American Occupation at the Pump: Is $250 a Barrel Oil on Its Way?

Actually the sub-heading (next paragraph) should probably be asked as a rhetorical question. It appears pretty obvious bombs and other munitions are not the brightest fucking way to provide energy security. To some (neocons) it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but they got it all wrong as usual.

It's time to ask whether the U.S. military should have anything to do with American energy security.

If you thought things were bad, with a barrel of crude oil at $136 and the oil heartlands of our planet verging on chaos, don't be surprised, but you may still have something to look forward to. Alexei Miller, chairman of Russia's vast state-owned energy monopoly, Gazprom, just suggested that, within 18 months, that same barrel could be selling for a nifty $250. Put that in your tank and ... well, don't drive it. It will be far too valuable.

Think of Miller's sobering prediction as, at least in part, a result of the Bush administration's attempt to "secure" the Middle East and the oil-rich Caspian basin by force in two failing wars (and occupations). Now, imagine for a moment, what his price scenario might be if, as journalist Jim Lobe -- never one to leap from rumors to sensational conclusions -- recently suggested, forces in the Bush administration (and in Israel) in favor of launching an air campaign against Iran are gaining strength. Just the suggestion last week by Shaul Mofaz, an Israeli deputy prime minister, that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if that country doesn't halt its nuclear program -- "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective." -- helped send the price of crude oil soaring. Imagine what an actual air attack might do.

You know that old joke: military justice is to justice as military music is to music; well, someday, not so far into the future, a similar, though far grimmer joke, is likely to be made about Washington's attempts to secure the U.S. oil supply by military means.

Note: Headline links to source.

The Accomplisher

"Queen of Hearts" by Shirley Holt
The headline links to a great post by Eli. He of the Google fixation.

Is it possible to be so wrong that you end up in a different dimension altogether? I give you… Richard Perle, 5/2/03:

From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.

This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq’s cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war’s critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect. It was conducted with immense skill and selfless courage by men and women who will remain until Iraqis are safe, and who will return home as heroes.

That the troops might well return home as heroes is not beyond possibility. They have been brave, persevered and sacrificed, but there has been no victory. There couldn't be a victory.

I really would like to know what the neocons are on. They have a grasp of reality only matched by the queen of hearts.

Of course, I could have gone with the image of Bettie Page. We are talking fantasy here.



Note: Headline links to source.

Cakewalk In Iran

My take on all this is as follows. The neocons are scared shitless of a Democrat in the White House who they won't be able to influence. They want an attack on Iran (Syria? NKorea?) before the moron-in-chief leaves office.

Don't get me wrong. The neocons won't put their tails between their legs and quietly shamble off. They'll retrench and wait for the next village idiot they can ensconce in the White House.

Badgers*. Every one of them. They make look harmless, but don't fool yourself.

George Bush may have been intent upon invading Iraq long before 9/11 gave him the opportunity to do so, but the neoconservative ideologues who have been so influential in his administration always hoped that toppling Saddam would be merely the warm-up for regime change in Iran. Baghdad was attacked first because it was low-hanging fruit, but everyone knew that "Real men go to Tehran".

As time runs out on the Bush Presidency, the administration's rhetoric about why we must attack Iran is heating up. We seem to be witnessing a determined final push to squeeze in one more war before they leave.

Just as we were once told the Iraqis would greet foreign invaders as liberators, we are now told that Iranians can't wait to overthrow their government. A little Shock and Awe™ will supposedly be the catalyst that sets off a pro-U.S. revolution. In fact, our President and Vice-President think Iranians are so intent on having a government amenable to us, that they might just throw out their current leadership even without our bombs raining down on them.

Which is all well and good, until you actually factor in what Iranians themselves say about their current leadership.

* Badger: A particularly ferocious, tenacious animal that will rarely let go of its prey. (Wikipedia).

Note: Headline links to source.

Top Neocons Call for US to Invade Pakistan

It took a little longer than I expected, but the neocons are calling for the invasion of another country.

Jesus H Christ in Doc Martens, why can't these armchair generals just shut the fuck up?

Two experts have proposed that the US should take pre-emptive action to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons before they fall into the wrong hands.

Frederick Kagan of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and Michael O'Hanlon of the more liberal Brookings Institution argue in an article published in the New York Times on Sunday that the US simply cannot stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss.

Via The Signs.