In a real world without cops you live as long as your betters allow you to. This is the one place you can give some lip safely. The real world isn't like that. Really try to imagine Arabs running things in a world with no US playing cop.

Now when will they say something worth listening to? Creo que nunca.

I know Dems hate testosterone(except in regards to lady lawyers), but that's the way it is, and I'm not getting neutered so you might as well get used to it.

Arti, I'd be more than happy to imagine a world with the US picking up its toys and leaving the ME forever, leaving the Arabs (and Israelis) to work it out as best they can. Sounds like a plan to me!

There's other sources of oil now, you know. We don't really HAVE to stay neck-deep in a 5,000 year old loony bin.

Heck, the French and Russians want it, LET THEM HAVE IT. It's closer to their backyard than ours, and that would solve 99% of the whole terrorist thing, too.

No rational power would launch a nuclear first strike against the US. (What about the turrrrists?)

A more likely scenario for disaster starts with a “limited nuclear exchange” between Israel and an Arab enemy that gets out of hand. The costs of a limited nuclear war in the ME would be high indeed for the world economy and ecology even in those regions not directly contaminated. Other scenarios include India/Pakistan, etc.

You talk all the Dems into giving up driving and it might be plausible. Remember we can't drill here.

I will tell you that hungry Arabs with no money may well be a lot more dangerous than Arabs with oil money.

But then I'm a nutcase so what do I know.

Tell me one more time, Space, why we absolutely have to have ME oil, instead of cultivating a friendship with the Mexicans and Venezuelans and Phillipinos, who are much saner and more kindly disposed toward us?

I recall you have a good reason why we have to do this, but after Arti's suicidal chest-thumping, I've forgetten what it was.

I'm sure someone will want to buy it. There's a global shortage, remember?

Good old Judy. Mistress of the third party insult and the theoretical perfect fifteen year plan.

I suppose you have a way for us to obtain all of our oil from non-ME sources at market prices?

Sure. Like I said, let's get it from Mexico, Venezuela, the Phillipines (about the same as shipping it from the ME anyway), and ship our North Slope oil to ourselves for a change.

And as for market prices, about time they rose to reflect the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military expenses needed to obtain the damned oil.

No doubt it would cause an economic earthquake, but then we're in for an economic earthquake anyway. (Especially if we keep selling hundreds of billions of dollars of debt to China to get the money to go conquer the ME for their oil. Hell, let's just pay it directly for the oil, and they'll line up to sell it to us.)

Prices reflect a premium for terrorism too. But removing the US from the equation isn't likely to end terrorism worldwide. Venezuala is in OPEC so they likely have to follow OPEC rules that will screw us. Pemex is corrupt and state run so they can't even afford to exploit their own resources. And the Phillipines aren't exactly a haven of peace and tranquility.

Keeping our own oil might help some, but it won't change the world market.

You may be disappointed then.


My starting position is that our support Israel and need to control or protect militarily ME oil commerce are givens.

It’s important to state that up front.

To you, this may be begging the question, but for me it is simply realism.

I take the Jihadists seriously, and I believe they have very real grievances over Israel, US military presence in their region, and US support of their plutocracies.


Our offensive against the Jihadists must rely on reasonable cooperation from Arab governments.

For 35 years, Arab regimes have gotten away with covert and overt support of terrorists. Because the Arab rulers had convinced the west that that their overthrow would be far more damaging to the west than their regimes’ continuation, they have been free to conduct covert warfare against US interests.

Overthowing the Hussein regime (any major Arab state would have done for this purpose, Saddam was most convienent ) was necessary to make our threat to other regimes credible. Without the firm choice between cooperating against the Jihadists or being dethroned, the Arab regimes would simply continue to play both sides of the street forever.

Whether imposing democracy by occupation is a reasonable goal, I really don’t know. I would hope that we can use the political capital (reasonable fear on the part of Arab regimes) we have built by deposing Saddam to coerce the necessary cooperation from the remaining regimes in the war on Jihadists. Sure, we should use all diplomatic measures, but the fact that we have shown willingness to go against conventional wisdom and depose an Arab strongman speaks louder than any blandishments we could have offered.

Whither PEMEX?
by Allan Wall
Posted May 19, 2004




http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3942



PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) is the world's fifth-largest oil company.

It is protected from competition in Mexico, where it enjoys a legal monopoly on the exploration, processing and sale of petroleum. And its privileged status in national mythology affords it a certain immunity from criticism.

PEMEX is also in deep trouble. It's heavily-indebted and unable to provide the capital necessary to locate and exploit Mexico's oil deposits. Energy Minister Felipe Calderon recently announced that, without more investment, Mexico's known reserves could be depleted within 13 years.

This wasn't the future envisioned by President Lazaro Cardenas, who expelled the foreign oil companies and founded PEMEX in 1938, to give Mexico's oil to "the people".

The date of the "Expropiación Petrolera" (Petroleum Expropriation) is commemorated annually.

The Mexican Constitution (Article 27) guarantees PEMEX's privileged position, a monopoly over the oil industry, from exploration to the sale of gasoline at the pump.

PEMEX service stations, with their familiar green signs, dispense gasoline nationwide to the captive Mexican consumer. Sure, the prices are high, sometimes the fuel is watered down, and sometimes it damages car engines. But such are the privileges of socialized oil in Mexico.

Even Cuba has a more liberal petroleum policy, allowing foreign companies to exploit offshore oil. PEMEX does subcontract out some work to private (even foreign) companies, but that isn't solving its undercapitalization problem. Yet, for a Mexican politician to call for petroleum privatization is to risk being branded a "vendepatria" -- of selling out the fatherland to the gringos.

The principal contradiction for PEMEX is having to function as both an oil company and a government bureaucracy.

In fact, it functions as a national tax collection agency - 60% of its revenues are turned over to the government, thus unavailable for oil exploration and exploitation. Only 18% of Mexico's territory has been properly surveyed for petroleum deposits.

Then there's the lack of refineries. The United States has 149 operable oil refineries. Mexico, with about a third of U.S. production, has only 6. PEMEX is prohibited from partnering with foreign companies within Mexico, but not abroad. So Mexican crude is shipped to Houston, Texas, where it is refined (in partnership with Shell) and then re-imported to Mexico.

And since its vast natural gas fields can't be properly exploited, Mexico is a net importer of natural gas from the U.S.

Ironically, socialized petroleum makes Mexico more dependent - not less - on the United States.

Not only is PEMEX inefficient, undercapitalized and utilized as a golden goose by the government, its existence exacerbates corruption. In the 2000 election, PEMEX funds wound up in the coffers of the PRI (then ruling party) candidate.

Mexican pundit Sergio Sarmiento summarized the situation thusly: :

"....PEMEX....supposedly property of all Mexicans....has only served to benefit the government, the political elite and the petroleum union."

President Vicente Fox has failed to alter the petroleum status quo, and has even vowed not to privatize PEMEX. Fox does want to open it to foreign investment, and that's controversial enough. Any form of privatization provokes strong opposition in the Mexican Congress among the opposition PRD and PRI (the former ruling party).

But a faction of the PRI is open to petroleum privatization.

In 2002, PRI leader Roberto Madrazo actually proposed selling part of PEMEX through stock offerings.

Fox could negotiate with this faction of the PRI to achieve a viable privatization proposal, in the manner that Ronald Reagan built a coalition with a faction of the Democratic Party.

Instead, Vicente Fox has invested too much time and energy in opening the U.S. border to Mexican emigration, and not enough time and energy in building a Mexico which can provide for its own citizens.

It may be too late for Fox, who has expended much of his political capital.

The media is already sizing up candidates for the 2006 presidential election. Fox's PAN party may lose that election.

And yet, it's not impossible that a pragmatic president of the left may be able to privatize PEMEX.

If carried out properly, petroleum privatization would greatly aid Mexico's development, and maybe even reduce poverty.

Increased Mexican oil production would be good for the United States. We could buy more oil from Mexico and less from the totalitarian House of Saud and other Middle Eastern tyrannies.

But U.S. pressure to privatize PEMEX is highly suspect and counter-productive. Many Mexicans believe the U.S. invaded Iraq to take its oil. American pressure strengthens Mexican opponents of privatization.

Mexico's oil must be privatized by its own leadership. When a Mexican politician courageously articulates the case for petroleum privatization, based on Mexican interests, real change may be at hand.
Mr. Wall is an American citizen who lives and works (legally) in Mexico and writes for VDARE.com.

One word, SpaceDude .... (nice post, by the way) .... er, acronym.

FUBAR.

FJ

Go here: http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

And scroll down to the map in the "Sources of US Imports" section

Think you'll find Canada, Mexico and Venezuela already supply almost 2 times the amount we get from the ME at 47% of our imports.

Good, Russ!

See (just kidding) we could conquer Mexico (before they conquer us, and heck, half of 'em would fight on our side), get the oil fields and production facilities as part of the surrender since they're already nationalized, upgrade them to boost production, renounce all their debt except what's owed to our own banks, and presto! Our oil problem's solved, our immigration problem's solved, and we have our own supply of cheap labor to compete with the Chinese, all in one fell swoop!

Pure genius, and no more outlandish than arti's plan to conquer the world singlehanded.

I don't think that AV wants to conquer the world anymore than I believe that you want to surrender and take up a burka.

The key here is some set of realistic expectations.

Space, do you still think, after all this screwing up, our threat is still credible?

And why is the need to control ME oil so critical?

Pretty much everything in your post is exactly what I've posted all along. I know the difference between an imperialist and a hegemon, the difference between strategy and tactics and have studied enough history to know what happens when one negotiates from strength rather than weakness.

Yet Judy's best reply still boils down to "you're stupid and/or mean".

Sure. Whatever mess will result in Iraq, Saddam and his family will not be in charge of it. The House of Saud understands that.




Recall please that: “My starting position is that our support Israel and need to control or protect militarily ME oil commerce are givens.”

Oil flow from the ME is critical to the world economy, not just the US. Even though we may rely more heavily on non-ME oil than we used to, it’s a world wide market. When events in the ME drive up oil prices, spot crude from Venezuela and Mexico mirrors those prices. So somebody needs to keep oil flowing. If not the US, then who?

Free passage of the oil lanes, guaranteed, if necessary, by military action has been explicit US policy since Carter.


Do you really, seriously, think you could change that policy now?

Do you really, seriously, believe that we could back off our support for Israel?

That's the perverse irony of it all, ain't it?

Ann Coulter donated a whole chapter on that particular irony in Slander(which I finished on Sunday). Now I'm reading Treason. Sure wish I'd finished it before Vietnam Sunday. A treasure trove of history.(and yes, it's quite well end noted and not BS she made up)

Jude, you will appreciate this entire piece.



SpaceDude, how do you reconcile it with your half neocon/half Friedmanesque eye-to-the-future ME remodel? Mr. Raimondo thinks it is dashed on the shoals and headed for worse, including mutinies.

Now? No, but I can see it changing within a few years, particularly if Bush wins and continues on with the incompetence displayed so far. It seems that, at least short term, we're getting way more blowback than even pessimists expected, in increased Jihadism, loss of both international respect for our military power and of whatever moral high ground we could once have pretended to, and of the PNAC goal of permanent bases centrally located in Iraq from which to intimidate the region gone beyond hope of recall.




Yes. Sharon almost seems to trying to ensure that outcome. He's pushing and pushing, and I firmly believe that if he provokes a "hot war" that requires US intervention, support for Israel will go down the tubes faster than you can say "boo".

I'd bet it all that while Americans are willing to supply Israel with bundles of money, heaps of diplomatic cover, and an army's worth of weapons, the limit lies at American GIs dying for Israel.

More people than you may think are getting very uncomfortable with the way Sharon is leading Bush around with a ring through his nose.

I don’t buy into the rather seductive (and very American) neo-con view of remodeling the Middle East. We truly are strangers in a strange land over there. The sooner we pull US troops out of Iraq (at this point, after elections), the better.

Quit building “14 permanent bases”, the largest US embassy in the world, and acting like we mean to own the place. If the Euros, Arabs, and whoevers fear the result of a US pullout, let them come up with some troops appropriate to the region, and sufficiently diverse that Iraqi’s will not see them as the occupying troops of a single nation(US/Britain).


Or let the Iraqis feel the pain of their own civil war.


We are very, very good at destroying conventional militaries and governments. That’s enough. Acting on our own to dictate the political structure of the Arab world is a bridge too far.



And finally, I don't think that I have all the answers. The outlook sucks no matter what we do.

Stay the course!! Turnin' the corner!!




'100 casualties' in Iraq attack


A mortar attack on an Iraqi National Guard headquarters north of Baghdad has caused many casualties, Iraqi officials have said.
There is so far no clear breakdown on the number of dead, but more than 100 people are believed to have been killed or injured, the officials said.

Six mortar rounds fell on the building in Mashahidan, 40km (25 miles) from the Iraqi capital, AP news agency said.

Two American field hospitals are treating the wounded.

US Blackhawk helicopters are also helping to evacuated the injured, AP reported.

Iraq's defence ministry and the US military have confirmed that an attack has happened but have so far given no further details.

"All I am permitted to say is that the National Guard headquarters ...was attacked," a defence ministry spokesman said.

Iraq's fledgling security forces have been a frequent target for insurgents opposed to the country's US-backed government.

Since the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last week, 13 police officers have been killed in separate attacks.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3755928.stm

As well as being completely unatainable. I'm not sure which of these militants dreamed this scenario up, but it has - 0 - chance of sucess. We cannot invade and occupy the entire Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/...l?oref=login&hp

The problem with Bush is that everything he says is usually the opposite of where he plans on going.

It's been that way throughout his presidency. He he firmly denies anything, that is likely exactly what he's planing.

Just like his Dad..."No new taxes"

Uh huh.

It's much worse than anything Bush sr. did.



I don't trust a single thing GW says or does. He has absolutely no ethics.

That's why it is hard to believe people see him as the "moral" president.

He is about the furthest thing from his manufacturered image. He does NOT mean what he says, and the American people do NOT know where he stands.

Whats this I hear about some "Mercy Corps" volunteer (a woman) being kidnapped in I®aq?

Seems her company (of course) is going to stay the course and keep its volunteer in I®aq, since its such an "important and historical" occasion. I'm not sure that quote is exact, but I heard a spokesperson on hate radio today talking about it.

No demands as yet.

I wonder... would terrorists cut a woman hostages head off with a knife or would they have some traditional means of killing a woman? Almost like the ritual suicide of Japan. Women did it quite differently.

Women hostages are great. Everyone should take hostages.

Another few chips in the ante-pot, yes?

Well, if there's one thing I'm sure of it is that male Middle Easterners by & large hate women. I fancy this will be easy for them -- but then the others were, too.

I wouldn't bet on this women getting out alive, but then I wouldn't yet bet on the US getting out of it well, either.

When they do it to the people that are there to help the people, it just shows their disdain for the rest of the Iraqi people. Pure and simple.

Since nobody ever seems to have an answer as to what we should do in Iraq. Stay, leave, whatever. Hack seems to be on the right track. Do you agree??

Memo for the President-Elect





By David H. Hackworth



Since our commander-in-chief announced “mission accomplished” on May 1, 2003, the insurgents have seized the initiative in Iraq. And we’re also not winning the even-more-consequential worldwide battle against the Islamic jihadists. All because our forces are trying to do too much with too little the wrong way.



Lately, I’ve been shoveling through literally truckloads of reader queries along the lines of “OK, Hack, you spent most of the past two years griping, so what’s your solution?” It’s a question that needs an answer. So, as a long-term student of insurgent warfare and a soldier who’s fought guerrillas in post-World-War-II Italy, during the Korean War and for more than four years in Vietnam, here’s what I would do:



* Immediately fire SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, all of his Pentagon senior civilian assistants and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers.



* Replace Rumsfeld with retired Gen. Anthony Zinni and give this tough, smart, proven leader a free hand to bring in the best people to reshape and streamline our armed forces for the long counterinsurgency fight ahead.



* Fire National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and replace her with retired Gens. Wes Clark or John Sheehan.



* Establish a military objective – an often-neglected Principle of War – that will include: how the U.S. is going to regain the lost initiative (another neglected Principle of War) and how we’re going to take and hold the turf seized by insurgents; how we will then win the Iraqi people to our side in the fight against the insurgents; how the nascent Iraqi defense shield will eventually replace our forces; and a detailed, coherent exit plan.



* Force our coalition partners in Iraq to either move out of the safety of their forts and start participating in the campaign or go home. So far, they’ve added little to the fight except providing an opportunity for politicos to crow about the unity of a coalition in which we’re doing almost all the heavy lifting.



* Replace our conventional-thinking generals in Iraq and in other hot spots with leaders – preferably Special Forces – who understand the nature of insurgency, and leave them in place until we execute our exit plan.



* Double and then triple the size of our forces in Afghanistan – or we’ll soon be following in the Soviets’ loser boot-steps. This is one of the main events in our global fight with insurgents and should receive top priority.



* Establish a comprehensive course on counterinsurgency warfare that every commander from lieutenant to general would be required to pass, culminating in a butt-busting final exam certifying that graduates have qualified for counterinsurgency warfare at their particular level. A fail would mean immediate discharge.



* Toughen boot-camp standards for all soldiers and make them as realistic, demanding and disciplined as those sweated through by past generations. Then maintain this level throughout the regular and Reserve forces.



* Merge the Army National Guard and Reserve forces into one formation modeled after the Marine Corps Reserves but configured for the post-Cold War fight against international insurgency.



* Provide the states with limited funds to establish a light infantry/military police/state militia force for emergencies such as fires and storms, and for Homeland Defense missions.



* Reorganize the Army from A to Z, starting with doubling the size of Special Ops Forces and maneuver units, gutting the Cold War stuff and adding more civil-affairs, psych-war and military-police units. Deep-six the folks who excel in PowerPoint briefings but add nothing to the critical missions at hand, beginning with the pernicious, pervasive Pentagon blubber and working down to brigade level.



* Overhaul the Army’s antique personnel system, which has fostered the current corrosive corporate general officer system that’s made many officers and senior NCOs careerists rather than two-fisted leaders. Use Maj. Donald Vandergriff’s book, The Path to Victory, as a primer for this desperately needed reform.



* Reduce or scrap most of the multibillion-dollar porker programs such as Star Wars II, and spike orders for platinum-plated Cold War II ships and aircraft. Then use the funds to arm and equip our warriors appropriately.



* Make every military leader from buck sergeant to four-star memorize Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, and Imperial Hubris, by “Anonymous.”



That’s, of course, for openers .…



--Eilhys England contributed to this column.



Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.” © 2004 David H. Hackworth. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

Sherry, I can't help but notice that Hackworth used to be a darling of the right, getting heaps of air time, until he began voicing disapproval of Bush's handling of the occupation.

(Didn't he even have his own Fox show for a while?)

He used to be a Fox contributor but I haven't seen him on any shows lately. He is really getting the e-mails from the troops, has an 800 # they can get on without being tracked so they can tell him what's going on. His website has alot of info on it.

Jane Arath (sp?) on CNN, the reporter in Iraq did some interviews with troops yesterday. They are disillusioned, disheartened and just want to live long enough to go home. They told her they joined up after 9/11 because they thought there were WMD and terrorists. Since it was all proven to be lies, they feel betrayed. Most, she said, wouldn't talk on camera for fear of retribution, but some did. One of the guys said, "We're not killing terrorists, just some poor people with guns, protecting their country." Very, very sad. To see them die, for nothing.

I don't recall him ever being anyone's darling. He mostly offers military opinion as he sees it. Of course he doesn't have any political considerations or opposition when he pontificates. He offers a lot of good advice in theory. But how much would get done(and how it would turn out) in the real world is anybody's guess.

That, too; that, too.

Provocative stuff from Colonel Hackworth, Sherry. Radical reforms all around. I'd be interested to hear Rocco or Russ comment on these, point by point, or a few.

His essence, though, would seem in contrast with your worldview, because he is saying he would do all of what the US is doing and then some, bigger, better, fiercer, smarter -- in spades with sharpened blades.

Catching up on this thread. Nice posts, Space.

The Jihadists need to be neutralized even if the US never bought another drop of oil from the Middle East. If these tribal thugs continue to sell oil to China and Europe and use the income to buy Jihad, the US is in grave danger. Oil revenues can buy stuff that can kill an American city.

You got that right.

et al,

Let's hope that we don't make the situation any worse for the future by mishandling the problem today.

(COMMENT)

How we effectively deal with radical fundamentalist (asymmetric threats) is important from the standpoint that we do not want outcomes where we neutralize one threat and create two that take its place.

Very Respectfully,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=40996



Clark and Zinni - who knew?

Good article, Space. I'd love to see Zinni in charge.

May favorite line from the Hackworth piece:

"Deep-six the folks who excel in PowerPoint briefings"

Gen. Clark wrote a book on Winning Modern Wars. It specifically talks to the terrorism threat. Too bad Rummy didn't read it. It may have saved thousands their lives. Ours and theirs.

bush:"there will not be a draft!"
bush:"we will redeploy our forces in europe"

smerf:"where the hell did he get the idea that the troops in europe would be enough to replenish our armed forces in iraq without having to institute a draft?"

Clark doesn't work there anymore.

Insurgents funded by Saudis, U.S. says

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationwor...ews-nationworld

WASHINGTON · Iraq's new security forces are heavily infiltrated by insurgents, and the guerrilla groups have access to almost unlimited money to pay for deadly attacks, according to a U.S. defense official who provided new details on the evolution of the rebels.

A significant part of the insurgents' money is coming from sympathizers in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi government is neglecting the problem, said the official, who was authorized by the Pentagon to speak on the issue this week, but only on condition of anonymity.


911 all over again, this time with our soldiers as sitting ducks

is george bush still in the national guard? it doesn't matter whether or not a person is still involved in something, it matters if they know what they are talking about. we have several people on this board who are quite intelligent, and they don't have affiliation directly with the candidates.