War by Christmas?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What say ye, William; has there been any change in the "Unocal assumes ownership of Afghanistan" conspiracy?

This seems to say it all... it wasn't hard to find:
www.unocal.com...

Unocal reiterates position on withdrawal
from trans-Afghanistan pipeline project

First, congrats to Dear J-B who, despite fatherhood (by the side of which the collective labours of Hercules pale), is posting to good effect.
I'd still suggest that we beware of confusing "oil" with the geopolitical issues.
This area has long been seen as crucial (rightly or wrongly) and long before oil was any sort of issue -the British Empire and Imperial Russia in the "Great Game" furnishes an excellent example, or the checkered history of British intervention in Afghanistan.
I would imagine that the oil issue simply consists of establishing/supporting regimes that favour trade on a capitalist model: a few Western companies do already effectively dominate oil and as new fields come on line one would imagine that these companies would secure similar rights there. given a symapthetic regime it's hard to see much being involved beyond the regular payment of lavish bribes and suitable supplies of armaments to suppress anti-regime forces.

In that scenario, International capital and the local �lite do quite nicely (witness Saudi, pre-Khomeini Iran...or for that matter Qaddaffi) and the poor mug in the street pays the going rate any way ( and we recall that it's domestic taxation that makes petrol/gasoline the price it is - if the average sheikh got a fraction out of a gallon of petrol that HM's Govt. gets they'd all have far more camels)
The oil sweetnens the deal for some, it's undeniably true, but the key is to have the sympathetic, client-regimes in power in these areas.
Restored monarchies in Iran and Iraq (they flirted with the idea with the poor old king of Afghanistan) would, for instance, be much more desirable than any amount of oil.

I don't know if this is the case elsewhere but in Britain (in the true spirit of the Nativity of Our Lord) about now the media will be telling you (every 2.6 seconds, approximately) that there are "x shopping days to Christmas" - there are now, as Estragon notes (thereby demonstrating his legendary powers of mathematics) 38 "bombing days" to Christmas.

And straying entirely into irrelevance (I shall arrange for a local maiden to thrash me later); but the bacon's not quite cooked to the degree that Estragon finds desirable....
I love Christmas; but I can assure posters that having spent the last ten Decembers amont the notionally Buddhist, Hinsu, Muslim or officially Godless...it's quite pleasant to be where Christmas is a big deal only to the vaguely -at least-Christian.
In my racket, one gets a free annual return flight and makes what we call the "duty visit" - Christmas is the obvious time to take it so Estragon toddles off to the airport, has his shoes X-rayed, jousts with indigestion if not food-poisoning, struggles through Heathrow -the most appalling airport in the Western world, and descends upon the hordes of Estragonites, distributing tawdry trinkets to all and sundry.
The horrors of a commercial Christmas astound me, without fail, every year.

Empireefinition:Supreme and extensive political dominion.Oxford English Dictionary

I must start with the premise that the US is Imperial.Because this premise is contraversial I will take a little time to explain why I believe this to be fair.

The purpose of empire is to enrich the citizens of the imperial country with the goods and natural resources of other countries.Through out time there have been many empires but broadly speaking they fall into two catorgries.
Type a)Unsucessful,examples would include,Napolionic France,Imperial Prussia,Hitler's Third Reich,and the Soviet Union.All of the above were either unsucessful or stillborn.The most important reason for this,I believe,was that all areas under their dominion had to be heavily occupied.This is very expensive as well as being costly in terms of manpower.The Empire must continually expand or it can not sustain itself continual expansion is impossible and the empire collapses.
Type b)Sucessful.Examples would include,Roman Empire,and British Empire both of the above expended relatively little resources on military occupation.Once a country became part of the empire establishing trade was uppermost.There are major differences in the way the Roman and British Empires worked that is because as civilisation evolves the Ideal model of sucessful empire must also evolve.
This now brings us to what I believe is the latest incarnation of empire.The United State of America.No sucessful empire initially seeks to be one.It's just that one day you look at what you have and you realise that you have become one.And so it is with the USA.
Just because a country is not colonial doesn't mean it is not Imperial.
The USA controls:The seas,The air,Space,World trade,The Internet,Modern Navigation.English is the lingua franca of the 21 century.The US Dollar is it's currency.But the one thing the USA does not control are the greatest reserves of fossile fuel in the world.Essential to the continued prosperity of it's people.
When the Roman Emperors were great generals.Rome fought battles.When Vespasian(a great book keeper)became Emperor Rome traded,And so it was not a surprise that when Bush,an oilman,came to power he looked with envy toward the Gulf and plotted.

It had been over ten years since the end of the cold war and relationships with countries that had been stategically necessary and convenient back then now seemed to him difficult to justify especially when those countries had something that his people needed and especially when it seemed to him the citizens of those countries bore such hatred for the USA.And for what?Their obsession with Israel.When would they learn that those cards had been dealt?They were backward people always looking backwards.
September the 11th 2001,that was a day he would never forget.Well if that was the way it was going to be.On the heads be it!
Afghanstan had been easier than even he had thought possible.His troops were still stationed there and the new government were totally reliant on the USA for trade and security.When he looked at a map of the area he realised that there had been other benefits to that campaign.Afghanistan now linked nicely with Pakistan another country that knew how things stood in this brave new world.Turkey to the west he had troops there too.Kuwait,Qatar,and the UAE all had given him whaty he wanted anyway.Priority access to there oil and gas.The real jewels were in Saudi Arabia,Iraq,and Iran and he was paying too much for this oil.He didn't mind paying for it but he didn't like being screwed.His people needed that oil.His own Alaskan oil was expensive to get at and transport but it was still cheaper than what these arabs were charging.
Iraq was the easiest to deal with and it was better to deal with them first.A new UN resolution was sought and passed not that he needed one but it was better to keep everyone on board for as long as possible.When the Iraqi's failed to declare two Chemical weapons sites that his own surveilance cameras had found six months before, he called a meeting of the UN security council, produced his evidence and along with Britain demanded immediate action.France and Russia were both unable to stop it and the council unwillingly assented.The attack was quick and devastating.US troops occupied Baghdad in two weeks and a western friendly government set in place.The trade embargo was lifted ostensibly to help the newly liberated people of Iraq with help from Enron and BP.This made the US President smile,The price of oil per barrel hit a twenty year low.
The marsh arab in the south of Iraq had their part to play in the next piece of Bush's plan.A small ,up until then unheard of,terrorist group claiming to represent groups of Arabs in Iran became active.Their sudden appearance was explained by the new media access in Iraq.Iran sent troops down to the border region and put this unrest ruthlessly down.The US claimed that some of this action happened across the Iraqi border,though this was never proved.US troops entered that area of Iran to end the humanitarian outrages that the western media showed nightly.Iranian troops defended against this territorial intrusion and full battle was joined.There could only be one outcome and that would lead to yet cheaper oil prices.Bush smiled to himself it was now time to consoladate his gains.He would not move again until after his re-election.

The international terrorist threat was still upermost in peoples minds.The similtaneous explosions of dirty bombs using radioactive medical waste in the US and European capitals had sent shockwaves across the world.That Saudi citizens funded through a minor member of the royal family appeared to be responsible played nicely into Bush's hand.The people of that oil rich country deserved better.Didn't they?

Do want to finish the rest off TC?It ends with the control of Gulf oil by American and to a lesser extent British oil companies.After initially going down oil prices slowly rise.The advantages of a monopoly.

You wrote a good story, John. We'll see.

However, you are aware that at one time the American and British oil companies had what you are talking about. We could have easily put the simple locals down then as re-capture the oil now. Why do it this way instead of quashing them back then?

Britains problem was imperial overstretch.They simply didn't have the resources to stop countries from becoming independent.America's problem was her history and pride at being a successful Republic.It couldn;t Justify propping up monarchy at the time of the cold war.which would have put her in regional conflict with the USSR
Now the USA has no challengers

I think JB has the right answer here: rightly or wrongly, it was felt that action on Russia's borders was unwise. One recalls that the West did, earlier, intervene in Iran unseating Mossadegh, installing the Shah, and keping the oil.
Also, I think the West hadn't quite appreciated the power of OPEC at that time -one recalls the happy smile of Sheikh Yamani as he kept increasing oil prices.
A similar Western indifference was notable when the mad Qaddafi unseated poor old King Idris the First (not to mention Last) in Libya.
I think the West simply thought "business as usual" and was then caught unawares.
Of course, all of this would have to be tied in to a history of Israeli-Arab relationships.

I think JB has the right answer here: rightly or wrongly, it was felt that action on Russia's borders was unwise. One recalls that the West did, earlier, intervene in Iran unseating Mossadegh, installing the Shah, and keping the oil.
Also, I think the West hadn't quite appreciated the power of OPEC at that time -one recalls the happy smile of Sheikh Yamani as he kept increasing oil prices.
A similar Western indifference was notable when the mad Qaddafi unseated poor old King Idris the First (not to mention Last) in Libya.
I think the West simply thought "business as usual" and was then caught unawares.
Of course, all of this would have to be tied in to a history of Israeli-Arab relationships.

I also think that -if we're taking a broader post-War perspective - the Suez fiasco cast a very long shadow in the Near- and Middle East.
The alleged unity between three of the four Wartime Allies was shown to be illusory and this pretty much resulted in the French (almost immediately) and the British (rather more slowly and successfully) retreaing entirely from political and military commitments in the area.
This left the USA as the sole Western presence in a region where it had no historical ties and no diplomatic expertise. Also, whereas Britain and France had a long history of successful diplomacy with the Arabs, the USA's only "friend" was Israel -not very helpful in the Muslim heartland.
Perhaps, in a world where Western democratic leaders seldom think beyond the next election, we are forever doomed to be made fools of by history.

yeah really Est - what are we (us) doing there in the ME anyway? I sometimes think the UK and France left the US w/ quite a mess over there. Though I wonder how 'we can be waging war against Islam,' support Israel to the death (after all, Clinton's gonna grab a rifle and get in the trenches to protect Isreal - eh, he couldn't have done that for the US though??) yet station our 5th fleet in Bahrain on top of bases in SA, Kuwait, Qatar while leveling taliban in Afghanistan and telling Saddam his days are numbered in the middle of joint mil exercises w/ Jordan. How the US pulls it all off is likened to me balancing my checkbook, more unsure of a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Yet, the US is pulling it off.

[Edited on 17-11-2002 by Bob88]

I'd be the first to agree, Bob that America has peformed a remakable juggling act in the region for a generation; but it is a juggling act and the balls are becoming heavier and more numerous.
On the French and British leaving, I think it's 50-50 ( and one can see something comparable in the Dutch leaving Indonesia) -the poorer, weaker countries only too glad to leave it to the Yanks (and the US tax-payer, of course) and the Americans a little gung-ho in their new role as sole protectors of democracy.
The proble is, of course, that these former allies are reluctant to become involved once more - with the exception of Britain, and that's very a limited contribution.
Look at the desperate attempts by US diplomats to get support in the UN.
Forty years ago, I'd have suggested that the US do what Britain did -fairly peacefully leave 'em all to it.
Unfortunately, the world is now too small a place for that.

On balance, albeit a little reluctantly, the British and French conned the US in the Near East (of course the victim was a very willing one)
And to use the old adage -shame on the Europeans.
But when they then do it in Indochina, the Middle East, the Balkans etc....
I can't help thinking that it's "shame on me" time.

But on the other hand, and not to sound like a boy scout (which I was) � I just think if we can keep holding out over there some good can come out of it. Maybe quitting just isn�t American, while �taxing� � literally � what�s the cost of pulling out? Look at what is happening in Iran. Did we ever think we could get this close to Russia? What would Reagan do, lol?

Almost immediatley after the second world war we enter the cold war era.France had their national pride and under De Gaule the desire to recapture past glories.Britain post war was a spent force,remember still on rationing until 1952,In Empire there are always certain jewels in the crown Gibralter,Hong Kong would be two the Suez canal was but one other
that not only was strategically useful but also more than paid it's way.
When the British Empire collapsed it was the opposite of the feared domino effect.After possesions in India and the far east were ceded,territories that were nearer to Britain were less important.They had been stepping stones around the world now they led nowhere.
In the new age of polar politics the power vacumn around the world was unsustainable and the USA and USSR rushed to fill.I would compare the situation to two players playing the monopoly board game each buying everything that they landed on and could afford.To say America was unhappy playing the game may have some truth to it but they had little choice but to play it.
Estragon said something about French diplomacy in the middle east I would have to agree that the French and to a lesser extent the British are far more adept at dealing with Arabs than the USA.The Arabs I think see the US as purely trading partners where as the French and British are former rulers it is an irony that the US's belief in democracy and self determination is less respected diplomatically than their former colonial rulers but if you look you will see that the form of government developed by independent Arab states are not unlike those in that region 100 years ago or 500 years ago.

that the American presence is beneficial; I'm just not convinced that Americans are the ones who benefit.
Actually, I still think America could just walk away and let them all carry on with it. With a fraction of its military expenditure at present America could easily preserve its territorial integrity. Rather like Britain, in the last two centuries, her navy could ensure her overseas interests were protected.
After half a century of blood and dollars, America finds herself with fewer friends than she had in her isolationist days. Look at the Japanese, as an example: fifty years of economic skullduggery (only just catching up with them) while America expended trillions keeping Japanese markets safe and preserving Japan�s integrity. The Japanese have never lifted a finger to help: Korea, Vietnam: no real threat to America, a massive threat to Japan.
It is often said, and with some truth, that the Cold War was �won� because the Soviets just could not keep up with Ronnie�s and George�s military expenditure. So the Russians gave up. America meanwhile is spending more and more (i.e. given the dire state of the economy, borrowing from future generations, more and more). The Russians have one home, the Chinese are indifferent, have massive internal problems, and are balanced by India. The enemies have gone but still the USA spends.
If I were an American voter I�d be looking for someone who said �they�re ungrateful b**gers, and we�re going home.

I often think that the greatest threat comes from one�s neighbours, and from internal division. From a geopolitical perspective it�s as plain as the nose on one�s face that the greatest threat to American values and culture is the half a billion or so impoverished Central and South Americans and those in the Caribbean �all, almost without exception governed by rogues and despots. Colombian drugs and illegal Hispanic immigration are potentially a far greater threat than any Middle Eastern warlord. Particularly in a nation where �liberalism� consciously acts to favour the collapse of old values.
America�s front line is the Rio Grande not the Gaza Strip or the Hindu Kush.
Americans, I think, need to consider this, just as Western Europe is becoming aware that the greatest threat to its values is the presence of huge minorities who not only do not share those values; but show no willingness to adopt them and often oppose and despise them.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, America (not without the help of some pretty Draconian legislation at times) was enormously lucky with immigration: millions of Italians, Germans, Scandinavians, Russians came to America and actively sought to become American: to learn the language, to work hard, to ask for no hand�outs �even changing names so as to look more American.
I am not so sure this is the case now.

Hi Estragon,I know those previous post were to Bob but I'd just like to agree with you on the point of South and central American and Caribean drugs trade being the biggest threat to American culture and American Prosperity.It should be born in mind that more American citizens have died,either through drug use or drug related crime in the last two years than by international terrorism.

I would disagree with you on the point you made about Japan as it was in the interests of the USA that Japan for 50 years since WW2 should not have the ability to act an independent way against it's neighbours but instead to rely on a system of American protecterate.
Both Germany and Japan have been told by the outside world that war is abhorent and their people lstened.To turn around after the cold war and now get them to fight will take time.Perhaps until after the WW2 generation have died.

Let's see. The U.S. has enough oil in the Gulf of Mexico to stay independent for another 100 years or so. We have enough steel and coal to last practically forever. All we really need to trade for are certain rare elements necessary for nuclear reactions.

We could just pull out from the rest of the world and see how much the EU likes to deal with its own problems.