What is the connection between the strategy calling for drilling offshore oil, coordinated by President Bush, Senator McCain and Governor Charlie Crist, and an attack on Iran?
Calling for offshore oil drilling now is a form of political inoculation, should an attack come to pass.
In that case, or at any time between now and the inauguration of the next President, we are in the Bush-world "I told you so"; that we need offshore oil because Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
US military planners must be apoplectic.
As the Foreign Minister of Iran told NBC Nightly News yesterday, the Israeli military has still not recovered from the political consequences of the debacle in Lebanon, a few years ago. He didn't need to say that the US military is stretched tighter than a snare drum skin in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Policies of the Bush White House have put the United States at greater risk than any external threat. If we had responded to 9/11 by initiating dramatic energy conservation measures, seizing the control of our energy future from Big Oil, Coal, and the utilities-- we wouldn't be where we are today.
It is a sad fact: we are in desperate times. But don't blame the price of gasoline: its true cost is an infinite multiple of what we are paying at the pump. No amount of offshore oil is going to lower that cost.
And if Iran sets the Mideast on fire in response to an attack on its nuclear facilities, expect economic realities to start looking more like science fiction movies.
But back to offshore oil, to call for more drilling after an attack on Iran could not poll-test very well for the White House. For those of us worried about where this takes America, 01.20.09 cannot come a day too soon.
12 comments:
I would like the nightmare that started years and years ago to be over.
Will someone pass me the cigars?
The middle east is doing to America what we did to Russia years ago. Regan huffed and puffed and threatened a war; the cold war broke Russia's ecomony trying to keep up with US spending. Now we are the ones trying to keep up with multiple wars (cold and otherwise). The middle east is breaking our economy and our administration is too stupid or too self-serving to see it.
gimleteye -
While I appreciate your commentary on local issues, your analysis of this issue is way of base.
"As the Foreign Minister of Iran told NBC Nightly News yesterday, the Israeli military has still not recovered from the political consequences of the debacle in Lebanon, a few years ago. He didn't need to say that the US military is stretched tighter than a snare drum skin in Iraq and Afghanistan."
There are numerous problems with this statement, beginning with taking the Iranian Foreign Minister's comments as anything more than propaganda. Moreover, I was unaware with your service in the military and your understanding of troop deployments. While most of the American troop deployments are classified for obvious reasons, you can still find some general information (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm)
that refutes your comment on American Troop levels and ability.
I would hope in the future you would look pass the "nightly news" for actual information on what is going on outside of South Florida.
Despite conventional wisdom, many people in our government & in the Bush administration have finally recognized the world's economic volatility because of oil dependence in the Middle East.
Bush offered up a proposal to wean ourselves off foreign oil many years ago and was slapped in the face by both parties in congress including Juan McCain.
So to answer your question, the strategy is to reduce oil dependence on a country whose leader believes that the Holocaust did not happen and to have Iran fulfill an apocalyptic prophesy. Attacking Iran is to elimate a threat to Israel (Sorry, I am an evil Zionist) and the rest of the world.
When President Obama gets into office he will continue this same strategy despite what he is saying about diplomacy. You cannot deal with fanatics and he will soon discover this fact or exit office after his first term a la Jimmy Carter. (The Democrats have so much lust for power they will not let this happen).
However the big difference between Bush and Obama will be that you and many lefties will applaud his efforts. Much like the praise he got yesterday for proposing faith-based initiatives. Something Bush was crucified for proposing. (no pun intended)
Your analysis all boils down to a case of what Dr Charles Krauthammer diagnoses as BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Dr Charles Krauthammer?
You need Dr. Vinny Goombatz.
Gimleteye You speak of “seizing the control of our energy future from Big Oil, Coal, and the utilities”, are you suggesting that the US government “take over” these industries much like Hugo Chávez has done in Venezuela? If this is not what you propose just how do you propose this would be done?
In the not too recent past we did not have enough people in intelligence who spoke the required languages to monitor security risks. This was a problem the preceeded Bush. Fortunately this has been rectified and our intelligence game has improved greatly.
We are better informed, so hopefully, if we get into any more wars, we will be basing our decisions on real facts and solid information.
May God help us if we go to war with Iran.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
"The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”
The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
"The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”
The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”
I believe that Iran is a very bad place at present, but Bush has weakened our Army so badly that those in the know feel this is not the time to kill any more American boys nor go into a war we may not win. If I were in charge I would nuke all dangerous areas in Iran starting with the big man himself. Are you not lucky I quit the Army?
Mensa, Pres Clinton was the one who weakened the Army, etc, and please don't call our wonderful and brave soldiers- boys. They are men and women who chose this career.
As far as nuking goes, Israel may do this for us.
I just came back from a Military College Graduation. I did not encounter anyone at the college who thought we should be overseas at war. The #2 guy in the Army was the guest speaker at the graduation. Even with him there, the presiding person over the event stated from the podium that there was a horrible deficient of leadership in Washington.
The lovely couple in front of me were psyching themselves up to see their son head back to Iraq for the 5th time. What could I say to them besides I am sorry, give them hugs and promise that they would be in my heart in the future months?
When is it gonna stop?
I am saddened and I am very very angry that OUR government has put me in a position that I am helpless in. I do not like the feeling that I should be apologizing for our government's behavior. Yet, as I a citizen, I have been lied to time and time again, and I accept it, by not taking action.
Our country's leaders doesn't play by the same rules that we used to make the rest of the world play by. How can we expect the world treat us? Wasn't the Golden Rule in effect when our leaders were growing up?
I don't have confidence in the experience/maturity of Obama and I certainly don't want to elect a man who says we could be over there another hundred years.
This is the best we can do?
Our children and Service men and women deserve so much better. Our military deserves the best equipment and training available... they don't deserve the corruption and lip service they get from politicians.
I want sanity in my world. We lived with a generation of friends and family scarred by Vietnam and here we are AGAIN.
Does anyone in elected office ever take a freaking World Military History course? If they did, they would not be so ignorant.
Post a Comment