![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is from a "Victory Rally" in Nebraska on Nov 5th,
This statement, which I largely agree with, seems terribly short sighted, especially given Bush's approach towards foreign policy. In fact, it seems almost duplicitous. He admits that a shortage of oil can harm our economy, and yet he's never had a realistic policy geared towards weaning the nation of its dependence upon oil. I don't see how a semi-immediate threat from a caliphate is any different from a slightly less semi-immediate threat of a demand driven shortage of oil. And it's not entirely about a caliphate either, its about control of those fields in Iraq. They are still largely untapped, and will likely be the last large reserve of oil (as we know it,) and control of it, when the Saudi fields tap out in the next two decades, will be vital to preserving our economy. Some times, I think the lack of an exit policy in Iraq is a plum to the administration, since this way, they keep control of the oil away from the Iraqis for the time being. But in any case, even if we retain control of the region (or our puppet does) we will have to face a situation where we will be at the absolute mercy of those that control the oil. At that point, we will need to examine the alternatives. For all their talk of preemptive war to resolve our problems with the threat of terror and a caliphate, the administration seems reluctant to engage in preemptive planning for a shortage of oil.
1http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061105-3.html
Bush: "They (SRZ: islamic fundamentalists) have said that they want to establish a caliphate -- a governing organization based upon their ideology -- and it starts with toppling modern governments. They would like to get a hold of oil resources so they could then say to the West, abandon your alliance with Israel or withdraw from the Middle East; otherwise you're going to be facing high priced oil, and we'll bring your economy down."1
This statement, which I largely agree with, seems terribly short sighted, especially given Bush's approach towards foreign policy. In fact, it seems almost duplicitous. He admits that a shortage of oil can harm our economy, and yet he's never had a realistic policy geared towards weaning the nation of its dependence upon oil. I don't see how a semi-immediate threat from a caliphate is any different from a slightly less semi-immediate threat of a demand driven shortage of oil. And it's not entirely about a caliphate either, its about control of those fields in Iraq. They are still largely untapped, and will likely be the last large reserve of oil (as we know it,) and control of it, when the Saudi fields tap out in the next two decades, will be vital to preserving our economy. Some times, I think the lack of an exit policy in Iraq is a plum to the administration, since this way, they keep control of the oil away from the Iraqis for the time being. But in any case, even if we retain control of the region (or our puppet does) we will have to face a situation where we will be at the absolute mercy of those that control the oil. At that point, we will need to examine the alternatives. For all their talk of preemptive war to resolve our problems with the threat of terror and a caliphate, the administration seems reluctant to engage in preemptive planning for a shortage of oil.
1http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061105-3.html
