to for Bosnia in 1995) is necessary now, Baghdad must become a neutral, international city and the Sunnis must have a share of the oil revenues. Do you think there is any chance that all or some of this will actually happen? Doesn't history tell us that such civil wars, once started, take many years, if not decades, to get resolved? Already, there is a significant refugee problem. How do the Kurds fit into the picture? Finally, the United States can not remain engaged at current troop levels in Iraq forever. What do you think will happen there?
MK: Well, it is obviously risky for anyone to make predictions about Iraq today, given the volatility of the situation there and the failure of all previous efforts to establish order in the country. However, let me begin by saying that Iraq was an invented country -- it was invented by the British during and after World War I to facilitate their exploitation of the oil in the region. They created the fictitious "Kingdom of Iraq" by patching together three provinces of the former Ottoman Empire, Mosul in the (mostly Kurdish) north, Baghdad in the (mostly) Sunni center, and Basra in the (mostly) Shiite south, and by parachuting in a fake king from what later became Saudi Arabia. To keep this patchwork together, the British relied on bribery and sheer force -- the same tactics employed by Saddam Hussein when the British were forced out. So the United States faces an existential choice: copy the British and Hussein, and use force and bribery to keep this mess together, or find some way to allow it to revert to its original condition with a minimum of bloodshed. I favor the latter as the most realistic option. This will not be easy, I know, but the other choice is now untenable. I think that once it becomes clear that Iraq will devolve into three states with an internationalized Baghdad and some provision for dividing up the oil revenues fairly (as I propose) -- and that American forces will begin leaving -- the various elites will sit down together and work out a modus operandi for making this happen. I think that this formula will also make possible the deployment of an international peacekeeping force under UN auspices that all sides can respect, instead of a US-dominated force that is a flashpoint for so much violence.
Note on Iraq: Refugees are pouring out of Iraq into Syria, Jordan and the other surrounding countries. When I asked Klare about the view that this exodus would destabilize those countries, he emphasized that many of Iraq's "best and brightest" were the ones fleeing the situation. The loss of Iraq's educated, professional classes leaves the poor at the mercy of the "thugs and crooks" taking advantage of the political chaos there.
DC: Shifting over to Iran, you are on the record as saying that you expect a military action -- specifically a "Shock & Awe" bombing strike --- in 2007. Do you still believe that will occur? Such an action would seem to imply that America has learned no lessons from Iraq, yet the fallout from such an action could be disastrous, especially in its effect on the oil supply & price. What do you think the consequences would be? Would there be spillover to Iraq and, if yes, what form might that take? Similar questions apply to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.
MK: Yes, I do believe that the US will conduct air and missile strikes against Iran in 2007, unless Ahmadinejad capitulates to Western demands and abandons uranium enrichment, which I don't see happening. I think Bush did learn something from Iraq: If you're going to invade a country because of suspicious WMD behavior, FIRST EXHAUST ALL DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS before your resort to force, so you can claim you had no choice in the matter. Bush was criticized because he rushed into Iraq before allowing the diplomatic process to run its course, making America look like a trigger-happy cowboy state and sparking anti-Americanism around the world. This time, he will not act until the Europeans say "We've tried eveything, and nothing worked," and UN sanctions haved proved to have zero impact. Then he can say to Congress and the public: "Look, I did it their way. I exercized Job-like patience. But the national security of America is at stake here, and I can wait no longer." In the meantime, he will fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to deal with an oil crisis and station more U.S. forces in the Gulf to deal with various imaginable forms of Iranian retaliation. I still think there will be chaos, but I don't think that this will deter Bush from going ahead with an attack on Iran.
Note on the fallout of an attack on Iran:
Klare assumed that any U.S. bombing attack would include plans to take out Iran's conventional missile batteries, thus hampering their ability to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Persian Gulf and
the Strait of Hormuz
Klare therefore anticipated an asymmetric Iranian responsefor example, mining the Strait and attempts to sow chaos in all the Shiite regions of the Middle East, including Southern Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This would lead to U.S. countermeasures and further escalation of conflicts in the region.
DC: In the last few months, there has been a steep decline in the oil price, partly attributed to the lifting of the "risk premium" regarding fears of major supply disruptions in the Middle East or other regions. Yet, it would seem in your view that the risks have not gone away and, in fact, the geopolitical situation is deteriorating, not getting better. How do terrorist acts against oil & natural gas production facilities -- for example, Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia -- affect the risks? Please comment on the oil price decreases and how you calculate the current geopolitical risk premium on price.
MK: Well, the fear premium was half driven by a possible war with Iran and half driven by fears of another hurricane season like 2005, with Katrina and Rita. Obviously, neither of these occurred. Had either occurred, the premium would have been justified. So what is the probability that we will go through another year with (a) no major crisis in the Middle East and (b) no big hurricanes? I can't imagine it's very low. And the fact is, there is very little spare capacity in the international oil equation, while demand is rising steadily. So we have to assume that from now on we will remain just one major crisis or hurricance away from another spike in prices; and if we get both of those together, we'll have a super-spike.
Note on Terrorism: I asked Klare about the geopolitical importance of terrorist attacks against oil production facilities. He emphasized that the word "terrorism" is a bit of a misnomer in many cases. In fact there is a wide spectrum of such groups running the gamut from ideologically motivated jihadist terrorists to quasi-criminal organizations to political reformers, any of whom might carry out such attacks. For example, FARC and ELN in Columbia often act like criminal organizations using blackmail. Seeking "protection money", these groups threaten to blow-up oil pipelines unless they are paid off. In Iraq, Klare spoke of so-called "insurgents" working with oil facilities security organizations in a kind of "revolving door" arrangement whereby the people blowing up the pipelines are sometimes the same people protecting them. Again, this resembles organized crime more than it does jihadist terrorism. On the other hand, MEND, operating in Nigeria's Niger delta, may lie closer to the political reform part of the spectrum.
Klare observed that Osama Bin-Laden's original organization has been largely broken up. Al-Qaeda is now decentralized and not as "professional" as before. Nevertheless, Klare expects continued attacks or threats on oil production facilities like Ras Tanura by terrorist groups.
DC: Tell us your thoughts on China -- a large and rapidly growing consumer of the world's oil & gas -- and Russia -- now the world's largest oil producer and, via Gazprom, the preeminent gas reserves holder & supplier. What is the strategic geopolitical relationship between these two countries? Do you see "Energy Blocs" coming about in the future? If yes, what would these look like? For example, you noted that Japan has cast its lot with American energy interests. Please comment.
MK: There is no doubt that China will need a great deal of energy in the years ahead, and that it will be competing with the United States for access to overseas supplies of oil and gas, especially in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. I think that the Chinese would like to compete with the USA on something approaching equal terms, as one big consumer vs. another - with each side brandishing their giant energy corporations - but I fear that Beijing has become paranoid that the USA is out to limit their access to global sources of supply and so they see themselves being pushed willy-nilly into Russia's embrace. This, at least, is the lesson I think they took from the Unocal fiasco, which I think was a terrible mistake because it suggested that the USA will not allow China to compete with us on equal terms in the global energy market, leaving them no choice but to rely increasingly on Russia and other friendly states like Iran, and to try to seek advantage in places like Sudan, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and Nigeria, where they see an opening. So yes, I do see "energy blocs" emerging, and I do not think it is a healthy development for world affairs, insofar as it could so easily lead to military blocs, as in the period before World War I.
Note on Japan: In the context of "Energy Blocs", Klare brought up the recent experience of Japan, whose Inpex Holding Inc. had invested $2 billion toward developing Iran's Azedegan field. After signing on in 2004, Inpex could not attract any investment partners from the EU. Under additional pressure from the United States, Inpex was unable to proceed with its Azedegan plans, which finally resulted in Iran cancelling the contract as reported by Rigzone, who also tell us that "Japan is Iran's largest foreign oil customer, purchasing 581,000 barrels of crude a day last year, or 14% of Japan's total oil imports." Before the action, Bloomberg had reported that:
Japan, which imports almost all its oil, needs the $2.5 billion [Azedegan] project to help boost overseas oil assets to 40 percent of imports by 2030. Iran is trying to ward off sanctions demanded by the U.S. for its nuclear development program and may strengthen ties with countries such as China and Russia by allowing greater access to the oilfield, said energy researcher Tomomichi Akuta.Now, there is talk that Japan will turn to Iraq and Indonesia to try to meet its future supply needs."China and Russia are freer to act against what the U.S. says, while it's hard for Japan to," Akuta at UFJ Institute Ltd. said by phone today. "From Iran's point of view, countries such as China have more credibility when it comes to implementing oil projects under the current circumstances."
DC: Nigerian production has been subject to large disruptions for some time now through the operations of MEND in the Niger Delta. Angola is increasingly an important oil exporter, especially to China. Overall, the Gulf of Guinea is now, and will remain for some years to come, a key regional production center for light sweet crude oil. Will the West intervene militarily in West Africa? Would this bring it into open conflict with Chinese interests there and elsewhere in Africa?
MK: Bear in mind that "military intervention" typically occurs along a spectrum, beginning with the transfer of arms, followed by the deployment of military instructors and advisers, then the use of special forces attached to local irregular forces (e.g., the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan), and only then, in the final stages, regular combat troops. It may be some time (if ever) before the USA reaches this final stage in Africa, but it has already commenced the early stages (arms transfers and instructors) and there have been reports of US special forces operating against extremist Islamic groups in the Sahara region, so I would say that the process of intervention in Africa is well under way. The Chinese are also engaged in indirect forms of intervention, most notably in Sudan, where they have assisted the northern government in its efforts to suppress the SPLA in the oil regions in the south. I do not believe that this will ever lead to a direct clash between US and Chinese forces, but I certainly anticipate other forms of friction between the USA and China in Africa. Indeed, this has already begun: for example, the US has sought to isolate the Sudanese government at the UN Security Council, while China has resisted such efforts.
DC: Finally, will you comment on the likelihood of fossil fuel resource wars in the future? Here, I have in mind actual military conflict. Perhaps you could also touch on some regions I haven't mentioned above such as the FSU countries in and around the Caspian Basin, the South China Sea, etc.
MK: I assume you're distinguishing here between civil wars over the allocation of resource rents, like those now under way in Iraq and Nigeria, and full-scale war between the major powers over access to oil-producing areas. Wars of the first kind are happening now, and I would expect more of them in the future. As for the second, I think we have to consider the problem of "unintended escalation." I do not think that any of the major powers will deliberately choose to provoke a war over oil, as when Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies in 1941 (and bombed Pearl Harbor as a preemptive move against likely American retaliation), but I do think that they may engage in provocative behavior that could lead to accidental escalation under conditions of panic, confusion, and over-reaction (as in the circumstances that triggered World War I). A possible flashpoint for such a scenario is the East China Sea, where both China and Japan have deployed military ships/planes in a disputed energy zone and employed them in a threatening manner, risking potential panic fire and escalation to actual war - a situation that could get out of hand quickly and lead to full-scale war. So yes, in this sense, I think war over oil and gas is entirely possible.
I wish to thank Michael Klare for taking time to talk to The Oil Drum. Clearly, geopolitical events have the power to trump more pedestrian supply & demand calculations in the future.
Dave Cohen
TOD Contributor
davec@linkvoyager.com
I am especially interested to get Klare's take on the possibilty of China and the US entering into direct conflict. As I suspected, the big energy consumers will want to avoid direct military confrontation as much as possible.
Such a confrontation would not live anyone in any kind of shape to claim "victory" I think.
The potential for escalations seems very great, though. If the US does attack Iran, I see the possibility for such escalation as being very great.
And it does seem that geopolitics affect immediate supply more than geography, at the moment. But is that because the geographical realities are a long-term trend that does not register as starkly? If supply was easy diverse, and abundant then the geopolitics would matter less. With supply so tight, the geopolitics related to oil are brought to the forefront of our attention...?
Just noted that Dave's header to this interview is dated today Jan 27 2006 but all of the responses are dated Nov 06 2006.
Thought this might be a date stamp error in Drupal but then found Leanan was speaking of the "elections tomorrow" which confirms the November 2006 date.
Just posting this against the first comment to determine what time stamp comes up.
In any case, I predict that they will bring it up much more forcefully in the months ahead--something along the lines that "If we withdraw, we will be paying "X" dollars for gasoline."
And again, IMO the big Oil Patch news next year will be the confirmed production declines in both Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Kind of gives the parents sending their only child off to Iraq warm fuzzy feelings doesn't it? Go in harms way so that we can have lower gasoline prices and higher stock market prices. . .
Maybe I missed it, but I'm completely baffled by why nobody has mentioned the very, very long article in the NYT Sunday Business section on Kazakhstan. It reads like the real-life Syriana. SAT? What? Too busy with the Wall Street Journal?
$78 million in bribes approved at the highest levels. Everybody denying involvement from Goldman Sachs to ExxonMobil to CP and BP. You would not believe the people involved. The only one who they want to hang is Giffen, I think was his name. Trial starts in February. They are saying a guilty verdict for him will bring down Nazarbayev. I don't buy that last claim. This is, after all, Nazarbayev.
And the NYT runs the special the weekend Borat opens. Too special. Bob Shaw you gotta take a look at this one. This is what it's all about. The Great Game.
Still available for free from the NYT. Grab it while it lasts.
Don't start reading unless you have a half-hour.
This one will kill me - I hope Rummy finishes his assignment. I really do. I'm less confident it will happen than I was 3 months ago. But he just has one more 2-year tour to do. It would be the best thing for this country. We need to heal our wounds. We need to spend the next 2 years thinking about who we want to be our next Secretary of Defense. And our next State. and CIA. and FBI. and NSC. and a whole lot of other stuff.
Don't sacrifice that for the pleasure of crucifying somebody you have had it out for - for 6 long years. Kill the Hate.
Who will you replace him with? Who? You have no FUCKING IDEA. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
Did you really want Bush to appoint his successor? Duh.
btw Billmon is brilliant, progressive but independent, his coverage of the Lebanon crisis was second to none, sharp as a knife. His knowledge of history and literature also continualy suprises me... I waste endless time following his links...
So your listening to So Long Marriane, John of Arc and Bird on a Wire (with no electricity init)?
I'm at the Oil Depleting Scary Fast Conference in London. Some great talks and hopefully lined up two guest posts on Peak Oil and Aviation and The (fbig) Energy Gap.
Ill Doomer CW
Replace them with any two retired generals. (Oh -- if you can find any who haven't criticized the regime yet.) The US military have the training and skills to handle diplomacy and human resources, and they are professionals.
What I'm talking about is a caretaker non-political administration to see out Bush's lame-duck years.
It's not about hate. It's about damage control.
matt
When Rummy walked...
Gates. OK, a general would have been better, but an old-school insider is as good as could be hoped. The problem is, he'll be taking his orders from Cheney.
Now. I think Rice should be appointed to the strategically important position of ambassador to Uzbekistan.
What, and not Mexico and the North Sea?
This is still your strongest argument tex...The decline in the North Sea is proven, how much will it speed up? The decline in Mexico is proven for now, is there anyway the Mexicans can turn back the tide in less than a half decade even IF the oil is there in other fields to offset Canterell?
Russia? Wild card. Saudi Arabia, pure conjecture, and the surprise could even go the other way to the high side on production, with BIG developments still possible, (not assured, mind you, but possible)
Long story short though, if the North Sea, Mexico, Russia, and Saudi Arabia all begin to fall at once, and noticably, not just this measurement error stuff,
it's going to be a long hot summer, tex wins the hand, and you might want to leave the RV in the driveway....
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom.
Roger Conner
Was wondering if MK will be calling by to answer questions - as you know i was big diasappointed that Mat did not call by on Saturday. A couple of serious questions for MK:
I had a chance discussion the other day with someone who suggested that the Gulf Princes, who are fabulously wealthy, helped finance Alqueda. A system of protection money was described, whereby, monies paid guaranteed that Gulf State property would not be a target. This lies very close to the description above of organised crime. Does MK consider this to be a possibility? If so, then those buying oil from same Gulf States could be regarded as sponsoring terrorism and do you think the US should then unilaterally place oil import embargoes from these counries?
IMO an attack on Iran will lead to Iran cutting oil exports - and wreaking havoc throughout the region - I don't think they will need missiles to hit tankers in Hormuz. Really hard to see how the OECDS best interests might be served by this course of action.
My flight has been called si I gotta fly - as they say.
CW
And what happens without an attack on Iran?
Does the world avoid havoc and chaos if the US or any other former empire-now-Needy does not "attack" Iran (limited attack or otherwise)?
As the availability of oil declines, how long before others go for the pistol in the center of the table?
In the interest of being provacative - and bearing in mind It's Iran's oil - how about trying to work out a way of improving relations with Iran - so that they no longer pose a threat?
Impossible perhaps? It all comes back to Israel, Palestine and Hitler I believe? Still hope that MK calls by to post some views.
Do you think the rest of the world will avoid caveman diplomacy if only that mean Bush would get out of office?
Is the rest of the world a passive mass of pansies?
Is everyone here a cultural bigot?
Who's daddy, with the same name and oil connections, also participated in the great Reagan era morning in America forget conservation party?
Which countries thought invading Iraq was stupid (and in a couple of cases, actually voting out those office holders who had supported the war), and which ones are still there, staying the course - oops, I forgot, according to Bush, he never said that - and what are you going to believe, what Bush says or what Bush says on videotape in the past?
Starting to see a pattern?
There is no reason not to blame countries with sinking gasoline or oil consumption, increasing renewable energy generation, or higher emphasis on local agriculture with less chemical inputs - after all, the industrial West is itself a problem in this broad framework, no dispute.
But truly, when the Europeans or Japanese start lining up to buy Hummers and McMansions while becoming the fattest people on Earth, ever (we're number 1 indeed), then we can say what Bush represents is irrelevant.
You are right - Bush is becoming shorthand for what could be called cultural bigotry. Which should be really frightening if you care about America, because to think Bush=America is really incredible, but then, that is what the world is starting to think - Americans are no better than a president whose sheer lack of comprehension of his own language and flawed factual framework seems inescapable every time he speaks in public.
What struck me, was last week, Die Zeit (a hard to explain, if certainly left oriented, weekly paper) had on its front page the head of the Statue of Liberty, with a red sky behind it, with the headline, more or less - 'Give us the good America back.'
And from the current Zeit web page - I was looking for the German headline, but instead found the article, so here is a taste -
'Amerikaner sind wir alle
George W. Bush ist für Amerikas Freunde eine schwere Belastung. Kann sein Nachfolger die guten Seiten deutsch-amerikanischer Partnerschaft wiederbeleben? Von Michael Naumann '
'We are all Americans
George W. Bush is a heavy burden for America's friends. Could his successor re-animate the good side of the German-American partnership?'
The picture accompanying it is of Elvis in uniform getting off a plane with his duffel bag. Remember those days, when even a celebrity could be drafted and felt that serving his country was important?
To keep on -
'Ein Thema wird die Wähler allerdings kaum interessieren: Auf dem Spiel steht auch die Zukunft des amerikanischen Ansehens in Europa - zumal in Deutschland. Sollte mit einem Sieg der oppositionellen Demokraten in beiden Häusern des Kongresses der Abstieg George W. Bushs eingeleitet werden, dürfte ein Seufzer der Erleichterung durch Europas Staatskanzleien wehen, von Polen und Großbritannien vielleicht abgesehen. Dramatisch verlief die Entfremdung seit dem Irak-Krieg zwischen Deutschland und Amerika.'
(Note - this is a very quick translation of some fairly subtle points.)
'One theme won't interest the (American) voters at all - the balance of America's future reputation in Europe - or at least in Germany. If the fall of George Bush can be brought about by the Deomcrats, a sigh of relief will result in Europe's government centers - except perhaps for Great Britain and Poland. Since the Iraq war, the alienation between Germany and America is dramatic.'
For example, Merkel is unlikely to be buying anything from Bush while looking for a little massage, I'm sure.
Yes, the Germans are very nostalgic for a certain view of America - after all, they know all about secret (or not so secret) torture, courts which don't allow any defense, smash and grab for what a democratically elected government feels is necessary to defend its vision, and so on - they have been at the end of the road that America currently seems to be started on.
'Auch hätte sich niemand vor fünf Jahren vorstellen können, schon bald einen Bündnis-Diskurs über die prinzipielle Berechtigung von Folter führen zu müssen.'
'Also, no one five years ago could have imagined that there would be a discussion among allies about authorizing torture.'
I won't go on - except to note that the author notes that even the most rabid anti-American couldn't have imagined the American vice president proclaiming the right of America to torture, and how at this point, such a fundamental position is threatening to split America from Europe since it would seem that America no longer shares the values that civilized nations pride themselves on.
It is hard to grasp what an utter disaster Bush is for America until you spend some time outside of the U.S.
The article ends by further noting that the constitution the Americans gave Germany at the end of WWII is worth more than all the CARE packages and the Marshall Plan.
Germans considered America a sort of 'big brother,' a country with flaws, but one worthy of emulation. As you can imagine, Bush does not fit into that picture at all, and it is easier to blame Bush for what happens than it is to confront the fact that maybe what America provided after Hitler was just another mirage, in the end. Yes, Bush is that bad, to cause a certain self-doubt among one of the few success stories of occupation and nation building.
Perhaps it only the older generation who feels a nostalgia for the "Good 'ol USA". Among my under thirty peers in Hamburg I have met only dismissal, blind hatred of the US. There is also an unwillingness to admit a close, longstanding relationship between Germany and the US as well as a whole raft of cultural similarities. In the mind of these folks (some very close to me) Bush is not just bad for the US. Bush is the US. Everything he stands for and says is superimposed on the entire culture of the country and most if not all references to the US are made with this indiscriminate scattergun approach.
I am a Canadian, with a finely honed sense of anti-Americanism as well as a raft of American friends and family members. I never in my life thought I'd be jumping to the defense of the United States. But the "schadenfreude" among my peers in Germany is so unbearable that I'm constantly advocating the fact that the US isn't made up of neocon clones with no agenda other than world dominance. This is a painful for a Canadian.
In the end, I think this has more to do with young Germans fighting to regain a sense of pride in their country. German pride is only recently distinct from Neo-Naziism and observations that the world now has other boogeyman nations - like GWBush's USA - make letting the past be the past and regaining some pride in Germany all the easier.
It seems that even among the Peak Oil Aware narcissism defines the lines of geopolitical considerations.
He's always said we should judge his presidency on the success or failure of Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, both are in unholy messes, with ground being lost every day.
So we judge him.
From US Marine intelligence colonel (Schwarzkopf stopped talking to him in the First Gulf War, when he told Schwarzkopf that the US air strikes were not killing the Iraqi SCUDs (they weren't)).
Then UN inspector, pursuing Saddam Hussein quite vigorously. He was actually involved in a coup attempt against Saddam by the CIA (unwittingly, he says).
Then to peace advocate, saying that by 1998 the UN programme had killed Saddam's WMD aspirations. (true)
Then to anti-war critic, and an early warning of the US plans to invade Iraq. (again true)
Then arrested on a ?statutory rape charge? (he met with a policewoman who he had spoken with through an online chat room). My colleage at the time was a former South African secret policeman: he just laughed and said 'obvious set up to shut him down'.
Charged with taking money from a businessman allied with Saddam Hussein to make a documentary about the US invasion of Iraq.
Since the Iraq war, he has been warning about US preparations for an Iran war-- up to and including full scale invasion.
He's a guy who has been more right than wrong, for longer.
How does Iran pose a threat?
How would you negotiate with them to neutralize the threat?
Who's actually buying the crap this administration is dishing out.
Most of the discussion above seems to be from the "declining empire's" point of view.
But we have emerging energy empires that are more than passive participants. They may have their own Grand Designs for our Post Peak Oil Humpty Dumpty.
I wonder how the geopolitical equation looks if they are not examined as passive participants, but rather as actively pursuing their own geopolitical agenda. And how might the Declining Empires of the West respond?
Also, what are The Teams now and what does he see in terms of shifting alliances over time?
Well done Dave.
Well, that's a cheerful note on which to start the week.
If the Democrats take the House and/or Senate back tomorrow, can they keep us out of more "Iraq-like adventures"?
This is so ironic. I know a lot of people originally voted for Bush because they didn't like Clinton's "foreign adventures," and thought Bush would keep the troops home...
How does that look to others on the Geopolitical stage?
Especially those holding US Debt, or Gas, or Oil? - Two of which are nuclear tipped.
True enough, the US has the fire power to destroy any nation on earth (''of course we may get our hair mussed a little''). But to do that, the incumbent cabal would need the Generals to be on side. Who would side with this bunch of loosers? Who would risk a trial for genocide later if the cabal fall and the cabal is replaced?
It is bad enough that the Generals see a beloved Army being pushed to breaking point in a war without honour or victory. They are intelligent and cultured men, almost always students of history. No longer the stereo-typical types such as Jack D Ripper, Buck Turgidson or Bat Guano.
No. If the cabal dare push further for more wars, then they need to ask themselves:
''Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?''
Latin! We are fast becoming a first-class website. I'm hoping others will know immediately what that means.
Of course, I can not pass up an opportunity like this.
"I do not avoid women ...
but I do deny them my essence"
Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!
Yee Ha
Yee Ha
Warning CEO Robinson, Warning. Do not click on image. You won't like what you see. You can't handle the truth.
background music
Thank you.
I'm trying to re-educate SAT. He needs to be re-habilitated before he can meet with Dear Leader.
So after Soylent Green, I'm gonna need you to see Spartacus and Lolita.
I do not mean to ignore your main point here. It is remarkable how many "retired" generals (voluntarily or not) have made strong statements against the neocon agenda. Still, there are those who continue to serve, carrying out the current "mission" -- whatever that is, today -- but we do not know their private thoughts. On the other hand, I an sure there are those who serve loyally under the assumption "my country right or wrong" even as we sink further into this Vietnam-like quagmire called Iraq.
I do not, as some Republican mouthpieces have done lately, blame the military for this hopeless debacle. These people have no shame.
He's five feet two and he's six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17
He's been a soldier for a thousand years
He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain,
a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
and he knows he shouldn't kill
and he knows he always will
kill you for me my friend and me for you
And he's fighting for Canada,
he's fighting for France,
he's fighting for the USA,
and he's fighting for the Russians
and he's fighting for Japan,
and he thinks we'll put an end to war this way
And he's fighting for Democracy
and fighting for the Reds
He says it's for the peace of all
He's the one who must decide
who's to live and who's to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls
But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can't go on
He's the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can't you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.
Buffy St. Marie by way of Donovan
I am, by the way, a pacifist. I am also a realist who served in an army because he was drafted. I didn't like it but I learned a few things there. One is that professional soldiers are people with political opinnions, voices, families and a sense of duty. I admire some as people just as much as I loath some. I do not loath the institution if it does its duty well.
I do blame the officers. The Colin Powell's, the generals that complain their troops are being misused but continue to follow orders that are illegal, orders that violate Geneva Conventions, orders that violate their officer's oath. Orders that get their soldiers killed pointlessly. Orders that cause their soldiers to massacre Iraqis who are not our enemies (except they're sitting on our oil). We're pushing a million - shall we call it genocide because it is.
What to make of someone like Maine's National Guard commander Libby, who goes to Iraq after two years and comes back saying his troops are being misused? And still stays as their commander? Officers are responsible for the soldiers under their command. Or irresponsible.
Thoreau, Gandhi: they can always resign. But perhaps that would be bad for their lobbying jobs after they leave the service. The higher up the chain of command one goes, the more corrupt. A truck mechanic called up to man a machine gun in a Humvee has little option; the officers farther up the chain of command do have options. And responsibilities.
cfm in Gray, ME
The US officer corps is heavily conservative Republican. That is not healthy.
That is how the system works.
"A truck mechanic called up to man a machine gun in a Humvee has little option"
You always have an option. Most people are just not strong enough to exercise it and live with the consequences. Those are the people who are afraid all their lives. The fear is their punishment.
I was in the army once. I was given a nonsensical but legal order. I told the officer that I would not comply. I told him about a better alternative. He threatened me with disciplinary action. I repeated that I would not comply and I told him again that there was a better way. He let me do it my way. Was I afraid? At that moment I was. I was 19 and had no clue about life. I went out on a limb. But later the officer showed a lot more respect for me. I never had to do it again - I wasn't given any more nonsencical orders like that. It does not always work like this, but I have heard similar stories from other people. Sometimes you have to say no, even if you are bound by orders.
As for those who torture: they don't do it because they are told to but because they always wanted to do it and are now being given a "legal" environment to live their perversion. And as for those who order them to: they did pre-select the people for the dirty job. It doesn't work any other way. The Nazis did the same.
Don't be too hard on them. They teach you that, as a military officer, your job is to enforce policy, not make it. Which is as it should be.
Besides, everyone saw what happened to Eric Shinseki.
(''of course we may get our hair mussed a little'')
"The rest of us" can only hope your right!
I guess whats so massively stupid is we could have bought Iraq and paid off Sadam for 1/10th the price of this war and thereby saved 660,000 Iraqi lives and a couple of thousand American lives, proof of the total imprudence of the current government. And, the fault lies both with the Republicrats and the Demicans, and ultimately the American people. Vote against every incumbent tomorrow.
Author(s): (volunteers ???)
... And Finally...after the USA ceased it's foreign adventures, the rest of the world...
...
...
...
The End.
????
"All right people. The rest of the hard working all star Blues Brothers are gonna be out here in a minute, including my little brother Jake. But right now, I'd like to talk a little bit about this tune you're hearing. This is of course the Green Onions tune. It was a very very big hit in the early sixties in this country. And of course, it was composed and recorded in Memphis, Tennessee, right here in the United States Of America. You know, people, I believe that this tune can be acquainted with the great classical music around the world. Now you go to Germany, you've got your Bach, your Beethoven, your Brahms... Here in America you've got your Fred McDowell, your Irving Berlin, your Glenn Miller, and your Booker T & The MG's, people. Another example of the great contributions in music and culture that this country has made around the world. And as you look around around the world today, you see this country spurned. You see backs turned on this country. Well people, I'm gonna tell you something, this continent, North America, is the stronghold! This is where we're gonna make our stand in this decade! Yeah, people, I've got something to say to the State Department. I say Take that archaic Monroe Doctrine, and that Marshall Plan that says we're supposed to police force the world, and throw 'em out! Let's stay home for the next ten years people! Stay right here in North America and enjoy the music and culture that is ours. Yeah, I got one more thing to say. I'm just talking about the music, people, and what it does to me. And that is, as you look around around the world, you go to the Soviet Union or Great Britain or France, you name any country... Everybody is doing flips and twists just to get into a genuine pair of American blue jeans! And to hear this music and we got it all here, in America, the land of the Chrysler 440 cubic inch engine!"
Klare's prognostications regarding the future seriously underestimate the increasing willingness to resort to increasingly ruthless tactics of total war that will develop among both the US elite and the US masses as the effects of Peak Oil intensify and lead to true situations of socio-economic desperation.
The only thing that would disprove this line of argument, it seems to me, is mass moral revulsion among the US masses about killing hundreds of thousands (so far) to steal their oil. Absent that, we have a clear indication that even the masses, and not just the elites, are willing to kill for oil. But so far, I do not see any signs of such mass moral revulsion - except among the usual suspects at the fringes of US society.
It would take a mass spiritual transformation to convince most Americans to drop their oil-rich lifestyle and live very simply, maybe as small farmers or local craftspeople.
I gave up on the spiritual transformation theory back in the '70s.
Here's a quote from a NYT article about this:
Mr. Nathan of Vineyard Columbus said such disillusionment was common. "How is it that we evangelicals have become the strongest constituency for war of any group in America?" he asked.
When he asked that question from the pulpit, Mr. Nathan said, people stand up and cheer.
And here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/us/politics/31church.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ad xnnlx=1162868900-xJGBtr9/WNk/qH26U3Tacw
He has been slated for it, but if this is real, it represents a huge movement.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/environment/story/0,,1463406,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1786227,00.html
The political implications of this are huge.
The Right is not wrong in saying that there is an element of cultural superiority (snobbishness) in the way the more secular and coastal elements of US society have reacted to the rise of mega churches and the evangelical movement. I'll come at this from a British/Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) slant: it's hard, sometimes, to believe these people are serious (eg on Intelligent Design).
And yet what the mega churches provide is what churches and synagogues have always provided to their communities: places to meet, Sunday morning activities for the kids, a sense of community.
The cultural splits are clear. (it can be quite shocking, though, to listen to some of the tacticians on the right: their cynicism about using these people is quite striking, sometimes).
The Democrats have always been comfortable with the Catholic Church, and with the evangelicism of the Afro-Americans. Somewhere they have gotten tone deaf to evangelical (white) Americans.
If evangelical Americans are starting to own 'liberal' issues like environmentalism (and Peak Oil is dovetailed with concern re Global Warming), then the times truly are 'a changing.
Just as the involvement of mainstream religions was crucial to the Civil Rights period in American history.
Nothing empowers a nation, and particularly the United States, like a sense of moral purpose and moral destiny.
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/11/5/82022/3874/54#54
Is the Cold War back - or dead - with Peak Oil?
"Use them or Lose them" because the deterence of Mutually Assured Destruction is mute. Made obsolete with Peak Oil (mutually assured destruction is ensured by Peak Energy anyway ???)?
Is anyone else in the world aware of Peak Energy? Does any one else in the world besides the USA have grand designs for the Post Peak (other than the USA)?
Even if no country responded with formal military retaliation -- which I find highly unlikely -- the assymetrical warfare arising in response would be enough to give the USA pause.
Such an attack would galvanize the many assymetrical opponents of the USA tyo work together, and add more people and resources to their various groups, and also add more people starting additional groups to rebel against the "Mad Empire."
Secondly, a massive attack on any country sufficient to destroy it would likely involve weapons of mass destruction which would add to the environmental blowback we are already experiencing in myriad ways.
Thirdly, the internal changes in the USA and even in the US military might preclude such an action, or at least make the USA's divorce from democracy complete. This would disrupt our nation domestically in a way that I would not like to imagine.
The blowback from such a massive attack by the USA would be lethal and would last as long as our species lasts -- which might not be long after such a blunder, one has to admit.
For the time-being, the US will continue to try to avoid this by cobbling together some kind of fully pliant puppet regime able to keep the various factions among the Iraqi masses in line. This policy may well persist for a good number of years. But eventually, it will fail, and the US will resort to the full extermination option.
Plenty of us could be lumped into that category as resources get tighter.
The Iraqis are an obstacle to US polcy now.
Those permanent bases do not indicate any plans to leave. Ever.
The extermination process is slow for now, but given events that provide a tiny fig leaf of cover, and that could change.
We American have been groomed to be compliant consumers. Only a minority would complain, and that minority could be dealt with severely. This would involve the completion of our divorce from democracy and transformation into a totalitarian state.
Even so, the rest of the world could certainly bring the Empire down. There would be plenty of motivation to do so.
IMHO it really is time to start thinking seriously about using less energy. You can still get from A to B in a VW Golf or a Smart or a Prius using half the gas, in virtually the same time - all that is lost is a little prestige.
Talking to Nate the other day, I reckoned we need new status symbols - showing off driving around in the most expensive gas guzzling beasts has to go.
Assuming you thought that driving a multi-ton sheet metal penis enlargement would buy you any "prestige" with smart people or women in the first place. I don't think it ever did. Certainly not with the smart women I know.
The European elites know all this, and they know in consequence that, in the long run, they will have to prostrate themselves and seek protection from the US military behemoth.
I believe the French described their arsenal during the Cold War as being capable of 'tearing the arm off of a superpower.'
It only takes a few nukes to cause a huge amount of chaos/destruction.
Anyway, the Europeans haven't decided to build up their military because the deal they've gotten from the New Romans across the sea have been pretty good so far. If that changes, they will arm themselves in opposition to us and there would be very little we could do to stop it.
And I'm not so sure about the energy independence thing, considering the US uses twice the oil per capita.
This would be very much in line with the so-called "Ledeen doctrine," named after Michael Ledeen, which he once articulated as follows at the American Enterprise Institute: "Every ten years or so, the US has to take some shitty little country and throw it against the wall, just so the rest of the world knows who is really boss." [That is a fairly accurate paraphrase of the original.]
These kinds of disparities in the world military power equation are rarely spoken of aloud, but they are real nevertheless, and their reality subtly influences the way geopolitical actors act in every facet of jockeying for influence in the world. Among other things, it will eventually drive the helpless, effete Europeans straight into the arms of their American protector in order to assure their continued access to Russian energy resources.
Of course, were the Israelis to do such a thing, they would face the insatiable wrath of the entire Islamic world. Unlike the US, Israel is a small country, with corresponding quantitative limits on the scope of its military prowess. So they wouldn't be able to survive this lust for vengeance with impunity. But in the end, they could successfully repel an all-out Islamic invasion through the use of nuclear weapons - what Golda Meir termed the "Samson Option."
I myself believe that it will eventually come to just such an all-out Islamic invasion of Israel, followed by a devastating nuclear retaliation by Israel that essentially wipes out the Islamic world. I do not believe that any destruction of Lebanon will be the trigger, though; rather, I believe the Islamic invasion will be a surprise attack.
Are you in some sort of time warp, Phil?
Of course, they could nuke Lebanon, but it doesn't seem to be what you are talking about. Other than that, we have seen that they can kill civilians by bombing cities, but can not take or hold territory, despite throwing in everything they've got, including their "doomsday weapons" (cluster bombs).
So even if Israel were to destroy all the major cities and infrastructure of Lebanon, most of the population would survive, and it would still be "on the map".
Your "Armageddon" scenario is just plain nutty, I'm afraid (an "Islamic" invasion of Israel). I suspect it's strongly influenced by religion, if only subliminally.
The only other thing I would say is that my grim might-makes-right calculus, based on the primacy of raw power in determining events of human history, is predicated upon a far more realistic assessment of human nature than that adopted by most people who reject religion. The faith that many Peak Oilers who are hopeful for the future of humanity place in human nature is a blind faith; it is itself a form of unfounded religious belief that is in fact far less rationally defensible than traditional Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.
You claim that your pessimistic view is based on the fact that people are motivated by greedy self-interest; but you ignore the fact that self-interest is often, even generally, better served by co-operation than by conflict.
What makes you think that humanity will NOT eventually revert to the kind of mass ferocity associated with WWI and WWII in the wake of Peak Oil? Nothing could explain such a belief, it seems to me, other than an unjustifiable belief that human nature has somehow fundamentally changed just in recent years, or that it will maybe change just a few years hence.
Let's examine these examples. I maintain that they are not illustrations of "self-interest" wars : they were losing propositions for all parties involved.
WWI was triggered by bungling, WWII by ideology.
The various parties to WWI did indeed have conflicting imperial interests. However, nobody launched the war as an instrument of policy. The interlocking nature of alliances, and the strategic constraints of the parties, made rapid escalation inevitable. But it could very well have been prevented, had there been a diplomat/statesman of the stature of, say, Metternich. And all parties would have been much happier and wealthier.
WWII : though it can be described as a "resource grab" on the part of Germany, in reality it was an irrational, ideologically-driven war which can in no way have been said to benefit the German people. It can be argued that Hitler could have won; if he had not attacked the USSR, etc. But the very fact that he did, against all logic, is proof that it was fundamentally an ideological war and not a self-interested one : it required a mystical belief in the superiority of Germans and the inevitability of their victory, to justify it in self-interested terms.
This:
I will concede that Africa, in particular, will continue to have resource wars; they are certainly not new there.
But today we have rational actors at the head of the major military powers (ok, GWB excepted, but they are not going to let him touch the buttons any more). The salutary corrective reaction of US electors confirms my "faith" in the relative stability of this situation. Russia or China might conduct resource wars, but only if they were damn sure of winning. No way would either one take a gamble or make a blunder like the Iraq invasion. There may be plausible scenarii (takeovers of Central Asian republics?) but they will not be cataclysmic.
Europe will not launch resource wars, because democracy will hold, and will demand moral foreign policies.
Lose-lose resource wars are possible in theory, but require recklessness and lack of information on the part of the perpetrators. Concerning the major military powers, I therefore count them unlikely, because information (and even diplomacy) are much better than they used to be.
Unequal treaties are going to be a growth industry, on the other hand.
A significant part of the electorate is opposed to this course of action on principle, but the elites in government and the media have become masters over the past few generations at rendering this portion of the electorate politically impotent, and effectively excluded from the public square of meaningful debate. And insofar as the danger exists that their howls into the wind on the fringes of American society might effect a meaningful shift of course by creating a revolutionary mass-movement, fascistic means of stamping that out have been in the course of development for some years now.
In short, the US is irrevocably committed to a course of trying to dominate the planet, both to exploit its energy resources itself, and to prevent its "strategic competitors" from doing so. You are of course correct that every effort will be made by cooler heads among the ruling elite (e.g.: the current Baker Commission on Iraq) to minimize the risk of igniting a world conflagration as an unintended side-effect of pursuing this will to power, but there is no way that these attempts to contain the consequences of acting violently toward other nations will succeed indefinitely. Sooner or later, the US will press things too far, and hundreds of millions will be killed - no matter how cautious the elites try to be.
Already now, the hostility between the US client-state of Israel and the surrounding Islamic world is in a state of white heat. The American ruling elite shows no signs of any intentions of cooling this situation down; quite the opposite, they stand by silently as Avigdor Lieberman talks openly about expelling all the Palestinians and the like as a powerful mainstream political figure in Israel. I point to this particular antagonism as the one most likely to ignite a conflagration that makes WWII look like child's play the soonest. (All of this is related to the overall US drive for world hegemony, though the nature of the relationship is admittedly complicated.)
If you disagree with me, I invite you to present evidence indicating that we may hope for tensions in that region to relax soon.
Hi Phil,
"...hope for tensions...to relax"...
Well, what I offer for now: There is the objective possibility that something different, even if only on the part of a few, is the expression of a potential for a different outcome...esp., given that when "we" speak along the lines of "In short, the US is irrevocably committed to a course of trying to dominate the planet...", we may overlook aspects and potentials of the "we" (as you described so well in the previous paragraph).
http://www.combatantsforpeace.org/
"We are a group of Israeli and Palestinian individuals who were actively involved in the cycle of violence in our area. The Israelis served as combat soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinians were involved in acts of violence in the name of Palestinian liberation."
And from the women, we have:
http://www.partnersforpeace.org/pressreleases/db200607260/
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also
is the bit of 'Judeo Christian values' that is not being practiced in the muddle east.
There is no nation powerful enough to act with impunity.
Even if some apparent victory is achieved, the blowback will come back around in sufficient measure to destroy that nation. This is already happening with the USA, and even to some degree with Israel.
I suggest that you read Chalmers Johnson as a counter to Ledeen.
Ledeen has no understanding of assymetrical warfare, nor any understanding of the changes a nation inflicts upon itself by taking the increasingly violent measures required to maintain hegemony.
The Muslim world, by the way, is far greater than the Middle East. Israel does not have the ability to wipe out Islam, nor does the USA. Such violence creates martyrs and actually strengthens the religion and/or culture one is attempting to stamp out.
No one will win any wars anymore. No one.
How else will the alpha males inpress and therefore attract alpha females?
The drive behind the SUV was actually more about personal security, that status per se.
Chrysler built an SUV, and discovered the customers felt unsafe because of large rear windows. By making the windows smaller they found they increased the customer sense of security.
It's why SUVs are particularly popular with 'soccer moms'.
Once a certain 'tipping point' percentage of SUVs is on the road, everyone wants one (because you feel unsafe in traffic surrounded by them, in a small car-- what if one of them runs over you?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
http://www.mayaparadise.com/mayabege.htm
Hi Major,
Thanks.
"It is hard for me to understand why people cant see..."
"...why people can't see..." this thought is expressed elsewhere as well, with a different object. If you really mean "why", my take on it is that people are caught up in their immediate lives, perhaps lack education ("Al Queda controls the oil, that's why we're having problems", said Man on Bus), or, perhaps lack curiosity, etc. So, it's not at all obvious to them.
Or, (perhaps those who've studied formal psychology know a term, but)... it often seems to me that people also "project" or assume benevolent motives on the part of others...as in "We wouldn't go out of our way to commit this brutality; if something wrong is being done, there must be a good reason for the initial invasion (or whatever), and any brutality is a deplorable side-effect."
Just my two cents.
Although I'd also like to mention this really interesting article,
not that I'm posting it. Just to encourage everyone to read it in the original version.
http://www.sleepykid.org/blog/2007/01/13/army-of-altruists/
Currently billions of dollars are literally raining down on Canada - Alberta specifically - for oil sands development. This money is causing bad policy to be followed (assuming one believes in the environmental / climate change impacts of unhindered grown in this area).
Declining domestic production in the U.S. plus an increasingly hostile foreign supply market mean that Canada is going to be looked for / forced to deliver increased supply. Forever.
I do not see this immense pressure as being a healthy environment for Canadian policies to be developed under.
And eventually some policy makers in Canada will realize that and/or start to vocalize these concerns.
But then... I don't mind people having a good scare for entertainment. Although I think that "SAW III" might do a better job than any speculation about the future that will never happen.
I have to agree with Dr. Klare about one thing, though: the US did economically destroy itself by going into Iraq. It will take decades to recover and by that time China will have eaten its lunch.
Please compare the life of the ordinary man during the best of times of the British Empire with the life of ordinary people today. Would you say it was better to live in the slums of Manchester Capitalism than to have a nice espresso and French pastry in a coffee shop in London the morning before going to work?
I don't think so.
I understand the frustrated comment about war mongerism and profit making. That is a problem, but only half as much of a problem than 30% of the US population not having health insurance of any kind. And these issues are not even related. The forces that made war and the ones that keep the US from re-inventing itself as a social state are not the same. They might be driven by the same philosphy of Puritanism, though. A religious war might actually be in order (and it is already under way), but it has to be waged and won inside the US.
Just curious, what are your reasons for distinguishing them?
I believe that the primary forces are indeed the same. They are called "greed" and "stupidity". But the local mechanisms and people through which they act are different. Chimp is responsible for the war, but he is not responsible (all by himself) for the deeply rooted social and economic problems of the US. There were a lot more architects for that one. I would think that one has to blame generations of Americans for making one dumb decision after the other and most of them are guided by an amorphous fear that they would have less for themselves if someone else had just a little bit more. The result is a bicyclist mentality: you kick down hard trying to get ahead.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I need to be clearer, next time.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I meant. Having said that, I don't think it is so hard to go one step further and personalize the blame to some extent. Personally I would not put significnat amount of it on GWB - besides being too easy I find him nothing else but a representative of the huge corporations from the military, oil, construction businesses etc., that have vested interest in keeping our way of life unchanged. Yes, what is happening now from a cosmopolitic point of view is a short-sighted stupidity. But from their point of view this is just another step of the game called "How to make the rich richer, and keep the poor under control".
China, with their trillion dollar foreign reserves surplus, paid for Iraq. They will also be the one left holding the short stick when the dollar collapses.
Hell, you have to admire how Dick and Georgie got foreign countries to pay for our stupidity.
Your children and grandchildren will be paying for Chimp's economic crimes against America, by not having health insurance or any social services to fall back on.
It is refreshing to know how many people there are who still don't get it. My job, requiring a small amount of insight and some smarts, will not be in danger for a long, long time.
:-)
http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?StoryId=deab9d13-9db2-455a-84fd-e6c1abaa1ecc
That 700 billion in US debt will never be repaid at anywhere near the current value of the holdings. We have issued hundreds of billions in dollars of debt instruments each year to fund our military, and the Chinese (and others) have bought the debt each year. Since the debt will never be repaid, the world has paid for the US military machine.
If you are going to make smartass comments, at least make a quick check of the facts first. I do agree that the world will be paying for the Chimp's crimes for a long long time.
This is guesswork, not analysis.
It seems highly likely that the US will pay back the face value of this debt. I do not think there is, or China thinks there is, a lot of default risk associated with US treasuries. There is more default risk in other forms of US dollar debt, which China also holds, but the return is higher.
If the loss doesn't come from default, it would have to come from currency depreciation. While it does seem fairly clear that over the mid- to long-term, the US dollar should weaken, this is still not guaranteed. Currencies are complicated and for a country such as China, gains and losses on currencies need to be balanced with management of a country's own exchange rate and finding better places to invest.
The Chinese aren't stupid and they aren't making any real solid moves to diversify out of the dollar beyond discussing it. They obviously don't entirely agree with you.
Of course the US consumer may stop borrowing and buying for other reasons, eg cannot service additional debt, higher energy expenses, higher taxes, etc. That seems to be the most probable outcome, in my opinion, leading to a sharp slowdown of the Chinese economy.
thks again
That is certainly true for the past, albeit the consumer credit is being owed to the American credit card companies, not the Chinese manufacturers. They have nice and even cash flow.
The misconception is that there is no internal Chinese market and that the only Chinese market is in the US. Neither is true. You should see how active they are in Eastern Europe. Not to mention the products they make internally. I had a funny experience at an electronics show last year where a Chinese display manufacturer was showing gorgeous LCD displays and really stylish cell phones. Everyone was asking where they could buy the brand. The answer was: "Only in China, we do not export these."
Chinese are building for the future. Every transaction they make is one step towards the next. The US was a good target and is being milked to exhaustion but that wasn't all the Chinese were doing these last years. The other activities are just not visibe from inside the US. This is a cultural phenomenon. If you have Chinese friends like me, you can see it first hand.
To rely on Chinese dependence on the US is a shortsighted strategy that will backfire as soon as it is exercized.
Since you seem to be dead set on it, I will let you figure it out by doing the actual experiment. We talk when you find yourself in the gutter, economically speaking.
:-)
China's Soviet style wholesale ecological destruction of farmland and industrial related catastrophes would suggest otherwise. Their future looks bleak in that respect. Bleaker than the US or Europe, who commit many of the same sins, but on a smaller scale.
Most people discount things like this because their either don't know about them (more or less as you described), or they don't understand what happens in countries with governments that don't have even nominal public accountability (often skewed by Americans and Europeans that assume the US government is totalitarian). The conservation movements in the US have done so much more good than cynics realize.
The limits forced by peaking energy availability also means that developing countries won't be able to continue their geometric growth, likely leaving the first world as the most developed nations for decades to come, as their infrastructure was built when energy and materials were cheaper. That presents it's own challenges, but maintenance of current infrastructure is cheaper than building new infrastructure.
Am I happy about it? No. But I acknowledge that the decisions were made by real people living in a real world and they came out the end of a long tunnel they were forced into by history. You can not blame that on them. It wouldn't solve the problem, anyway.
China is undergoing an extremely rapid change right now. Its major cities are comming near or are exceeding 1st world standards while the back country moves slower. Because all of this is so rapid we can see both, the China that produces the top of the line products for our mass consumption and the China of the peasant farmer. China is not one developing country but a quilt of many more and sometimes less well developed regions. I think the Chinese understand that. Most of us Westerners can't seem to be able to get our minds around it, which is a mistake. If we want China to be ecologically sustainable for itself AND the rest of the world, we need to understand that it can not be treated as a homogenious entity.
Kyoto does nothing for China, yet it could do so much!
China does nothing for Kyoto, yet it could do more than almost all the other players combined.
Why? Because we have grouped it into the developing world group. The world pays for it with an impossible carbon budget and the Chinese pay for it by inhaling some of the worst air in the world.
Let's assume you go at the China problem with an open mind and ask yourself, what is more important? To keep playing a post-cold-war blame game or help China to take its place as one of the most important global players which also has some of the richest cultural heritage in the world? In the end, you can't stop China and why would you want to? So if you can't stop them, why not help them?
We have the technology to help them clean up, they have the cheap labor to put it to work. The rest is politics and money, both of which we have in abundance.
Geometric growth is impossible, as you say, but the world is not yet at an equilibrium, the point where it belongs. And if some of us would learn that "their advantage is not our disadvantage", we could get to work and have this planet cleaned up and made livable for everyone within two, three generations, tops.
"...maintenance of current infrastructure is cheaper than building new infrastructure."
That is only true if you don't do the math. Replacing inefficient old infrastructure with efficient new infrastructure usually pays for itself within a decade or two. Not to mention all the jobs it creates...
How quickly we forget Peak Oil - last time I looked, we didn't have decades.
Or am I missing something?
"How quickly we forget Peak Oil - last time I looked, we didn't have decades."
No, You are right. It's a normal Human lapse of coherent thought.
We ALL could die tomorrow. We all know this, yet we talk and plan as if we will live forever.
Not exactly the same thing, but, the lapse from a Finite Lifespan to Infinite planning horizon is nearly the same thought train.
We peakers do it everyday.
"Gee, I can't wait to teach my grandaughter to drive.... Oh that's right she won't be using a car"
And other little things like that.
It's hard to keep the finite horizon of Peak Oil in front of us all the time. We constantly lapse into Infinite Time Horizon.
Something like that.
An above 5 degree centigrade rise in the average world temperature: as much again from now, as has happened already since the last Ice Age.
The IPCC gives a 20% chance of that outcome by 2100.
Or take it further, the planet flips over into a positive CO2 reinforcing cycle, from a negative one. At which point, CO2 concentrations are on the way to 1000ppm.
This level was last achieved at the time of the Permian Extinction, when over 90% of animal species were extincted.
that is really enough to worry about. Other than giant asteroid impact, just about everything else has a cap on its damage to human civilisation.
1 OECD
2 China
3 Oil export lands
These three I beleive will divy up the the energy between them leaving everyone else impoverished. This I think may lead to greater conflict between developing countries - who may compete with each other for resources, and some developing countries may feel inclined to export more violence to the 3 privilidged groups.
India and Indonesia I believe may be particularly vulnerable - Asian Tiger economies, increasingly reliant upon imported energy.
I also see decelining energy availability / escalating energy prices for the developing world coinciding with growing shortages of food - as "you guys" drive to the Mall on what might have been some one's dinner and as global warming leads to declining food production and drought in some areas - like Australia is experiencing right now.
Perhaps the term "useless eaters" will gain acceptance - if not positive regard - amoung the classes of people who never need to have a concern about the cost of gasoline, food, shelter, a plane ticket, and so forth.
Ridding the world of "useless eaters" may even be seen as an important element of "the war on terror." "Ridding the world of evil-doers may very well become cover for massive genocide.
This may sound a bit harsh but frankly I don't see how people cannot see that the USA has followed genocidal policies in Iraq since Reagan's policy of arming Saddam & Iran, pushing Iraq and Iran to kill each other off as much as possible, followed by Bush 41's aggression.
Even some of the key people involved in overseeing the sanctions enforced during the Clinton years were quite disgusted with the brutal effects of these sanctions on children in Iraq. The USA has shown its Imperial ambitions there for years.
Our policies toward the poor in our own country also reflects a new understanding of how things are in the "ownership society." The poor of New Orleans were "doing very well" holed up in stadiums on cots and shuffled around like so much unwanted excess eaters, according to Barbara Bush.
Note that I do not believe Americans will see Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or much of the so-called "retirement investments" hold value in the next decade or so. The brutality we see the US government sponsor toward the poor who can't do much about it now will only increase and broaden.
Too many people refuse to see that we simply cannot continue wuith the world's population exploding and per capita consumption increasing and key resources depleting and climate changing.
My guess is that there will only be military solutions in the minds of those who lead the USA and other nations. Many of the NASCAR crowd in the USA will just demand a bit of the spoils, and will comply with the most brutal regime to get what they can. We've been pretty well groomed for this role, have we not?
The problem is - beside the obvious choice we've made for violence and rape as our core cultural value -- that no one can win a war anymore. It simply is not possible.
For your information there is substancial evidence of Shia groups inside the Iraqui Resistance movement, so there is no such will by the most of Iraqui People in dividing Iraq. Only the Kurds want it, and thats because they always wanted it, thats no secret. Kurds fight against turkey over that wish of spliting into a Kurd state.
But Sunnis and Shias don't want a divided Iraq. Perhaps as much as half the Shia support the Iraqi resistance. There is no way they will acept the spliting of Iraq, much less the Sunnis.
You people talk of a bloody war in such cold unhuman way. Iraqis are fighting for they're pride, pride of being Iraqis, for patriotism, they have the right of self-rule, the right for independence. Thats the real issue of the War of Iraq.
They want to defeat the imperialist force that as cause them so much pain and is stealing they're oil.
Iraqis are no diferent from Viatnamese they want a free homeland and respect.
The only real terrorist is the US empire. A dying terrorist.
Shut the fuck up...really? Why are we there, then? Are you fucking high? When we leave, they will slaughter each other. Unless they have already completed the task by the time that happens.
Nobody wants a divided Iraq, douchebag! Especially not the Iraqis. But we all try our damndest to acheive that, don't we.
Middle East Press Reports on the British "Undercover Soldiers" This is about the two British soldiers caught in Basra wearing native garb and driving a Toyota Cressida loaded with explosives. Soon after their arrest they were liberated with a totally gratuitous show of force by the British Army before an investigation could be mounted.
And this from Al-Jazeera: The occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq?. Admittedly, this is quoting the Iranians, who of course have an axe to grind in the matter, but it brings up the excellent point of whose interests are being served by continued instability? Of course, it serves the US interest; create a problem (chaos), propose a solution (indefinite military occupation, with a bonus of control of the oil - oil, remember? the focus of this web log?). For background on others whose interests are being served, go read this article that discusses the Likudnik view expressed by David Wurmser (you'll have to scroll down to the last few paragraphs).
Oh, sorry.I was thinking about talking about it in a kind of warm, romantic, type way, like you commie-mutherfucker- Bolivians (chosen at random, somebody's gotta take credit for Pico). Long Live Hugo Chavez. Viva Sendero Luminoso.
After they hang your hero, Saddam, I hope they come after you. We won't hang you, though. We'll let you finish out your days writing poems about how torture is beauty and Beria was God.
Halfin's studies of the psychology of the market here at TOD must be recognized as superb.
No new comments added in some 6 or 7 hours after being reposted.
Instead of recycling old articles when the queue is empty, why not single out a worthy piece from some other source other than TOD.
Even if such an article could not legally be reprinted here (TOD just linked to it), it would probably generate some good discussion.
Just an idea.
I did not put up this Klare interview, PG must have done that. He must have done so because he thought it was important and timely.
I had written about Iran & Iraq again recently. What is interesting is that few (who comment) seem to find the subject important and timely.
As to your suggestion, that things need to be fresh all the time, I can only say that it must be some TV generation of Americans/others who need constant stimulation, have an attention span of about 5 seconds, and who can not possibly remember or value the past even the very recent past.
But, this is a civilization in decline, isn't it?
Be patient, Dave. Oil will top $70 again at some point, your audience will expand and your mood will improve. I promise it. :-)
That is really good, Dave. That might be your best piece to date (how many times has that been said before). Your attitude from the get go is key. Here's a request for your next piece: "Mexico, Cantarell and their REAL impact on Global Warming." What I think people like about you is your ability to convey yourself through your writing. You clearly have questions about the real answers. This is what makes you a superior inquisator. You are a true master of your subject. Others may quibble, but basically you have your facts down.
Now I'll go back and read the next sentence.
Re: Now I'll go back and read the next sentence
Even I have got to laugh... you'll let us know, of course, what your particular wisdom is on the many subjects covered in this interview ARE ... you know, just so we all know and ... we also know that you're not just a critic taking pot shots from the gallery seats, that you've got something substantive to say ... which I'm sure you do! I don't doubt you for a minute!
A Cornered Animal
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/5084
January 27, 2007
Bush Is About to Attack Iran Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts193.html
In July 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski of the United States met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning. The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein. However, Khomeini learned of the Nojeh Coup plan from Soviet agents in France and Latin America. Shortly after Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein, the President of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr quietly rounded up 600 of the loyalist plotters within Iran, putting an effective end to the Nojeh Coup.[5] Saddam decided to invade without the Iranian officers' assistance, beginning the Iran-Iraq war on 22 September 1980.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm
Almost one year ago, one of the first posts I ever wrote and posted on TOD was about the concentration of American power and destiny, as I said then, "traveling down to the tiny end of the funnel, more and more power and wealth and destiny in an ever smaller area, funneled to one tiny place in the Persian Gulf, where the destiny of the Western technical nations may be decided soon."
It is still true, and the tiny place on the globe is getting more and more critical to us all each day.
I will close with some advice for the future: Watch Qatar, now the base for the greatest concentration of high tech military power in world history, within binocular distance of Iran, the command location for CentCom, the base of America's Iraq occupation and Persian Gulf military operations, the staunchest Arab nation ally the U.S. has, but with a sizable Shi'ite population, but a total population barely as large as metropolitan Atlanta. Oh, did I mention....the third largest reserves of natural gas in the world. Does this place sound potentially interesting?
"Qatar" may someday have the historical infamy of Bunker Hill,
Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor or Vietnam in the chronicle of American destiny.
For now, most Americans wouldn't know Qatar from Ferrari, and which one is a place and which one is a car.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom.
Roger Conner