[Carlhole]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the US is planting a huge permanent footprint in the ME so as to generally influence all events in the region and deny the oportunity of same to any other power. Why else would there be a handful of huge bases like Al-Asad under construction? Al-Asad is nineteen square miles of American suburbia planted carefully away from Iraqi population centers.

The plan is to install a US friendly or even dependent government which will allow our military to access a Persian Gulf port and use Iraqi air space.

So this is a war not simply to 'steal' oil but to control global energy supplies by being able to strongly and credibly influence the politics of the entire region, permit or deny shipping, influence pipeline development, drilling, what have you. Energy = Power = Money = Energy = Power...

Bases that size, like in Vietnam, would with time become economic loci which the locals would come to depend on. That economic influence over the country would not be insignificant.

However, I wouldn't say the fight is going particularly well. And I wonder why the US would not have used every man possible to accomplish the feat as quickly as possible, even to the point of removing troops from Korea and Okinawa and elsewhere.

I heard this outlandish theory the other day that the real reason we are in Iraq is simply to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of a brutal dictator in hopes of creating a cascading transformation to Democracy all over the ME. After which, we would move on to other lands, like Zimbabwe, which might be in need of a White Knight. Does that make any more sense to you?

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', 'T')rying to get some doomerisms for your latest blog JD?

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'S')o this is a war not simply to 'steal' oil but to control global energy supplies by being able to strongly and credibly influence the politics of the entire region, permit or deny shipping, influence pipeline development, drilling, what have you.

[venky]

I personally think an all out oil war today is madness and also highly unlikely. Yes, as you have pointed out there are strong reasons that discourage one from marching out to conquer other people's lands and steal their resources. Especially more so in the world we live in today with our highly interconnected economy.

But that does not rule out the possibility entirely. There are strong reasons to use a military strike for the purpose of securing resources, like to safeguard crucial supplies for your own economy while denying the same to your opponent. Throughout history stronger nations have conquered, pillaged and looted weaker ones. Until very recently much of the third world was under the control of a few western nations who used them as a source of raw materials.

Ofcourse there is a limit to what even a super power like the United States can get away with in today's day and age. I believe a full scale war between the major powers in the middle east is unlikely, even in the event of peak oil.

More likely scenario's are small scale clashes, like in Nigeria, more terrorist attacks and perhaps a disruption in the supplies in the Persian gulf.

[ozkrenske]

Alright an exhaustive list of wars over resources -
In South America alone:

War of the Pacific 1879-84 Chile vs Peru/Bolivia fought over saltpeter mines and other major resources. Won by Chile (Aggressor wins).

War of the triple Alliance 1864-70 Argentina/Brazil/Uruguay vs Paraguay Access to transport resources being the primary cause, Paraguay crushed 80+% population loss (Aggressor loses).

Chincha Islands War 1864-66 Spain vs Chile/Peru Direct Control of Nitrate fertilizer and explosives precursors primary cause (Aggressor Loses).

Beagle Channel War 1978-85 Chile vs Argentina Sea bed resource rights and fishing rights are primary cause concluded by pope John Paul II (Status Quo effectively remains).

Peru Equador Conflict 3 wars 1941/81/96-97 fought over a small isolated region with potential mineral and Natural Gas reserves still in Dispute (Status Quo effectively remains).

Portugese vs Dutch Brazilian War 1654 Fought over Sugar Colonies and trade rights (Aggressor wins).

Portugal Invades French Guiana 1809 Fought over Gold fields (Aggressor loses).

War of Cisplatine. 1825 Fought Over Agriculturaly and fishing rich East bank of the River Plate. (Stalemate Uraguay created as neutral Buffer).

Rosas Wars 1832-35 A war of genocide against Natives in Southern Argentina over the control Of cattle grazing lands (aggressor Wins).

Chaco War 1932-35 Fought between Standard Oil Co/Bolivia and Shell Oilco/Paraguay, Fought over Oil Fields later found not to exist, the Companies directly employed the national armies for control of the territory, after 100 000 dead Shell/Paraguay wins the majority of territory.

The long term disagreement over the Falklands leading to the Falkland War of 1982 between Argentina and the UK is based in Whaling, Fishing and oceanic mineral rights. (The aggressor in the form of the Argentina is the Loser).

Now that is a list of South American Resource wars with about a million dead between them. If you want other wars in other areas research them yourselves and stop blindly asking questions for proof without actually looking yourselves.

Sorry for the cross tone, but laziness on the Web is annoying.

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Plus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'J')D,

You haven't answered my question, why is the US in Iraq? Dont' give me the "democracy" angle. If America supported democracy they would support it in Ubekistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.

[scittyman]

What about the idea that Bush had no choice but to invade and overthrow Saddham. Sanctions were killing Iraq citizens, Saddham was getting richer from the food for oil program, and with peak oil imminent can you trust a tyrant to control the worlds 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserves in the world.?
So did Bush gamble on the invasion hoping to get a friendly government to control and develop the oil fields of Iraq which would mean economic stability and security for the global economy?. Come on, Bush bashing is fun but lets have an honest discussion about oil. YOu have to know your bread gets buttered! oil is everything!
scittyman

[bobcousins]

All wars are about resources, so the term "resource war" is just tautology.

As for Iraq, the war is part of the Neocon plan for a New American Century. The ideology is that 'proper' democracies don't fight each other, and will trade freely. Now the Soviet Union has been defeated, US hegemony will be used to install democracy around the world, bring peace, security and prosperity for the US, and make the world a better place.

Iraq was an ideal place to chuck out an uncooperative regime, and kickstart the democratisation of the ME - obviously the interest here because the ME has oil. But overall, this is one war in an ongoing campaign. At the end of the day, it's an Empire at work.

Anyway, a war for oil at this point just proves that Bushco do not believe in Peak Oil. Why the hell spend blood and money invading deserts that are soon to become empty of oil? It makes no sense; it's a wild goose chase. If you know that those resources are about to start declining, you spend the money on developing your own alternatives.

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ozkrenske', 'A')lright an exhaustive list of wars over resources -
In South America alone:

Sorry for the cross tone, but laziness on the Web is annoying.

[savethehumans]

Just to reassure those of us who know what's going down in Iraq/the Middle East, here's a list of some of the signs seen at NYC's anti-war march this past weekend (thanks to TomDispatch and truthout.org):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')From Gulf to Gulf, George Bush, a category 5 disaster"
"Drop Bush, Not Bombs."
"Fermez La Bush"
"No ProLife in Iraq."
"1 was too many, 2400 is enough"
"War is terrorism with a bigger budget"
"Axis of Insanity" (with George, Condi, Don, and Dick dressed as an Elmer Fudd-style hunter)
"One Nation under Surveillance"
"G.O.P. George Orwell Party"
"How Many Lives per Gallon?"
"War Is Soooooo 20th Century"
"Civil War Accomplished in Iraq-Nam"
"Give Impeachment a Chance"
"I'm Already Against the Next War"
"Expose the lies, half-truths, cut and paste rationales for going to war"
"Mandatory Evacuation of the Bush White House"

[Leanan]

Newsweek has an article this week that mentions peak oil by name:

World Faces Devastating Energy Wars

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oday, oil and gas experts around the world are growing alarmed not just at future scarcity—the idea that the world may have hit “peak oil” seems to be taking hold—but at who's in control of the precious stuff.

[seahorse2]

I hope Newsweek gave proper credit to Michael Klare and his two books "Resource Wars" and "Blood and Oil."

[Zardoz]

It's hard for most of us to admit that we agree with Bush on anything, but his "addiction" line can't be argued with. We can't stop consuming. We can't quit it voluntarily. We're going to have to have it withheld from us, and when it is, we're going to act like all junkies do when they go through withdrawal. We're going to go berserk.

God, this is going to get ugly. I dread the future. No wonder we're all a bunch of doom-and-gloom pessimists.

[XOVERX]

Newsweek discussing Peak Oil (in any context) is exceedingly important. The concept must permeate the consciousness of the general public. So the Newsweek article is an important step.

The next step is pain -- gasoline price increase pain -- to bring the topic into the forefront of the minds of every single American. That will generate even more mainstream media discussion.

When oil depletion and production constrictions create everyday, unavoidable thought in the average uninformed American, then America and the world will reach the Rubicon.

Will we stay on the shore demanding government take steps to lower the price of gasoline so we can more quickly deplete oil, approaching the descent into anti-civilization?

Or will we cross the Rubicon, tax gasoline use even more, increase the price even more, and plow the money back into creating the infrastucture of alternative energies, even if economic depression occurs in the short-term?

Tough choices, both. But only one contains the seed of hope.

[PolestaR]

I'm getting sick of idiots wanting everyone to know and start doing something about peak oil. You only want this for your own selfish reasons, so that others can go "well he told us before, good on Joe" and "maybe we will start preparing now".

There is no way in hell (unless technology throws us a line) we will be able to do anything to stop peak oil and it's consequences. The more oil we use up in the interim is only going to benefit us in the long run, so you should be out there TRYING to get people to use more of it, and keeping them ill informed.

Stop being selfish people and start thinking about the Earths future for once.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'I')'m getting sick of idiots wanting everyone to know and start doing something about peak oil. You only want this for your own selfish reasons, so that others can go "well he told us before, good on Joe" and "maybe we will start preparing now".

There is no way in hell (unless technology throws us a line) we will be able to do anything to stop peak oil and it's consequences. The more oil we use up in the interim is only going to benefit us in the long run, so you should be out there TRYING to get people to use more of it, and keeping them ill informed.

Stop being selfish people and start thinking about the Earths future for once.

[Teclo]

"I am the girl you know, can't look you in the eye. I am the girl you know, so sick I cannot try. I am the one you want, can't look you in the eye. I am the girl you know, I lie and lie and lie. I'm Miss World, somebody kill me. Kill me pills. No-one cares my friends. My friend. I'm Miss World, watch me break and watch me burn. No-one is listening, my friend. I've made my bed I'll lie in it. I've made my bed I'll die in it. I've made my bed I'll lie in it. I've made my bed I'll die in it. Kill girls watch when I eat ether. Suck me under. Maybe forever, my friend. Now I've made my bed I'll lie in it. I've made my bed I'll die in it. I've made my bed I'll cry in it. I've made my bed I'll lie in it my friend. I am the girl you know, can't look you in the eye...... "

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('XOVERX', '
')Will we stay on the shore demanding government take steps to lower the price of gasoline so we can more quickly deplete oil, approaching the descent into anti-civilization?

Or will we cross the Rubicon, tax gasoline use even more, increase the price even more, and plow the money back into creating the infrastucture of alternative energies, even if economic depression occurs in the short-term?

[0mar]

Global politics ain't checkers, it's chess. For one thing, we don't know enough about the board, we don't know how long the moves are being plotted in advance and we don't know what the other side is thinking. You don't declare war on every single nation and let god sort it out. That's quite possibly the stupidest way to conduct war and guarentees a loss. Instead, you divide and conquer. You wage proxy wars (Iraq vs Iran in the 80s), isolate potential countries (Iran in 2005/2006), threaten other countries (Russia/China) and be a general dick on the block. Hopefully, shit pans out the way you wargamed it and you stand on top of a smoking pile of tanks and carcasses in the 21st century. Additionally, the timescale this plays out in is measured in years and decades, not days and weeks. It took a decade of posturing and threats before Hitler invaded Poland. The US provided technical assisstance to Vietnam for 7-8 years before getting involved on the ground.

Finally, we didn't get any oil out of Iraq because the Iraqis have been blowing up pipelines left and right. It's tough to get crude oil when it's splattered across 500 square miles of desert. We made the moves to secure oil, by putting tanks and soldiers at these oil facilities, however, we couldn't protect the pipelines. In a different universe, the US might be sitting with 1.50 gas instead of 3.00 because of different choices made during the planning.