Few on dKos believe that the Cheney/Bush administration's wars on Iraq & Afghanistan have much of anything to do with their stated purposes. Michael Klare has an excellent article over on Alternet [
http://www.alternet.org/...], in which he (once again) exposes the project for US domination of global petro-resources. If anyone reading this believes Cheney/Bush have some other purpose--such as spreading democracy or fighting terror--we could have a separate discussion about that. Let's meet later and arrange for remedial tutoring until everyone catches up.
For the rest of us, let's look a little deeper into the subject of US domination and petro-resources.
Given the reality of peak oil (whether the peak is coming soon, is here now, or has already passed does not matter to the argument), we are tempted to think that the US seeks military dominance in the Middle East and Central Asia in order to assure continued oil supplies to our thirsty economy. There is a grain of truth to this, because our economy certainly is thirsty for oil and the supply of oil is certainly limited. In a small-minded and short-sighted way, this would be "good" for Americans and, arguably, is therefore a legitimate activity of the US government. But if the goal is to supply our economy with the oil it needs,
the problem should obviously be addressed on both the demand and supply sides of the equation. Since substantial demand reduction could be achieved without great sacrifice, since demand reduction resulting from developing new technology and building new infrastructure would actually be a powerful stimulus to the economy, since demand reduction is so much cheaper and safer than war, and since despite all these facts the Cheney/Bush faction has absolutely no interest in reducing demand for oil--as shown by the fact that there are no serious programs in place for conservation, efficiency, or alternative energy sources-- we have to conclude that assuring an adequate oil supply for the American economy is not really their objective.
I say again: assuring an adequate oil supply to the American people is NOT a Cheney/Bush objective.
Since Cheney/Bush ARE NOT trying to assure adequate oil supply, but they ARE still seeking to control petro-resources, then they must have another reason to want to control those resources. I argue that they seek control of petro-resources as a tool for domination.
To repeat: Cheney/Bush seek control of petro-resources as a tool for domination.
Domination of whom? Well, Europe, Russia, China, and India come to mind, especially China. In a long view of history, China is ordinarily the pre-eminent culture of the world. They just had a couple of bad centuries, but now they're back. In a "normal" economic competition, China will rapidly gain the upper hand (if it does not already have it through ownership of our national debt), so conventional economic domination by the US is not possible. In a "normal" military confrontation, China is formidable to say the least. Their huge population hardly needs mention, ruling out any thought of a ground war. The US holds an advantage in military technology, but China is graduating scientists and engineers at an astonishing rate, so we can expect the technology differential to evaporate within a couple of decades. The US has a vastly superior global military infrastructure, and an enormous edge in military equipment and training, but given economic and technology trends we can assume that these advantages are likewise ephemeral.
The Cheney/Bush faction sees that leveraging its existing short-term advantages to gain control of petro-resources could give it a unique weapon for domination: the ability to strangle any who do not submit to them, by choking off vital energy supplies. From their point of view, it makes perfect sense to go all-out right now to secure control of petro-resources.
If this is their strategy, there is no reason not to use all available means including outright war, including even nuclear war, because "everything" is at stake and there is no point in halfway waging a war. If this is their strategy, there is urgent reason not to delay, because their present military advantage will not last long. If this is their strategy, there is certainly no reason for diplomacy, because no relevant diplomatic partner has any reason to agree voluntarily to any part of their agenda.
This weapon--control of petro-resources--is powerful only to the extent that nations and people are dependent on petroleum. To make this weapon more powerful, then, it makes sense to increase demand even though supply shortages are certain. It makes sense to actively retard development of alternative energy sources. It makes sense to oppose conservation and efficiency measures. It makes sense to draw down as much of the available petroleum reserves as possible, as fast as possible, in order to make the remaining reserves (that are controlled by the Cheney/Bush faction) that much more rare and valuable and powerful as a weapon. Extending the logic, it even makes sense to nuke Iran, even though that would drive the price of oil through the stratosphere and could crash the global economy, because again, having Iran's oil production off the market makes their control of remaining petro-resources that much more powerful as a weapon.
Wait--did I just say "crash the global economy" in the same sentence with "makes sense"?
Yes, I did say that. Cheney/Bush may lack the moral qualities that we prefer in our leaders, but they are not completely stupid. The global economy will crash anyway. You guys read bonddad's excellent diaries, so you must KNOW that at this point the whole thing is pretty much a house of cards. If you also read Jared Diamond, Paul & Anne Ehrlich, Tim Flannery, Herman E Daly, Kenneth Deffeyes, Richard Heinberg, Derrick Jensen, or James Howard Kunstler (to name a few who have examined all or parts of this subject) you can further confirm this inconvenient truth. The precise timing of the crash is just a detail. If you accept this premise, for Cheney/Bush to intentionally initiate the crash at the moment and in the manner they deem most favorable to themselves is merely rational.
But wait again. There are lots of much more optimistic visualizations of the future. You know, Amory Lovins, Jeremy Leggett, all the organic farmers and universal health care advocates and other wonderful creative people. Maybe a global economic crash is NOT inevitable. Maybe a brighter, fossil-fuel-free future IS possible. We could gently let the air out of the worst of the economic bubbles, we could gradually transition away from oil dependency, we could back away from cut-throat competition and move towards cooperation on the international stage, as all nations together confront the ecological crisis in the realization that global resource wars will only make everyone's situation worse. Yes, yes, but there's a problem with all scenarios of this kind: they are less hierarchical and more egalitarian. And they do not have the Cheney/Bush faction in charge. That is their essential defect, their fatal flaw. That is why they are not even being considered.
Sounds like tinfoil-hat stuff, doesn't it? This is a lot of conclusion to draw from a couple of stupid wars that are easily explained as incompetence or ideological wrong-headedness. If Cheney/Bush were intent on this type of domination, wouldn't we see it in other ways too?
Oh, you mean like spying on your bank account and listening to your phone calls and reading your emails? You mean asserting the power to declare you a "terrorist" (whatever that is--it basically means whatever they say it means), to detain you indefinitely without charge, without informing your family, without access to legal counsel, without ever bringing you to trial, to ship you to Gitmo and rape and torture you for the rest of your life, to ship you to Romania and torture you to death and never have to explain anything to anyone or even admit it happened? You mean repeated wholesale election theft and systematic dismantling of the Constitution that is the proudest and best accomplishment of this once-great nation? You mean investing countless billions in the militarization of space and the Star Wars system and the development of "usable" nukes to supplement the petro-resource weapon? You mean re-engineering our "free-market" economy so all the money goes out of your pocket and into theirs? You mean a governing philosophy and practice that methodically ignores absolutely everything that is not a) pandering to a sad deluded base of Fundie Christians just large enough to keep Cheney/Bush in power until elections finally are entirely irrelevant, or b) pandering to a blind narcissistic billionaire/CEO class that helps keep Cheney/Bush in power while they work on their real agenda, or c) actually a direct part of the real agenda of securing permanent worldwide domination of everything and everybody. Well, I guess you're right, Cheney/Bush are bad, but even they would never do THOSE things.
Oh, wait. That IS what they're doing.
Hmm, maybe I could just turn off rant-mode for a second.
What I'm saying is that Cheney/Bush faction is waging a few small wars in order to control petro-resources, and they want to control petro-resources in order to wage a much larger war. And I'm saying that the enemy in that larger war is simply anyone, foreign or domestic, who does not want the Cheney/Bush faction in charge. Of everything and everybody. Absolutely and forever.