9/11, the Middle East, and Oil (Long!)

[leftist.]

DU,

Hi. I really need some guidance in understanding today's commission release and the overall tone with which we are dealing with what's happened. (This is a long question for a newb with 20 posts, but I do hope you at least skim through it).

Today I heard a lot of "we failed to understand the enemy", "we've never had to deal with this type of enemy", "we need to learn how to properly confront and destroy the enemy”, et cetera. I understand the politics of one nation having an "enemy", believe me I do; and I also understand that, in a very cynical sense, it's "good for business" to have a new "enemy" … *especially* this one.

HOWEVER,

Couldn't a different approach (in the form of a recommendation from the commission) be to just get out of the oil trade altogether? I know I’m not the first person to say this ... but it's all I could think of today when I kept hearing person after person talk about the "facts" and what this "new enemy" means to the future of this country after 9/11. I kept thinking about it in an historical context, and in terms of money, ingenuity, self-preservation, and social strategy.

I get it that a lot of people want to look tough and "flex the might of the American muscle" to the rest of the world, but barring that nonsense this whole “scenario” is traced back to our dependence on foreign oil, isn’t it??? Am I wrong on that? Are not the USS Cole, the Iranian revolution of the 50s, the expansion of al-Qaeda over the last 10 years, the reinstatement of the Taliban in the mid 90s, 9/11, et cetera … aren’t these events in some way traceable to the fundamental security of the free flow of oil to the US at affordable prices?

What’s the problem with saying something like (and this is a very simple statement):

"Look … starting today, the US now has 5 years to come up with a single standard to replace gas-powered automobiles. After those five years, you guys in the auto industry have 10 years to come up with a USEABLE alternative to gas-powered vehicles. That's it ... and in 15 years the United States will have only a limited (if any) presence in any sovereign Middle Eastern country."

31% of our oil supply comes from the "Middle East". At home, 45% of all oil consumption is directly related to automotive needs (i.e. "gas"). I understand that getting the US out of the Middle Eastern oil trade does little to curtail other countries from purchasing oil from that region; and I also understand that any oil we continue to purchase after those 15 years (and we WILL still purchase oil for other needs for decades to come) could come from Middle Eastern sources (though it seems reasonable to conclude that, with a 45% reduction in need, we could rely more heavily on “friendly” sources for oil).

But it's a start! Such an action would no doubt have an effect with our European and Asian counterparts, who almost certainly would decide to join in. Over the course of a few decades, we could achieve a “peaceful victory” by returning to a country that solves problems by thinking ways around them and not just bashing in the face of anyone that stands in our way.

Or, is it just easier to stick with oil and find some other way to deal with what we are dealing with now? I don't know, and that's why I’m asking. So please, help me out. I’m not trying to be the smartest guy in the room here; I know that my knowledge of these issues is limited and that this “problem” has no single simple solution … but I can’t help but thinking that such an action would at least be a reasonable start. So, what do you think?

... paris

[Junkdrawer]

1. I think that's the direction Gore wanted to go...

However, control of oil is used for more than one reason. In the public debate, we talk of insuring the needs of US domestic and military consumption. But I believe that multinational capital
wants to use oil as a lever to insure the ownership rights of multinational corporations in foreign lands, especially China.

[lapfog_1]

2. OK, I'll bite...

How is oil going to used to insure ownership rights of multinationals
in China?

What are they going to say "Uh, China, if you privatize our sweatshops,
we won't sell you oil?" Something like that? Very few of the energy
companies are diversified beyond energy. Not to mention that I'm
sure China could directly deal with the oil exporting nations.

Please explain, and some references and links would be helpful.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Well, I'm trying to understand why capital has invested over a trillion..

dollars in a communist nation. What are the assurances that that investment won't be nationalized? I can only think of three:

1.) Control of access to markets

2.) Control of access to new technology

3.) Control of access to oil

As time marches on, the first two will become less important as Chinese workers become higher paid and better educated. The last lever, especially in a "peak oil" world, seems to me to be very viable.

But in the end, as I said in my post, it's just my opinion.

[leftist.]

3. Re: "I think that's the direction Gore wanted to go..."

goddammit, I'm glad you mentioned this. I remember now, the conservatives had a parade picking apart his book and his statements over just these issues ... that lasted from the early 90s all the way up to the 2000 Selection. They'd say things like "Gore thinks Global Warming will somehow effect national security" which of course misses the point. But you are right, they didn't understand what he was saying about the security of nations related to the consumption of fossil fuels. Thanks, and good catch!

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Though it's worth noting the Pentagon now takes global warming seriously

as a direct threat to national security. Here's the 'what if' report they commissioned: http://bloodbankers.typepad.com/submerging_markets/Pentagon.pdf

[leftist.]

4. okay

i know it's long. i'll kick it once, and then just let it die in the archives =(

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ContinentalOp]

6. Yes, I absolutely agree.

It would work but it would take a very strong, politically popular visionary and I think it would be more than a five year plan. If you're really interested in this topic I would recommend the Buckminster Fuller book Utopia or Oblivion (if it's still in print). He talks about what can be accomplished when mankind uses the full potential of our vast knowledge resources toward a particular goal. The two biggest examples of this are putting a man on the moon and the atomic bomb but as Fuller points out these types of projects always focus on "killingry" and if we would focus on "livingry" we could vastly transform the quality of life for everyone on earth.

The interesting part about eliminating our dependance on oil is that it is a massive project with implications in many fields. It wouldn't just be a matter of building the electric car but of re-organizing how we manufacture and transport goods, finding more efficient agricultural processes, designing packaging that doesn't use fossil fuels (remember plastic is made of oil), even rebuilding our cities and rethinking our culture's love affair with the automobile. The implications are vast but exciting and potentially world-transforming. Fuller referred to this as a design-science revolution and he envisioned a synergy between design and technology that would allow for an ever increasing standard of living for every human on earth. The other alternative to this utopian vision is of course oblivion.

[lapfog_1]

7. Yeah, but

if we gave up fossil fuels for things like cars and electricity...
then we have about 500 or maybe 1000 years to figure out about plastic
replacement and other material science issues. I think withing 100
years we can come up with complete replacements.

burning this useful material, simply to extract some energy from
exothermic reactions with oxygen, is insane.

[leftist.]

11. thanks for the reading recommendation,

and thanks to everyone for the feedback.

[rman]

8. the oilcrisis will increase the gap between the elite and the people,

making it easier for them to control us.
Why would they want to prevent that from happening?

We'll be sitting at home without electricity, without fuel, without food. While they are at their undisclosed nuclear powered locations, supplying their war machine from the strategic petroleum reserves. Something like that.

If all of the industrialized world would start working real hard, *now*, on switching to renewable energy sources, and increasing over all efficiency by a factor of ten or so, then maybe a the collapse of the global economy can be prevented. But it doesn't look like that's happening.