Contemporary Wars

He's a writer for Vanity Fair magazine. I think most American's would put him in the "whiny liberal" category. "Traitor" is a bit too strong... maybe if he suggests Bush did not actually win the 2004 election, he can add that title

I don't see how it can be "strategically meaningless" and sitting on an ocean of oil at the same time. At least until oil becomes strategically irrelevant that is, which is no time soon for the US economy.

Yes that seemed a bit overdone Perhaps he meant militarily meaningless as the islamic nuts are not originating from there and the aera appears uncontrollable.

But what would militarily meaningless mean? True, the US military does not keep terrorists from marching down Wall Street by fighting in Iraq. But its purpose is still to defend US vital interests. There are reasons why countries think that they have vital interests in the Persian Gulf. Reasonable people may debate the best way to defend them. But the oil alone would make the Gulf strategically relevant, and therefore militarily relevant.

True. If you acknowledge the discrepancy between the official discourse and the geostrategic realities then you no longer have to twist and spin and pretend that freedom is on the march. But you could start having problem finding volunteers to dye in Irak. And because it appears that there are some problems on that side, I say that either
1. people are not dupe
2. the huge number of war supporters are more than eager to let others do the dying for them. Chickenhawks

Actually, it is both. Many of those who would be of real military value are not joining. This is particularly true for the Reserves and Guard, because people know they are not joining a truly "reserve" force -- they are unlikely to get through one enlistment without being mobilized. Why not join the active military in that case? For many of those who support the war, they "support" it in a completely abstract sense -- they are beyond military age, and don't know anyone who is in the military.

Of course this is an oversimplification -- there are young people who support the war. But there is truth to it as well.

Dollars were printed too, so can euros.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/st...,900867,00.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/1...q.un.euro.reut/

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1970

Excellent links Imperialist, thanks !

The oil currency is an important but only one factor in the Middle East today. Other factors must be accounted for. Here is an excerpt from Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy" 2006 - Viking editions. It nails the overal picture nicely, starting with a few selected quotes.

Oil has literally made foreign and security policy for decades. Just since the turn of this century, it has provoked the division of the Middle East after World War I; aroused Germany and Japan to extend their tentacles beyond their borders; the Arab oil embargo; Iran versus Irak,; the Gulf War. This is all clear.

Bill Richardson, US secretary of energy 1999

A quick look at the map is all it takes. It's no coincidence that the map of terror in the Middle East and Central Asia is practically interchangeable with the map of oil. There 's Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom - and Everlasting Profits to be made.

Asia Times - 2002

The need to dominate oil from Irak is also deeply interwined with the defense of the dollar. It's current strength is supported by OPEC's requirement (secured by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia) that all OPEC sales be denominated in dollars.

Peter Dale Scott - 2003

He [Karl Rove] turned out millions of the foot soldiers on November 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerfull driving force in modern American politics... It's why the invasion of Irak was for them a warm-up act; predicted in the Book of Revelation... A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption.

Bill Moeyrs - 2004

Each epigraph [on the preceding page] distills a different aspect of the 2003 invasion of Irak. They are all compatible, though, because the attack, while at bottom about access to oil and US global supremacy, had other intentions. One was to fold oil objectives into the global war against terror. A second was to cement the US dollar's hegemonic role in global oil sales - and thus in the world economy. A third was to keep the invasion's purpose broad enough to allow the biblically minded Christian right to see it, at least partially, as the destruction of the new Babylon, on the road to Armageddon and redemption.

None of these motivations excuse the fundamental deceits of Anglo-American policy makers. Speaking on behalf of George W Bush, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer insisted on February 6, 2003, that "if this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people." Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld had in November 2002 likewise declared that "it has nothing to do with oil, absolutely nothing.". British prime minister Tony Blair, for his part, told members of Parliament in early 2003 : "Let me deal with the conspiracy theory idea that this is somehow to do with oil. there is no way whatever if oil were the issue that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam."

All three statements, each of which came back to haunt its maker, are all but lies. Oil was a critical factor. The thin, partial truth of these denials - very thin, very partial - lay in the fact that broader concerns were also at work. For one thing, as we will see, the Bush administration knew that oil-peak crisis probably posed strategic dangers far beyond those publicly acknowledged. The dollar's role as the world's reserve currency was also tied to oil. Besides which, seizing Irak as a military base-cum-oil reservoir would allow US troops to be pulled out of vulnerable Saudi Arabia, where their presence was breeding discontent and terrorism.

At the same time, biblically attuned prowar constituencies would have been alienated by any emphasis on oil or any oil-related peril to the US dollar. In the Left Behind series, which religious-right leader Jerry Falwell called the most influential books since the Bible, the godly heroes did not deal in oil; only the malevolent antichrist, based in New Babylon, did that. This aligns with the insistence that the United States and Britain were fighting not for oil, heaven forfend, or to stop OPEC or Islamic leaders from pricing petroleum in euros, but to bring freedom, liberty, and democracy to the Middle East. This hoary claim, the pedigree of which dates to the post-World War I period and the phraseology of President Woodrow Wilson and the British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, bears little relation to the last century of actual Anglo-American regional involvment.

As the drumbeat for war in Irak sounded in 2002 and 2003, part of the ensuing confusion arose because practically none of the true stakes or political motivations were acknowledged : oil, the oil-linked value of the dollar, and religious expectations alike. But one hundred years of petro-imperialism in the Persian Guld were about to come to a head.

This post has been edited by Chutzpah on June 11, 2006 02:02 pm

Don't forget China ..is a major player and its relations with Pakistan and Iran can block out an invasion in Iran...

Maybe China is the new PLAYER, who can bring the balance to the same equilibrum as it was in Cold War era, between East and West.

Iama

I agree with you general.., China is a big player and it's presence will change the balance in some areas..but it will never be again like it was in Cold War period.., now is a multipolar balance of power..and Middle East area is a very atractive place for all powers..., also the Caspian area become very important too...,it will be a major "clash" between big powers in that area too...

One of the biggest reasons to fear China, is that they have feet of clay. Their economy is extremely over-balanced, and their population has a serious rural/urban imbalance. It is not unlikely that China will implode in the near future, and they may lash out to others in order to put this off.

A long war may be what China thinks they "need" to focus its population on something other than their unhappiness.

Tom Clancy has wrote a good book with a war between China and Russia (and others ), where China starts an invasion to put the hand on to the rich resources of Siberia.

Iama