The very wars that the U.S. is fighting to "protect our freedoms" are part and parcel to the very thing that can bring the U.S. low. I have no doubt that the strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is to surround and control Oil deposits in Iran and Iraq. As my regular readers know, I am a recovering chess fanatic. In chess you have an opening, a middle game, and an end game. If Korea and Viet Nam showed us anything, it is that our policy makers have little concept of middle game, and NO CONCEPT for an end game.
What is the ultimate outcome for Iran and Iraq oil? Answer: In less than 20 years these nations will not be able to export ANY OIL as their domestic consumption will consume ALL of their production. The U.S. is risking the demolition of its currency, and with it a debt default, among other very, very unpleasant outcomes... in order to kick the (Oil) can down the road a couple of years.
This is the very definition of insanity.
And while the loss of lives, treasure, and moral mandate that the U.S. will suffer as a result of prosecuting these inexcusable wars, these will only be a contributing factor in the coming political disaster. You see, the U.S. will "win" these wars, whatever that means, but will lose ALL because of the debt created by the Wars, Medicare, Social Security Medicaid, Disability, Farm Subsidies, et al...
There will be a day of reckoning, there will be an "End Game", and there is nothing to be done for it because our policies and political phenomena have created a huge class of the delusional or just plain FOS (the perfect example? Pro-Choice Vegetarians. These knuckleheads race to save dogs in Haiti and then back again to help hack an unborn baby to death. These people represent the worst mankind has to offer, yet are firm in their delusions of superior intellect).
18 comments:
You forgot to mention China, the wild card in all this. I think the Chinese thing is the biggest nothing in history, as without the Americans buying the plasma TVs, China has no real income. But if they do continue to grow and become the next world power, their thirst for oil will continue unabated. And who supplies that oil right now? Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran, Russia, Oman, Sudan, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Kazakhstan and a dozen others. And we know the Chinese will stop at nothing (hell, the whole Darfur thing is really about Sudanese oil production -- damn women in the way!) The involvement of the American military to keep the Chinese at bay is baked in the cake. The only question is .. how many more bonds can the Fed buy when no one else, including the Chinese, want to buy any more? Ick.
The country with the biggest population and one of the biggest economies in the world is not a big nothing. I'm not sure what they'll become, but it will be a lot more than nothing. When the US stands down, and economics will force that, who will fill the void? Look at the potential candidates to move in and fill it. It it terrifying. The world will be neither safer nor more stable after we're gone.
I agree that we ought to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. No good will come of our involvement there. Let it be someone else's problem. Also, why is it that generally the same people that didn't want us to go into Iraq, want us to be involved in the Sudan? Only US boots on the ground will change that situation. No good will come from that either.
But,the general US bashers should consider who will move in when we go. The chance that other players won't exert themselves in the power struggle that follows the US's withdrawal is zero. It is all a matter of whom you want to play with. Who's on your short list?
As for Iraqi and Iranian oil, while there is a worldwide market for oil, it will go to the highest bidder no matter what kind of despotic government is in control. That holds as long as the government is not so inept that it can't arrange to have the oil lifted from the ground, as is going on in Venezuela.
Regards,
Coal Guy
I like Charles Hugh Smith's take on things except when he glosses over the inability to rein in the "rentier predatory Power Elites" (his term) with taxes as a way of paying the debt.
The Euro socialists have figured how to do this with varying degrees of success. They know how to milk the greed of the capitalists without killing them. And they provide enough safety net to keep the proles from getting out the torches and pitchforks.
That was the failure of the Russian commies. They tried to wipe out the capitalists rather than reining them in and milking them. Taxes are the milking process. Spending is feeding the various beasts.
No taxes, no spending, no farm.
It's really as simple as that.
Cheers, Eurosocialist
In 1990, if you remember, Japan was about to take over the world, buying up U.S. properties and gutting our manufacturing capacity. Today, Japan has been in a 20-year deflationary depression. The Nikkei is 75% of what it was. Their govt. debt is 200%+ of their GDP, and they've tapped out their supply of citizens who loan the government money at 0% interest. Their elderly population is gonna start wanting their money back now. America is about ten years behind where Japan is -- we are heaidng off the same cliff. China will destroy themselves in the same way (too much borrowing and building unproductive assets). Only a matter of time. Sometimes having the biggest population can't get you out of every jam. :)
Pardon me ... the Nikkei is 25% of what it was.
EuroSocialist:
I wish to say as kindly as I can that you are equally guilty of glossing over things... Europe is doomed in this regard, too. And when the US gets a cold, Europe catches pnumonia...
The European "Safety Net", as presently constructed, will not survive the American, as presently constructed, IMHO.
At this point I am too lazy to debate the issue, especially since you sound as if you "truly believe".
I wish you luck with your safety nets...
I don't understand the willingness distrust big business, yet have this blind faith in big government. It it just because you get to vote for a few jokers that "represent" you? Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% FOR representative government. But 99.99% of the government is unelected bureaucrats. The other 0.01% don't seem to have my best interest ( to me, that is the general good of the nation) at heart. Power corrupts, private or public.
Regards,
Coal Guy
If you think we are surrounding the larger of the remaining known oilfields; why would you think the global market is of any consequence? The only time a convenience store robber waits in line is when it suits his purpose to do so.
Dan:
can you expound on that? I think i see an excellent point there, but I need you to flesh it out a bit...
I think I knows what he's saying, but who is to say a "global market" is going to allow/result in America being able to buy the oil. Yeah, if we could be certain the oil was going to end up on the shelf of a WalMart, where we have half a chance of buying it, why would we need to surround anything? But I don't think its going to turn out that clean a process. :)
While I’m hesitant to think we are hell-bent on conquest, the great game is defiantly being played in the region and some form of mercantilism in the Middle East is a distinct possibility. It’s not too hard to imagine parts of the Middle East being required sell oil to the U.S., the rest of the world be damned. Like England before, we own the world’s seas and could mostly enforce it, save a few inconsequential smugglers.
In the past the North American Colonies were only able to sell raw materials to England and only allowed to buy most finished goods from England. I don’t think it was all inclusive but certain materials could only be sold to England. I think timber and cotton were restricted and could only be sold to England. I’m certain we were only allowed to buy tea from the East India Company; which incidentally still makes damn good tea, but I digress.
SSDD.
So far, the US has tried to maintain some form of peace, so that the oil fields can be kept in production. This maintains a stable world market. The US has been criticized in many quarters for its effort. I welcome the day when the last drop of foreign oil crosses the US border an maintaining peace in the Middle East becomes someone else's problem! I would love to see the EU take up the challenge. HA!
If the US resorts to military conquest to secure a given supply it would be a very sorry day. I'd consider emigration.
Regards,
Coal Guy
Coal Guy:
We've already done it!
The U.S. is not trying to enforce a TOTAL oil collection schematic - just the 25% we have been getting, and to make sure that our trading and funding partners get their's top - so they can keep trading and funding.
The more I look at this Oil import/industrial/financial schematic, the more I believe that we have really, really painted ourselves in a corner.
Keeping stability in the region is not worth a single American life (or the life of any non-combatant now getting caught in the cross fire).
If I may use my chess analogy again... the U.S. appears to me to be in the late stages of the middle game/early stages of the end game regarding our debt and unfunded liabilities. I firmly believe that we will need to husband our resources and play perfect chess here on out to get through this thing absent a disaster - but I do believe that it is possible for America to get through.
I do NOT believe that places like the Caribbean Islands, much of Sub-Sahara Africa and many parts of Asia can get through absent disaster of several levels - political, humanitarian, etc... but I do not believe that we can be of help.
Time to turn home.
COal Guy:
I couldn't agree more with your incredulous response regarding faith in big government but not in big corporations.
Absurd in the extreme.
Greg,
I'm not quite so cynical a you regarding the US's role as policeman. We have had that duty thrust on us since the end of World War II. The US has ensured stability from the Pacific Rim to the edge of the Eastern Bloc in Europe, and now to the Russian border for 65 years. This has been done at huge expense of money and lives. I hear a lot of crap, but there are NO volunteers to pick up the slack when the US stands down. Mostly the crap comes from those who have lived in safety under the US's umbrella. It has been a welfare program for 1/2 of the world, and they are thoroughly addicted. Withdrawal will be a BIG surprise.
The biggest critics seem to come from the Left, as US power impedes their progress toward world domination. They whine about US imperialism. They are looking for opportunity. They say as much in their literature. But, I digress.
I agree with you, that we are stuck. It will take a some skillful work to get us through the mess we're in without a disaster. Present policies will not work. I hope the next administration has a better vision. It will be difficult to find people who are not indoctrinated with the groupthink that successfully fed the credit bubble for 35 years. They know no other way to manage the economy.
I'm encouraged by the drop in oil imports. While that indicates financial hardship in the short run, it increases security in the long run. It is time to fix our internal problems and become as self sufficient as possible. There are too many cracks in the dam. World politics are about to change, and the US can no longer stop it. It worries me.
Regards,
Coal Guy
What worries me is that the US will not just pick up it's toys and go home. Long before then, something bad will happen. We have made promises all around the globe. So far, no one has dared cross the line. There is a lot of bluster in world politics. Bluster is far better than war. But, what happens when the US reneges on a major promise? Maybe it will be to Taiwan or South Korea or Israel. Who knows? It will only take one broken promise to change the face of the globe. Once that genie is out of the bottle, it can never be put back in.
Regards,
Coal Guy
Perhaps they dont care about the endgame, they play the opening blindingly well, getting loads of contributions to promise a better tommorow for the proles.
They then use the middlegame to payback the supporters (lobbyists) who got them into power, and in the process leave almost no pieces left on the table and those pieces surrounded and vulnerable, at which point they stand up from the table passing the unwinnable game over to the next leaders, who write it off (even though the game has not come to a conclusion) and start another game (still chess) as well as the previous leaders did. After a while there are so many unfinished games all over the place that nobody even remembers who was playing on which side. The kings and queens survive the games because they are not played out to the end, but the pawns are all sacrificed along the way.
Maybe.
The above could be fleshed out even further, I wrote it quite quickly. It could also be expanded on, in that occasionally the game could be played out to the end and to checkmate, and everone thinks it's done with, and justice was served, but once the dust settles, unseen while all eyes are on the board, the players controlling the pieces simply walk away and set up the pieces for another game.
Post a Comment