Tuesday, December 12, 2006
On the matter of "no war for oil"
So, there I was reading Jimmy Carter's penultimate State of the Union address -- that's the kind of guy I am -- when this passage slapped me in face:
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.
This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.
Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
While you're redigesting the memory that Jimmy Carter was willing to go to war with the Soviet Union over oil (an idea known to history as the "Carter Doctrine"), read the whole thing -- if you're over 40, it will amount to the most hideous flashback not induced by drugs that you will ever have. It will also remind you that we have made very little strategic progress, and that in some ways -- I'm very sorry to say -- Jimmy Carter's strategy was more complete than the Bush administration's appears to be.
19 Comments:
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Dec 11, 11:31:00 PM:
Yes, but Democrats are more willing to support wars when it's their idea.
And everyone is more attentive to national security needs when they're going to be held responsible. Does anyone think Al Gore would have the luxury of telling us that climate change is worse than terrorism if he were the one getting the intelligence briefings every morning?
By William, at
Tue Dec 12, 12:13:00 AM:
Or, conversely, sex in the White House more important than... everything else. Well said.
I would say we have done a fairly good job at keeping hostile forces out of the Middle East, unfortunately, in the process we have rendered parts of the ME hostile. But we have also rendered other parts much less hostile (remember '73?). I'd say we're making progress. Not as much as we could be making, but at least we're moving forward.
By 
, at
Tue Dec 12, 06:34:00 AM:
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Dec 12, 06:54:00 AM:
Good comments on the question of progress. If I were writing the post again I wouldn't have used the term, or at least not without elaboration. My less than clear point was that almost thirty years later oil remains a dominant strategic concern of the United States. I think in 1980, most of us would have believed that by 2006 imported oil would have accounted for a smaller percentage of the world's energy production than it in fact does.
By , at
Tue Dec 12, 09:47:00 AM:
TH,
You would also assum that by 2020, we would also be less dependent on "foreign oil" than now.
Care to make a wager on that one, based on the past 30 years?
If nothing else, the past thirty years (since Carter was elected, and I voted for him in '76, ugh), we have done nothing but dither on this as a policy matter.
The dithering will continue until the beatings get worse.
Frankly, the impending Shia-Sunni War in the wider Middle East will drive DOWN the price of oil as the Iranians and Saudi's attempt to undercut each other for market share. I sometimes wonders if that was the US strategy all along, since 2001 (in my darker moments).
-David
By skipsailing, at
Tue Dec 12, 10:50:00 AM:
David it is all about the death of capitalism as a force on this planet.
Look at how the socialists have set us up. by denying us domestic sources of oil and refinery capacity they drove us into the arms of the very cynical short sighted arabs and muslims.
by denying us nuclear power they exacerbated that situation.
by raising the false spectre of global warming they continue to insist that prosperity will be the death of us.
Now they are gambling that their alliance with the Muslim radicals will help achieve their mutual goals. The muslims get to bring down their religious rival and the socialists get to bring down their economic rival.
I visit the Socialist worker site frequently. What I read there is often repeated in comments here.
When capitalism dies off the socialists will rejoice. Sadly that celebration will be muted because Sharia law really isn't about fun.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Dec 12, 01:57:00 PM:
Capitalism won't die, Skipsailing. Americans and Europeans won't make the rules in the future. The ethnic Chinese (both mainland and overseas Chinese) will make the rules, probably with the help of the Japanese and possibly with the help of the Indians.
The Chinese will not walk away from capitalism. They are the best businesspeople in the world.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Dec 12, 02:34:00 PM:
Frankly, I think the Arabs have the potential to become great capitalists as well. There are some serious cultural impediments they must overcome but it seems to me that when muslims move to America they get down to business.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Dec 12, 02:38:00 PM:
By Jay Manifold, at
Tue Dec 12, 03:57:00 PM:
I am old enough to remember the criticism Carter got (even from some Republicans) for "overreacting" to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with a grain embargo and withdrawal from the Moscow Olympics.
By , at
Tue Dec 12, 04:32:00 PM:
It's hard to argue the Bush strategy is a complete whole, but I think it's hilarious that you infer some knowledge on the part of Carter of what he was saying!
I'm not saying he didn't understand the future implications of his speech, especially when viewed through the PC quicksand of today's politics, but instead that he hadn't even thought through the plain English meaning of the words he used. Expensive oil bedeviled the Democratic party at the time, and he was merely repeating a party position.
By , at
Tue Dec 12, 05:33:00 PM:
In January 1980, it was the middle of the Iranian Hostage crisis, the Soviet Union had just invaded Afganistan, and Reagan was campaigning hard.
Carter was looking incredibly weak, and was running as hard and as fast to the right as he could. The Carter Doctrine, airline deregulation, and trucking deregulation all date from his last year or so in office.
Unfortunately, the first 3 years pretty much defined his presidency.
By Jay Manifold, at
Tue Dec 12, 06:43:00 PM:
Wrong. Airline dereg was in '78; you can look it up. As was a capital gains tax cut. Most importantly, Carter appointed Volcker to the Fed in '79.
(Trucking and railroad dereg were in '80. As was the singularly unfortunate "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act," which led to the S&L collapse.)
By Jay Manifold, at
Tue Dec 12, 06:44:00 PM:
Wrong. Airline dereg was in '78; you can look it up. As was a capital gains tax cut. Most importantly, Carter appointed Volcker to the Fed in '79.
(Trucking and railroad dereg were in '80. As was the singularly unfortunate "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act," which led to the S&L collapse.)
By Jay Manifold, at
Tue Dec 12, 06:46:00 PM:
Wrong. Airline dereg was in '78; you can look it up. As was a capital gains tax cut. Most importantly, Carter appointed Volcker to the Fed in '79.
(Trucking and railroad dereg were in '80. As was the singularly unfortunate "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act," which led to the S&L collapse.)
By Jay Manifold, at
Tue Dec 12, 06:47:00 PM:
Wrong. Airline dereg was in '78; you can look it up. As was a capital gains tax cut. Most importantly, Carter appointed Volcker to the Fed in '79.
(Trucking and railroad dereg were in '80. As was the singularly unfortunate "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act," which led to the S&L collapse.)
By Jay Manifold, at
Tue Dec 12, 06:49:00 PM:
Wrong. Airline dereg was in '78; you can look it up. As was a capital gains tax cut. Most importantly, Carter appointed Volcker to the Fed in '79.
(Trucking and railroad dereg were in '80. As was the singularly unfortunate "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act," which led to the S&L collapse.)
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Dec 12, 07:49:00 PM:
IMO, if Carter was willing to set forth such a policy almost 30 years ago for simple political expediency, he has no business criticizing similar policies enacted by someone who really believes in them.
Also, I just don't like Carter.
By , at
Tue Dec 12, 11:28:00 PM:
And the same holywood jerks who shout NO BLOOD FOR OIL are the same ones who join with the eco-freaks from GREENPEACE,SIERRA CLUB to oppse drilling in the ANWR becuase they say its a fragil area what a load of bull kaka
