Are you for real, Lind?  I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept that you're attempting to accomplish anything by your participation here beyond trolling the website for kicks.

Regardless of whether the neocons view containment of China as a key part of their grand looney strategy for global domination, the fact remains that the Persian Gulf area is a generally hostile region that contains a  significant share of the world's proven oil reserves.  True, at the moment we don't import a majority of our oil from the area.  But considering that global demand is growing faster than supply, and much of our oil currently comes from dangerous places such as  Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, the strategic benefits of having an oil-producing ally in the Persian Gulf should really go without saying.

Now, as any sane person could have deduced beforehand, it wasn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to engage in an open-ended fantasy-land project to build us a pro-Western democracy in the region.  Nonetheless, one doesn't have to be a deranged Chinaphobe to think that our national security might benefit from a regime in Iraq that would, in a pinch, refuse to participate in an oil embargo against the United States and our allies.

... is that no matter how wrong-headed the notion Michael describes is, no matter how many fallacies it contains -- it's no guarantee that the neocons don't actually believe this.

Doesn't it stand to reason if we were specifically threatening China's primary source of oil that they might actually be concerned enough about the survival of their economy to send a few troops into the Middle East themselves?  We aren't the only country that has mastered strategery, after all...

"In war or a time of warlike crisis, countries want guaranteed sources of supply--no matter what the market price for oil might be"

True, but the cases you cite were very different strategic situations from China and the Persian Gulf in the early 21st Century. 

Until China is able to challenge U.S. global naval dominance, or build a pipeline to Iran (extremely unlikely for geographical/cost reasons), the Persian Gulf will not be a "guaranteed" source of oil if they came into conflict with the U.S.

I am certainly uncomfortable in this position, because I have read a number of Mr.Lind's previous posts and disagreed strongly with them. I find this post makes a hell of a lot of sense. I think the growth of Chinese power, at the moment, is not a bone of contention. But having seen firsthand the tremendous growth coupled with the enormous investment in cutting-edge technology...anyone associated with the major American state (land-grant) universities will attest to the numbers of Chinese graduate students in science, math and engineering...would indicate that China is not BECOMING a superpower...it's day is essentially here . While I am not sure there is a single reason for the American action in Iraq, what Mr.Lind has proposed, containment of China in part by controlling oil is surely in the mix and I had not thought of this at all. I wonder if Mr. Lind has any thoughts on Hugo Chavez, and Venezuela oil...surely this must have been counted as "essentially" an American asset which is now "uncontrolled". It sounds farfetched even to me, but I didn't quite understand the American intervention in Haiti...was it a warning for Chavez? I am not suggesting that, but I would like to hear Mr. Lind's thoughts.

PDT-

I didn't see Lind defending the war, he just pointed out the neocon reason for launching it, and he's right.

So, I think your assailing him for things he didnt actually say is a little knee-jerk.

Just becasue I don't care for some things Lind says either, doesn't mean I'll attack him even if he say's something useful and accurate.

Read what he actually said. 

While I have no doubt that maintaining a hold over China is discussed in the back rooms of PNAC and the West Wing, can't it be both?

I'm certainly not "naive" enough to think that the Oil Men in the White House aren't also concerned that their corporate cronies in the oil/energy business are ensured a steady flow of profits.

After all, someone has to pay for all those lobbyists, no?

I know that Lind isn't defending the war.  How about reading what I actually said?

I'm criticizing Lind for making an utterly pointless post.  There is no basis in reality for the claim that control of the Persian Gulf oil supply is more important for threatening China than for protecting our own supply.  There is no evidence to support his claim that this what the neocons are really thinking.  There is no link to any source of knowledge on the issue.  There is no relevance to the price of tea in Iraq.

Lind's posts seem designed to provoke arguments, not to educate or stimulate reasonable debate.  THAT is why I am criticizing him.

I brought up the Iraq War to clarify that I don't think control over the Iraqi oil supply constitutes acceptable grounds for invasion, even though it could have hypothetically improved our national security.  I'm sorry if that was unclear.

A http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html?pagewanted=print" target="_self">background article that is spot on is by Peter Maas in this week's NYTimes Magazine section;

Why, then, are the neocons so keen on creating an exclusive American military sphere of influence over the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and Central Asia, when the oil is destined chiefly for Asia?  Since the early 1990s the neocons have sought to contain China.  Putting the American sword to the Chinese oil jugular is part of their strategy, along with creating a US-Japanese-Indian alliance against China and putting U.S. bases in Central Asia near the Chinese border to threaten China from the rear.

This is highly speculative and full of extremely misleading presumptions.  Japan depends on us for security and are in no position under any circumstances to be rattling swords with China (much of Japan's corporate supply chain is there thereby tightly coupling Japan to China (and China's ability to fuel manufacturing)).

If the US became self-sufficient in energy tomorrow, the Sinophobic neocons would still want the US to control the Middle East and the Indian Ocean/South China sealanes, in order that the U.S. could plausibly threaten to cut off Chinese oil in a show-down.

The showdown is over and China has won and no military huffing and puffing is likely to change that outcome.

The neocons are a hydra of special interests.  As Maas points out, the Saudis are one player.  The Zionist interests another (Perle, Feight (see), elements of the US and Israeli Senate bodies, rogue elements of worldwide intelligence agencies, and so on). The use-it-or-lose-it military sympathists (politicians, worldwide interests interested in smiting their arch-rivals, the Christain fundamentalists, and others). Others simply include right-wing zealots, political and militarily connected sado-masochists who love nothing more than wanton slaughter and chaos, misguided policy wonks who believe (for good reason) that their career path requires a trail of blood and conquest, and so on.

The neo-cons ARE dumb AND disingenuous enough to promote this because their propaganda can sell anything.  But there's many problems inherent in setting up bases ON OIL FIELDS (again, see Maas' article).  Military action cannot afford to damage one-of-a-kind assets.  That means its a human body intensive war theatre and we don't live there and we aren't neighbors.

Now, China is where everything we buy comes from in terms of goods.  Strangling that is strangling ourselves.  Bush's self-immolation act is already wearing thin with fuel.  Imagine really, really expensive clothes, electronics, hardware,...  That war won't last long.

India, however, is not a gas-guzzling nation.  Their tools for conviviality uniquely position them to survive gracefully no matter what.

Unfortunately you didn't go into the Shanghai Alliance, and the implications of the neocon strategy as it affects the Russians as well. Condi may have been able to look over that horizon with Afghanistan and Iraq, but what do think of her prophetic ability since those events have occurred?

Uh, how does supporting Israel help us out on oil, exactly?

To start something as major as the war in Iraq required several factors: A bunch of stars had to line up; and they did.

One of these stars, I think, Lind identifies correctly: The middle east is still the world's most strategic place (not only for oil), and anyone who thinks of the US in hegemonic terms would be naturally
fixated on "controlling" that part of the world.

Keep two things in mind: the only leverage left for the US over Asia is as provider of security guarantees. In 10 years time, that'll be gone. (Blockading China? Forget it. Can't happen.) So there's a short time window to impose Pax Americana. And the middle east is the place to start.

Mind you I am just reciting the neocon creed here.

The truth is, Pax Americana is dying a painful death in Iraq and the  two big winners of Bush's war will be Iran and China: the neocon nightmare come true.

Why do we back Israel? On one level because we have Jews in America, and because it’s the “holy land.” But that’s mostly populist baloney, especially considering Jews vote Democratic mostly.

Oh, no. I don't buy any of that. Obviously it is a holy land but it is also a mature nation in a community of nations. The dynamics of religion and politics in Israel make it an interesting study.  And Israel today is not the Israel of the sixties or seventies.

We have every group in America but certain Israeli interests have learned to leverage the American democratic process to their intentions and it is obvious from our political behavior that that leverage works to nullify the even-handed, honest broker political stance that most Americans prided themselves in.  That leverage has included spying and duplicitous politicing that is detrimental to all societies because it undermines the trust relationships so important in times of crisis.

Nor do Jews mostly vote Democratic. The Jewish community is no more monolithic than any other.  However, Jews who vote Republican usually do so because of a personal coupling with Israel that is more than sentimental.  And that vote is significant.

But putting all of that aside we back Israel generally because they represent our best, best interests in the region.  Democracy, free speech, Judeo-Christian ethics, and so on.


The main reason for Israel’s creation from the European and American point of view was always realpolitik. It was created to be a Western base in the ME, surrounded by enemies, beholden to the US and Europe, and the reason being oil mostly.

That is not true, IMO.  I think it was a genuine effort by inspired Jews and allied Western powers to restore a Jewish homeland for the dispossessed. Again, Israel is a very different country today... but still Israel is not about oil.

Same with our support and arming of the Saudis. Same with our support for Saddam, and our support to Iran at other times. All Kissinger’s work in the ME, the same. Etc etc.

There is some truth in this.

So, don’t be mistaken about it, and no the neocons aren’t dumb. Crazy maybe, but not dumb.

You mistake their influence today with the veracity of their ideas.  Their ideas are not that profound nor are they very compelling except under very strict interpretations.

Personally, Wolfowitz's idea that the U.S. should be pre-emptive holds merit under very formal circumstances (the Cuban Missle Crisis). But I think applying it to Iraq was foolhardy (I'm being generous here). And applying that mindset to every international figure who has other ideas is outright insanity (see Venezuela).

Every reason underlying the neocons gets down to basically one thing, what Ike called the military-industrial complex. It’s defense contractors on one hand, geo-strategic dominance on the other, hand in hand. And in the M.E. it all gets down to oils geostrategic power.

Some of what you say here is true.  But it also comes down to a devils' bargain that the American people buy into when they vote.  The American people want to believe that their military might is enough to lay first claim to the earth's resources as needed and they consistently look the other way when the government is out of control with war, greed, and international corruption.  Implicit in their voting habits is the unspoken consent for Bush and his cronies to do whatever it takes to keep oil cheap, the poor poor, and America on top at all costs.

When it doesn't turn out that way, they hang them out to dry.  It's drying time again.

A long discussion on Israel is maybe getting off topic a bit, so I'll just say my point was referring to the founding of Israel, and the continued support ever since. Israel has been many things, and is now a “mature” nation I guess. However our support of Israel has been consistent and nearly unconditional.

Nor do Jews mostly vote Democratic. The Jewish community is no more monolithic than any other.

I didn’t say it’s monolithic, but yes, according to poll data for decades Jews do statistically lean Democrat for various reasons.

we back Israel generally because they represent our best, best interests in the region.  Democracy, free speech, Judeo-Christian ethics, and so on.

To a degree, but they also represent the only nuclear power in the region until Pakistan recently, which is beholden to Europe and the US for it’s  arms and has been for decades, and they wind up as much of the focus for Arab anger against western influence in the region.

I think it was a genuine effort by inspired Jews and allied Western powers to restore a Jewish homeland for the dispossessed. Again, Israel is a very different country today... but still Israel is not about oil.

I think the idea that we created this state as a gift to our Jewish friends at a time of rampant anti-judaism/sematism in even the highest levels of European and American government, and that there was no consideration for Arab state unification, or the oil…..well it’s a bit wishful IMO. Also it doesn’t click with the history of the region. It was mutually promised to the Arabs for cheap labor, we westerners basically created the whole Palestine/Israel conflict, and laid the groundwork for the ensuing wars. But anyways, we’ll have to agree to disagree, maybe take it up in another thread sometime.

[on Saudi/Arab support in the region] There is some truth in this.

Well, glad we agree on the US/Arab mutual interests side of the equation at least. However, I have to add that Israel is a tremendous leverage on other ME nations in the US's favor, so I think you see the problem of only admitting one side of the equation.

[on neocons] you mistake their influence today with the veracity of their ideas. 

No, I just don’t mistake their intelligence for their sanity. Like I said, they may be nuts, but they’re smart, and highly strategically minded, at least when in comes to power in Washington.

I think applying [preemption] to Iraq was foolhardy.. wolfowitz…

I don’t think Wolfowitz or anyone in this admin cares about pre-emption, or ever did. Because it’s always been a power we’ve reserved in any case of imminent danger. Speaking of how clever they are, their shifting of the debate from whether Iraq was an threat at all, to whether we reserve the right to pre-emption was pretty slick. It presumes the threat, and the right to preemption is already presumed as well. So they had that won just by controlling the framework of the debate.

But it also comes down to a devils' bargain that the American people buy into when they vote.

True, although it’s more complex. It’s difficult to measure willful ignorance from ignorance from being the victim of propaganda. I think we agree on that though from what you said.

 

 

 

This is a major embarassment for us to be humiliated twice by the Iranians on the international stage within 25 years. Furthermore, the Iraqis are about to create an Iranian-style Islamic republic that is closely allied with Iran.

A long discussion on Israel is maybe getting off topic a bit

Agreed.

I think the idea that we created this state as a gift to our Jewish friends ..., we’ll have to agree to disagree, maybe take it up in another thread sometime.

This is not anything I said or implied.  Israel was not a gift.

LV:  [on neocons] you mistake their influence today with the veracity of their ideas.

No, I just don’t mistake their intelligence for their sanity. Like I said, they may be nuts, but they’re smart, and highly strategically minded, at least when in comes to power in Washington.

They are not so smart nor particularly insightful in terms of strategy.  Look, the neo-cons performed some Macheavellian algebra.  On one side of the equation they had the U.S. assets that are largely military power.  On the other side, they equated the rest of the world who were militarily weaker but protected by international convention and law.  Subtract that international set of constraints from both sides of the equation and that leaves a dominant superpower with a blank check to act. All they needed was a power hungry madman with an axe to grind.  Enter, stage right, George W. Bush.

The unintended consequences of this equation, however, escaped the attention of the neo-con bean-counters.  That was that the American military establishment was already being subverted from within.  This is manifested and documented in the pre-emptive activities of the Office of Special Plans (OSP).  Under Bush, not only were the elections and courts subverted but an international intelligence community suffered from what amounts to racketeering (the wholesale fixing of intelligence, the disolution of the World Court to enforce Geneva Convention violations, and the obfuscation of international law with the redefinition of war crimes to accomodate the terrorist rhetoric).  Bolton's nomination raises the stakes of this gamesmanship.

The American public via a corrupt Congress voted billions of unaccountable dollars to endeavors like Iraq where international -cough- contractors were showered with American monoploy money - BILLIONS.  But this is business as usual for the black budget crowd.

The other thing that changed was that America was no longer internally secure.  IOW, if the OSP could, by political sleight of hand, subvert secret intelligence could it also subvert actionable intelligence?  IOW, could a foreign interest be so embedded in the corruption of mission-critical information that our nuclear arsenal or other startegic technologies be at risk?  The conundrum of Rove and the neo-cons, and the parade of terrorists who emulate their techniques is that why bother spending money on weapons when the arsenal is homegrown and easily co-opted.

After all, isn't the Iraq Vendetta little more than the Saudi's co-opting America's military for personal use by just buying a Presidency?

I don’t think Wolfowitz or anyone in this admin cares about pre-emption, or ever did.

Pre-empting undesirable international entities was the cornerstone of Wolfowitz's (and other neo-cons) foreign policy recommendations.

Today, we have streetcorner snake oil salesmen reciting this recipe.  IMO, this rhetoric needs to be treated as inciting international terrorist acts.  People like Pat Robertson must be held directly accountable for crimes performed in their name.

Speaking of how clever they are, their shifting of the debate from whether Iraq was an threat at all, to whether we reserve the right to pre-emption was pretty slick. It presumes the threat, and the right to preemption is already presumed as well. So they had that won just by controlling the framework of the debate.

Oh, that was neo-con child's play.  The get-out-of-jail-free cards issued the contractor armies in Iraq was a recipe for wanton unaccountable slaughter.  We've seen this before as well but usually we had people like Saddam indirectly directing that kind of action for us.  The neo-con gambit was to lose the middle-man (Saddam) and establish a rough equivalent of a benign police state like Guam in Iraq.  Thus the misguided, fortified permanent military bases.  Once international law is neutered why bother with the petty tyrants when there are plenty of neocon "thinkers" who are more than happy to pull metaphorical triggers.

Again, the miscalculations are purely military.  China owns our debt and means of prosperity.  They are playing a long term game of political calculus  that neo-cons cannot understand with military algebra.

Staying this course of war will expedite the collapse of the Iraq venture and the cost will be staggering in prosperity and national psyche.

This is manifested and documented in the pre-emptive activities of the Office of Special Plans (OSP).

Btw, you know the OSP was a neocon operation right?  I wasn't sure from the comment. 

Unfortunately, it is absurdly false. Specifically, you fail to take into account a fundamental truth about the global oil market: it is global.

Production instability in Iraq, which is exactly what we had when Saddam began turning off the spigots in 2002 to retaliate against US and British attempts to rework the U.N. sanction program, creates instability for the entire world market. Not just for parties buying their oil from Iraq.

So maybe you understand this but you think that Cheney and the Neocons do not. Well, this won't fly either.

In May, 2001, Cheney's Energy Policy Development Group released their final report. In it, a chapter titled "Strengthening Global Alliances" calls the Middle East "central to world oil security" and urges support for initiatives by the region's oil producers to open their energy sectors to foreign investment.
Clearly, maintaining stability in Mid East oil production is very much in our interest as well as Asia's.

Let me show you "naive".

In 2003,  at a modest $20 per/barrel, Iraq's 112 billion barrels of known oil reserves in addition to it's 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves was worth at the very least $2.24 trillion dollars. Today it is worth over 7 TRILLION dollars. And these are the KNOWN reserves.

Our taking possession of those Iraqi wells was the single largest seizure of wealth in the history of mankind.

Naive is believing the seizure of that much wealth was for some China containment policy.

So lets look at those bases we are building and see whose rears they are threatening:


<img src="http://americanassembler.com/pics/mideast_bases.gif" border="0">

If you could pick any location to put some air bases from which to launch a campaign on any country in the Middle East, you would put them exactly where they are located now.

So why would you choose this spot if your primary goal was to threaten China? You wouldn't. China's nearest border is approximately 1,700 miles from Iraq. This means our F-16s could reach China, right before they had to refuel or land.

No, if you needed a good spot to threaten China's rear, you'd want somewhere really "near" their border. Someplace like....surprise, Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a whole whopping 239 miles from China's western border. Not close enough for carryout, but you could get there by car.

My biggest problem with this theory is that it gives cover to the Neocon's arrogance and stupidity.

While I agree that putting the "American sword to the Chinese oil jugular is part of their strategy", with the key word being "part", implicit in this argument is that it is the primary part of the strategy. This, if it were true, and if Middle Eastern oil production did not directly effect the stability of the global oil market, would mean that the invasion of Iraq was a pretty good idea. In terms of global enrgy strategy and China policy.

But this was not their primary strategy.

Make no mistake, they thought they would own the Middle East and establish hegemony over 3 trillion dollars worth of oil. They believed that this would give us an edge into OPEC, and establish oil security for the US.

And here's the kicker. They believed that a smooth and speedy regime change would get Iraq's oil flowing, create a windfall for infrastructure investment, and lower, or at least flatten oil prices. And this would boost the economy, validate their supply-side economics, and get Duby re-elected.

In 2001, Cheney's energy taks force commisioned an independent report from James Baker's Institute for Public Policy. The opening sentence of their report read:

" ...every American recession since the late 1940s has been preceded by spikes in oil prices..."

The report also warned that "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ...the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets".

Your revisionist history glosses over the great failure of the Neocon agenda: to stabilize under US control Iraq's oil production while establishing prime real estate to secure Saudi and other's oil production as well. Not to mention a launch point into Syria, Iran and everyone else in the neighborhood. China was a cherry on a cherry pie.

I have been saying that physical control of the middle east oil would threaten china since before the war, and I'm glad someone is saying it who can get it heard. It's worth a thought.

I can't tell whether the neocons were thinking about that. It makes sense to me it would have looked like an opportunity to them. And while we could in theory blockade china's oil imports, with each passing year our aging carrier forces become more vulnerable to attack. We have to defend them against all comers, while anybody who wants to attack them can design weapons specifically to target them, they can even design a navy specifically to attack our navy. And we don't get any proof that our fleet is vulnerable until somebody is actually ready to attack it. Also, even if we *can* blockade china, we might not want to tie up the fleet doing that. So physical control of the oil would have a value.

People say that oil is fungible, that if you redirect the oil from one place it will flow in from somewhere else. In a shortage economy this is not exactly true. In a military economy it isn't true at all, apart from black markets. If the USA were to announce that starting tomorrow, any tanker that went where we told it not to would be impounded or destroyed, oil would no longer be fungible. Could the world stop us from doing that? I think so. I think it might take as little as six months for the side effects of our own move to stop us. But the point is, fungible oil isn't a law of nature, it's a social construction that we have created. It doesn't have to be that way.

 

I don't know how much oil iraq actually has. Saddam had an incentive to lie about his reserves. I can imagine that the neocons thought there was a lot more oil in iraq than Saddam claimed. When Wolfowitz said that iraqi oil would pay for the invasion and the reconstruction, there's a reasonable chance he believed it. If, say, Chalabi told the neocons that iraq had reserves that were more than saudi arabia, and they believed him, it must have seemed likeChristmas. Easily take iraq, the cheering iraqis welcome Chalabi, oil companies quickly get 3 times as much oil flowing as during sanctions, and then ten times as much, the US economy booms, iraqis are far better off than under sanctions, who should complain except Saddam? They don't need a lot of postwar planning because many billions of dollars of new oil money would lubricate away most problems.    But then suppose they took Baghdad and looked at Saddam's records and found out he was lying, the known reserves weren't nearly as good as he'd said. The oil companies balk at investing, and all of a sudden we're running a sullen occupation on the cheap. Does anyone know how much oil iraq has, who hasn't seen classified documents and who isn't in Gitmo?

Whatever the plan was, I think it didn't work. I very strongly doubt that what we have now was the intention. What next? One approach would be to accept failure. We can't withdraw from iraq even if it's a dry hole, we have to keep spending money we don't have, the chinese get more influence as our strength wanes, just accept it. The neocons might be discredited in DC now, and maybe somebody else is quietly trying to limit the damage and lacks grandiose plans.

 

If we were to choose not to accept the situation, what could we do? Energy independence would be a good idea if we could do it. But there's no particular reason to think that a random new technology would give us the edge. Some other nation might be better able to exploit it. We have coal so we were a power when coal was central. We have oil so we're a power now. Say we found a new techology that required lots of tungsten and titanium. We could occupy south africa, but... In the short run we depend on oil, and strategies to change that would be expensive and risky.

As long as we depend on oil, we have the problem that china is outcompeting us and can outbid us for oil. Barring an economic solution, barring surrender, our remaining choice would be a military victory. But from our iraq experience it's obvious we couldn't occupy china. Also we couldn't win a land war in china unless we used WMDs.  And after we used WMDs china wouldn't be fit to occupy. So the obvious strategy would be to use WMDs without an invasion. What makes china special is the population. A very large population that works hard. They have coal and a few other resources, but they aren't special for that. It's the people. Get rid of the large population and china becomes just a third world nation that's no more a threat than vietnam.

But if they hit us back, we don't do so well either. So maybe the reason we are installing a missile defense that doesn't work isn't just that we want to throw pork at the ABM builders. maybe it's that we expect to need a missile defense.
"You get what you pay for."
"You don't always get what you pay for, but you pay for what you get."
"You pay for what you need whether you get it or not."