KSA, Russia and Norway probably account for close to half of net world oil exports. Based on the most recent EIA data, I estimate that their combined net crude + condensate exports are currently falling at annual rate of about 3%. (I assumed that their 2006 crude + condensate consumption was about the same as 2004 total liquids consumption).
I focused on these three countries in my original January, 2006 post on net exports because they were--based on Khebab's HL work--well past the 50% of Qt mark.
IMO, Russian data continue to be a problem. I have repeatedly wondered about the reliability of the reported production numbers, and the EIA has recently revised Russia's 12/05 to 6/06 cumulative oil production downward by about 50 million barrels.
In any case, collectively these three regions are showing declining production and declining exports, despite historically high (nominal) oil prices.
I've read comments from you that Russian production is reported to be increasing, while Russian export currently are declining.
Out of the blue:
Could the Russian be building up tank farms like SA? As far as my understanding goes, there is some concensus in Russia that it's unwise to flood revenues from oil into the domestic economy. So as an alternative i would think it could be natural that the Russians would wish to have an strategic reserve - or maybe not - would the world biggest oil producer spend money on maintaining a strategic reserve? I see that such idea might be plain stupid, but i appreciate comments.
Regretably i presently don't have opportunity to get the numbers (production, domestic consumption, export) which hopefully would riducule or justify such assertion. Well, the data is poor anyway.
two thoughts spring to mind -
- one is that Russia is reported to be setting up a state oil fund to invest surplus taxes. whether this has actually happened is difficult to see yet. This is logically a better
investment than tank farms
- secondly, if you are sitting on huge reserves, why would you not simply leave the oil in the ground and pump less. I'm not sure it makes sense to build a lot of storage above ground.
if you are sitting on huge reserves, why would you not simply leave the oil in the ground and pump less
Strategic flexibility at some future date, perhaps? Peak oil is about limits on the rate of production, not reserves. If you anticipate the world entering a mode in which the oil market is driven by constraints on rate of production (including your own), then having a reserve from which you can release or withhold oil allows you to be, effectively, a swing producer. That's a very powerful position to be in.
Installing a second pump in your tank is far easier than doubling or tripling your count of mile deep wells to suck oil from tiny crevices in the rock little by little.
It makes good peacetime sense to install storage aboveground, if you're planning on using it strategically.
Actually do agree that there are benefits for above ground storage - but I see these as more on the demand side than the supply side of the equation. It is extremely interesting for countries with an oil deficit to build such storage sites for security of supply reasons, but can't see it for a major exporter. Russia has also shown no tendency towards trying to influence prices downwards. To my mind therefore the ability to hugely increase export rates from a storage site at short notice might be less critical ? (this is a question).
Going the other way - ie. reducing production to manipulate the market - I stand by my view that its easier to simply produce less for a while. :) This is what opec does.
Ever consider that exporting countries building reserves may not be doing it to quickly work the market, but rather are storing above ground supplies in preparation for quick mobilization for their own use?
War would be an obvious reason to have those oil supplies at the ready. Since WWI and WWII proved that rapid ramp up in industrial ability and the ability to mobilize quickly, even if the target of a first strike, is critical to getting on a winning footing, then I could easily see the Russians or other nations wanting to have an oil supply which can be used rapidly and not be dependent on geology at hand.
Not everything is about market warfare, and I think there are a lot of players getting more nervous about energy than what is let on.
In mutually offensive wars, a cubic kilometer of oil in one place is among the first targets of missile or air attacks. Which is why I said it makes peacetime sense.
> It is extremely interesting for countries with an oil deficit to build such storage sites for security of supply reasons, but can't see it for a major exporter
Russia oil assets can be thousands of miles from population centers and ports capable of loading tankers. Should Russia experience a technical issue that prevents them from tranporting oil from its fields, the SPR can be called upon for the emergency.
Exporters typically have long term contracts with customers. A distruption could be costly for them
Some fields are located in northern regions. A severe cold snap could force a temporary production shutdown.
The current issue of the Oil & Gas Journal has some interesting numbers regarding total EU energy production, consumption and imports.
Although consumption did not increase from 2004 to 2005, total energy production fell 4.5% from 2004 to 2005, pushing up imports from 54% of consumption to 56%. Not a promising trend.
2005 total energy consumption per capita (Tonnes of Oil Equivalent, TOE):
EU, 3.6 TOE
Japan, 4.1 TOE
US, 7.8 TOE (We're #1!; We're #1!)
I think the conversion factor is about 7.3 barrels/tonne. IMO, the EU is going to be able handle higher energy prices much better than the US; however, the export/import trend is not promising (for any energy importer).
This is one reason the EU, in general, seems so accomodating to people like the Russians, the Iranians, the Libyans, the Nigerians, etc. And at the same time, so motivated in searching for alternatives.
But the current American method, as practiced in Iraq, does not seem so promising, either in terms of oil production, or in improving the lives of Iraqis.
Europeans are very cynical, we could both agree - they would rather buy off dictators than smash societies. In part, this comes from European experience in doing such smashing in the past, and then getting nothing but ruin in return.
The wheel turns - Europeans now believe a standing military and the willingness to use it a handicap in terms of their well being, while America is abandoning exactly what a number of its founders thought important, such as avoiding the waste of having a standing military absorbing taxes, requiring government to tax its citizens heavily, or go into debt. Further, the founders in general sought to prevent a class of people arising who think military glory is a worthwhile goal (this included General Washington, by the way) - shocking how many of the founders were opposed to the military as an institution - I guess that comes from being occupied by what they thought to be an unjust power unconcerned about the will of people who had to pay the bills in blood and money.
Europeans now believe a standing military and the willingness to use it a handicap in terms of their well being
A belief that has largely been backed by a military presence of the US in Europe. I wonder if they would be so quick to think like this if the US left NATO, or perhaps even more importantly, left NATO during the Cold War.
Also how much strain is removed from European governments in terms of defense funding due to the provision of their protection being handled by the US? Could some of these already highly taxed European societies manage to raise taxes further to sustain an Army capable of making their diplomatic, and self defense threats/promises viable?
You make it sound like charity, while both sides in the cold war had a clear strategic interest in maintaining military presence in "their" respective parts of Europe. It was unrestrained military buildup that turned Europe into lesser powers.
Who is a military threat to Europe, by the way? European countries taken together have more soldiers than the US, and enough high-tech toys to put out small fires. For anyone with conqueror ambitions, the bomb is a sufficient deterrent. Not having an army suitable for conquest is one temptation less for the ruling elites.
You make it sound like charity, while both sides in the cold war had a clear strategic interest in maintaining military presence in "their" respective parts of Europe.
Not meaning to make it sound like charity. I understand the strategic importance for the US to have been present when they were. However I think Europeans of late, due to the anti-Americanism, take for granted the defense edge they have which is provided by American forces.
European countries taken together have more soldiers than the US, and enough high-tech toys to put out small fires.
More soldiers may be useful, but how well trained? Britain certainly has some well trained units, but how does say Spain, or Greece compare?
As for toys... how many of those toys were sold to the Europeans after American tax dollars funded the research. Granted there are weapons divisions in Europe, but most of their toys were bought from American defense contractors.
I'm not trying to take anything away from European defense forces. They have some fine soldiers, and are worthwhile allies. But don't go marginalizing the benefits that the US has provided Europe simply because you disagree with the current actions of the US.
I'll also be really curious what Russian removal of resources will do to promote European hegemony under the EU banner. I could easily see the EU becoming a LOT more Imperial once resource rich countries start looking after themselves, and all those diplomatic deals start to fall through. What would a few cold winters or record breaking summers without steady energy do to motivate the EU towards militarism? Ugly thought, but certainly not unthinkable.
Actually European defence technology is mostly home grown.
The reason being nationalism, and also the Americans refuse to sell us the latest stuff-- the only country that gets that is Israel (which then sells it to China ;-). They won't even let British companies have it-- you know the people standing beside you in Iraq. (we are seriously talking about pulling out of the Joint Strike Fighter over access to the software).
It's inefficient, we run higher costs because we don't have your economies of scale and volume platforms. The separate national fiefdoms bugger us. But we do have our own weapon systems technology (in some areas clearly superior eg conventional submarines, some forms of artillery and light armoured vehicle etc.).
We (UK) use your nuclear systems, but we were offered the chance to co-develop with the French, and went with the US.
Put it another way, there is no 'Europe' on defence, what there is is different nations of different force projection capability. Its unsurprising the world didn't want the Germans to develop force projection (but they had the best armoured forces in NATO).
We don't spend as high proportions of GDP on defence, but then our labour costs are generally lower, too. What we don't get is your economies of scale.
I do think Europe is likely to strike its own deals with oil-producing states, not necessarily to the US's liking.
A lot of oil producers don't want to be dependent on the US alone, either as a customer or as protection. Hence the Saudis buy their air force from us (the BAe Al Yamamah II project) not from the USA.
This has bearing on the Palestinian problem, and also Venezuela, amongst others. Interests will diverge.
However I think Europeans of late, due to the anti-Americanism, take for granted the defense edge they have which is provided by American forces.
Anti-Americanism that is partially motivated by a different view on the effectivity of armed intervention. So I think the difference in strategical choices motivates the anti-US-sentiments rather than the other way around.
I'll also be really curious what Russian removal of resources will do to promote European hegemony under the EU banner. I could easily see the EU becoming a LOT more Imperial once resource rich countries start looking after themselves, and all those diplomatic deals start to fall through. What would a few cold winters or record breaking summers without steady energy do to motivate the EU towards militarism? Ugly thought, but certainly not unthinkable.
Conquering and occupying an already much more militaristic Russia or parts thereof? Whoever thinks that would work, let alone yield a net energy benefit deserves to become history instantly. Besides, the Baltic and the Black Sea are very nice blockade points even without large forces.
In any case, for the foreseeable future (which is short) Russia and the EU have needs and abilities that are complementary. There's no use in rushing to make enemies.
But the US did away with conscription, and Europe didn't.
That raised apparent US defence spending, and suppressed apparent European spending. But in terms of diversion of what were, in fact, smaller GDPs, Europe was holding its end up.
And the basing infrastructure was on European soil, and therefore 'free'.
The US was pursuing a strategy of forward defence: fighting the next war on someone else's soil. A good strategy to be sure, but hardly altruistic.
And to think once upon a time, the Royal Navy felt exactly the same way about the Americans enjoying the benefits of HMS fleet, without paying a farthing (or pence? or shilling?).
Except of course, when the American merchants were not allowed to trade with areas the Royal Navy thought its own to protect - try the opium trade.
See where this is leading? Americans keep talking about the 'protection' they are so graciously providing to nations who don't want it (not that Europeans won't take it when it meets their interests, of course - just like American merchant ships did in the past). Of course, if Europeans where as enlightened as Americans, they would have supported the Iraqi invasion, instead of opposing an invasion considered illegal by many, by margins ranging from 60% to 90%.
Amazing how many Americans tend to view European opposition to such a shining success story in the Middle East (how many dead and tortured Iraqis this week? Who knows and who cares seems to be the general American attitude) as anti-Americanism, from some unnamed 'elites.' I guess the Europeans have the misfortune of belonging to that reality based community which the Bush League swept aside in their triumph of will.
I guess the idea that Iraq was a stupid strategic move of the type which only later generations can fully measure is hard for many Americans to accept, especially as the former world champions in invading and exploiting other societies said it was a stupid idea before it happened, while it is happening, and will undoubtedly lead to them to remark on its stupidity for generations into the future.
Unless the problem is that the press isn't reporting the success stories in Iraq, of course. What a comforting thought, that the problems in Iraq are the media, and anti-Americanism in Europe.
Though anti-Americanism among the Iraqis does seem to keep growing, doesn't it? I guess that is because Iraqis just don't understand how wonderful a 20mm armor piercing round through the window (and just coincidentally, through a family member) is, or what a friend a 500 lb through your roof is (it brings a whole meaning to having a blast at home). Really, such people are so ungrateful of the American protection they are now enjoying, without even having asked for it. Americans are just so misunderstood, and all they get for their generosity is resentment and abuse.
Must be real hard living with yourself as an American these days, knowing that all your niceness is so misconstrued. Lucky you can just snatch a few people off the street and torture them to reassure yourself of America's goodness in fighting the good fight, regardless of what other people think.
I wouldn't dispute much of what you say here. Clearly American 'protection' of various nations, shipping routes, etc. has a primarily selfish motive. It has also clearly been harmful to those on the receiving end of American justice, rightly or wrongly.
However, I don't think you can deny that there have been benfits as well. So it all comes down to an accounting of how much good versus how much bad, minus what would have happened if the US didn't try to police the world. Clearly this is too complicated.
More crucially it is entirely subjective. It all depends on what you value and how you think it would have turned out otherwise.
I do think US foreign policy lately has been a disaster and a net negative. Americans need to take an accounting of what has happened and what is the best course of action for the future.
But even if you accept your claim at face value, it is not clear what would be the best course of action for the US, or the world. Do you think another round of American isolationism is the ideal answer, or that the UN could effectively run the whole show? As much as yuo can rightly tout increasing gloal anti-Americanism, I can assure yuo that what US leaders are told behind closed doors in not the same thing.
Asians love to be able to count on the protection of the US, which they can criticize while cuddling up to China. But they know China would not look so cuddly if the US went home. If that happened it would set off an arms race here and could lead to regional conflicts. Then who would intervene?
How effective has Europe been at stopping problems, even in their own back yard?
Again, I am not claiming that what you have said is wrong, only that it is easy to find faults. I think you live in Germany. Didn't they have a go at running the world? How did that work out? How can Germans live with themselves?
I think, on the whole, that Europeans were fairly comfortable with the military role played by the US during the Clinton era (not trying to personalize this, still less to become party-political! Just a matter of historical dating, you understand?)
i.e. this "global policeman" thing, while a lot of the intellectuals didn't like it at the time, was not contested by the "European street", and sure as hell looks like a golden age now. The US engineered an end to armed conflict in the Balkans, and truly put Europeans to shame in doing so.
In the meantime, Europe as a defense community struggles to get any traction (Rumsfeld splitting it down the middle over the Iraq war is probably the proximate cause of this, and this paralysis was undoubtedly his aim). It'll take time to get co-ordinated, but the UK and France have the technology, know-how and logistics to form the backbone of a credible Euro force, filled out by the other members. It can certainly defend its own territory, and project a viable presence anywhere in the world. For the life of me I can't see why Europe actually needs to go begging cap in hand to the US to defend it (against whom?)
For the US : The worst possible outcome, for the world in general, would for the US to go into an isolationist phase. The best possible outcome (my preference) would be Wes Clark as president -- he understands this stuff. (Any other general, Dem or Rep, would be a good second choice).
I agree the the acceptable period under Clinton now looks like a golden age and feel a temptation to want to go back to it. But I also think that is now futile. It was broken then, but could be sustained because it still functioned and other options looked worse.
But tacit bargains can't be expected to endure. The US post war role worked while it was needed and the pain of not having a policeman was fresh in people's minds.
The bargain is no longer valid. It now needs to be reformed or undone. I agree that Europe no longer needs defending as it is hard to image today's Russia or anyone else invading.
Perhaps the best option is a Clinton type approach - Wes Clark's version of I feel your pain involunatry world policemanism. Clearly that would be better than what we have now.
Or maybe it would be best to the US to adopt a tempory isolationist stance. Would the shit hit the fan and the world call for the US to come back, or would they party to the theme of good riddance for generations.
Again, I don't know. My main points here are that this situation is compex, we don't know the alternaives and the consequances are huge. It is easy to follow one's emotions to one extreme or the other. I could argue either ideological extreme now or after 20 beers. But I less hasty and more sober approach is needed.
I appreciate the good responses from you and expat. My favorite commenters here are those I disagree with. We learn or by debating than by agreeing.
I hope it is clear that there are different ways to view these complex situations and there are reason why we disagree other than because one of us is evil, stupid, or manipulated.
Well, my ideal answer would be American isolationism, though obviously, it is long past time for that solution. Though I shudder to agree with Patrick Buchanan in anything, it has been my conviction for 25 years that America's involvement in WWI was the greatest single mistake in U.S. history - though I am open to the slave compromise in the Constitution being worse, at least in terms of morality if not global reach. Of course, getting involved in Europe's bloody and stupid wars was something that America's founders warned against, but then, presidents from Virginia have never had any problem with hypocrisy in terms of slavery is freedom or war being the best way to give peace a chance.
As for the UN - strange that an institution designed by Americans to serve American interests is so disparaged by Americans that the current American ambassador to it joked about blowing part of the UN building up. (And people say Americans have no sense of irony.) It is part of the dismantling of 50 years worth of American designed and implemented international institutions which is so incomprehensible to me - no nation has ever been as wasteful as the U.S. And the reasons for throwing away such power seem so short sighted and petty - for example, international conventions prevent torture, so America, needing a free hand, just throws it out. No wonder Bush was so worried about an international justice system - it would have tied his hands, where the American system uses plastic ties, hoods, and shackles. What an insult to American values that other people find torture barbaric. Oh wait - that used to be the other way round when I was younger, when the evil empire was the Soviets, with their mandatory ID for travel and wiretapping and secret detentions. You just needed to ask a Republican about those sorts of evils, and why America was superior.
And that part about Germans living with themselves? Partly they can because they are brutally honest about their mass murdering, warmaking past. Their past is also part of what motivates Germany in being a society deeply interested in pacifism, and trying to live in a way which avoids war - such as avoiding conflicts based on struggling for natural resources, which is one reason renewable energy sources are a major goal here. Of course, this is only one motivation among many, and German society is diverse.
But every German who goes to school visits a concentration camp as part of learning about their history. In Virginia, it is pretty hard to find the slave quarters in all the Virginian founding fathers' estates I'm aware of, and they tend not to be part of the guided tour, in general. It certainly was not part of the tour before the end of the civil rights era - who cared about slaves? After all, the the slaveholders' views on freedom were important, not how their unpaid help lived.
Yes, it is easy to find fault. What is hard is to live differently as a result. I thought around 2 million dead Southeast Asians would be enough for America to reflect about itself and change, but I was wrong.
I thought around 2 million dead Southeast Asians would be enough for America to reflect about itself and change, but I was wrong.
Spend a bit of time in Vietnam, which incidentally has fought and won a war against China after the ones the fought and won against the US and France. Sit in people's houses in the Mekong Delta where they still have pictures of their sons who opposed the Communist goverment and were sent to "reeducation camps" afterwards and still can't get jobs now, thirty years later.
You would certainly have to agree that much more than 2 million dead in Southeast Asia would be enough for China to reflect about itself as well.
In the US, people did protest and air their concerns openly. The Vietnam war created massive changes in the psyche of Americans and dissent in the US is now as common as patriotism.
You may get your wish of American isolationism. It may be for better or worse. I honestly don't know.
I agree with you on the Germany issue. I do think the country has admirably accepted its wrongs and I do not desire to hold against today's Germans the faults of the forebearers. Similarly, I do think that the US changing the rules, when it suits them, particularly regarding the appalling sanctioning of torture is a shame.
American anti-UNism and UN anti-Americanism is ironic. But it would also be expected had one been able to anticipate US global dominance. What power has ever agreed to be counterbalanced?
At the end of day, I think the situation is complex. There are many parties at fault. To see the US role as all good or all bad is naive at best. I also do think Americans are wrestling with this very issue.
In the German case, the role of the Nazi party came to an abrupt end and the time for reflection was forced on them. As a country, Germans responded admirably, but not every individual did.
Personally, I would like to see a world where there is a better system of global governance and a stronger counter weight to US power. However, were it my job to represent the bbest interests of the American people, I don't think I could honestly say, abandoning the military and ignoring the countries lead role in international affairs would be for the best.
At some point, the US will be forced to step back and everyone will hope something better arises in its place. But the world is the one who will bear the consequences and owes its self a more responsible approach than merely seaking to tear the US down without doing the hard work of seeing if there is something better.
Well, actually, I spent time growing with people like the Marines and Navy carrier pilots and Army armored officers that spent time in Vietnam. I also knew some of the children of South Vietnamese military / political figures that left before, during, and after the fall of South Vietnam. ('Little Saigon' in Ballston was also a great place to eat in the mid-80s. DC was always good that way - you could count on various ethnic groups connected to Cold War adventures opening up at least a couple of good restuarants in the region - the El Salvadoran places were the only the only ones that gave the Vietnamese ones a true run for quality and price.)
And notice your list (you left off the Japanese) - the Vietnamese don't want anyone else involved in deciding what happens in Vietnam. Whether the result is one we would approve is beside the point. And we all know that communist police states are bad, with their use of torture against 'enemies,' their ID requirements for all citizens for all travel, and their inability to change themselves when faced with new challenges. (Castro's Cuba hasn't really changed - it just survived a reduction in its external resource base.)
The United States became involved in a colonial/civil war mainly due to lies and flawed strategic thinking, and a generation later, America becomes involved in a colonial/civil war due to lies and self-interest (the flaw in the thinking is more along the lines that no strategic planning seems to have been allowed to enter the neo-con world view). But unlike Vietnam, which even now seems to have a touch of something resembling tragic idealism attached to it and where the U.S. wasted lives and treasure in part (however small) on principle, Iraq will be a lot harder to deal with - the U.S. cannot walk away from the oil that easily.
In my view, the only solution for many problems facing the U.S. is to turn back the clock and start again. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. The last 25 years was the time to prepare to deal with peak oil, not the next 10. Two oil producers with declining production invading a third oil producer (just coincidentally created as a 'nation' by one of the decling producers) is not preparation, it is amoral desperation. To use a German term, it is an 'Armutszeugnis' - 'evidence of incapacity' to use a stilted translation, though a literal translation of 'evidence of poverty' adds a certain touch.
I understand perfectly that the shoe has been on the other foot before in regards to Americans excepting British naval protection. And its something that allowed America to get itself into the position it is in today as the world's super power.
But to say nations don't want American protection isn't exactly true either. When the idea of isolationism comes up from an American candidate it gets derided both by politicians here and statesmen abroad as being "naie" in the global community we live in. So which is it? Does America need to get their troops home or keep them abroad?
It seems to me Europeans want it both ways. They want American involvement when its convenient for THEM, but when its America looking at its own interests perhaps to the detriment of certain European interests then there is a cry for the Americans to mind their own business.
Sorry, but our American boys and girls are not the mercenaries of the European nations. They serve American interests first and foremost.
I agree that the Iraq war in its present state is looking pretty messy right now, and that its execution has been lacking. But what a lot of anti-Iraq war people forget was that we were maintaining a no-fly zone and military embargo for near a decade, and that situation was untenable to maintain long term. So America was going to be faced with the situation in Iraq regardless of 9/11 or not. And the two choices were either pull out, and let Saddam rebuild to full strength, or go in and take him out. Considering the screams that would've come from around the ME, and probably the rest of world had we just upped and left, the US was pretty much damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The Iraq War was a given, and this was recognized by the Democrats and Republicans alike. Clinton had plans drawn up to do something very similar. Multiple democrats made statements about the situation in Iraq needing to be resolved during Clinton's era. The only difference is the Republicans rightly or wrongly had the gumption to go do it.
I think not. I can't see the Euro strategic interests that are advanced by having US troops on European soil. Two European nations have an independent nuclear deterrent. What is it that we want from the US, again?
The Iraq War was a given, and this was recognized by the Democrats and Republicans alike. Clinton had plans drawn up to do something very similar.
I'm not sure how true this is, but let's assume it is. He would not have intervened without a truly broad coalition; the motives and objectives would have been clearly stated; he would have planned for the occupation, rather than forbidding any planning; etc... Globally he would have acted pragmatically, rather than being driven by neocon wish-fulfillment fantasies.
And it still would have been a mess.
But he probably would have cut and run after a year or so, which would have been preferable for all concerned.
Two European nations have an independent nuclear deterrent.
Great for those two nations, but can the rest of Europe count on France and the UK to come nuke an aggressor opponent? Those nuclear deterents are pretty much for French or British national interest, not collective European interest. Perhaps that will change if the EU succeeds in a united Europe into a single entity, but for now, that is not the case.
Secondly the French do not possess the conventional forces to handle some of the potential threats to European nations (Russia is it resurfaces as a more Imperial power for example). The UK I think could fend off aggression from their island, but not sure how that helps the rest of Europe either. Like it or not, the disjointed European armed forces are not in a situation to go it alone just yet and that is only talking about outside aggression. The story changes again if say an internal European power decided to go Imperial. I know Europeans like to think they are above all that now, but sorry, given the right motivations, that can change on a whim.
He would not have intervened without a truly broad coalition
You mean like:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
And that doesn't include several Middle Eastern nations who provided basing rights to launch the operation from i.e. Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Or Isreal who provided Air corridors, and "secretly" intelligence on Iraqi forces.
So how broad must broad be? Sorry, but the "lack of a broad coalition" is strawman argument. There was a very sizable coalition going in and even with some of the pullouts by smaller nations, the list of countries is still solid. Just because France and Germany didn't sign off on it, didn't mean there wasn't a sizable coalition.
the motives and objectives would have been clearly stated
The motives and objectives have been clearly stated. To oust Saddam in light of his refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, liberate the Iraqi people, and promote democracy in the region.
Granted the reasons themselves have been a little misguided, but W did say why he was going in there and I think he has some sincerity in those reasons. I also think he is misguided or overly optimistic about how to accomplish some of those goals, but I have serious doubts that he is somehow this tyranical idiot one moment, evil genius taking over the world next moment demogogue the Dems and a lot of the world portray him to be.
What I personally think is he is actually decent guy who got some bad advice about a Catch 22 situation with Iraq. Frankly I don't care who is in the White House, if they had to deal with the crap this president has, I doubt any of them would've fared much better, and quite a few would've fared worse. As I said.. Iraq was going to have to be dealt with, and W ended up with the hot tater. Short of maybe a Reagan or an FDR, I can't think of too many other American presidents who would've been able to handle the situation with any sort of "ease".
I know Gore wouldn't have done better, and Kerry would've been a nightmare in 2004. Pulling out at this stage of the game is a mistake, but so is staying the current course of the current administration. Some other tactic needs to be implemented. What that is I'm unsure, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have it right in my opinion. Which makes things really frustrating as we get ready to vote.
Of course Europeans want it both ways - how utterly normal for people to act that way. For example, Americans want to be loved and respected for their noble goals, not for they actually do in a place like Iraq. Those 'mysterious' Iraqi death squads are not so coincidentally looking a lot like the Central American death squads of the 1980s - which included people who could gun down nuns, priests, and a bishop, and slaughter entire villages. Admittedly, slaughtering an entire village in Iraq using death squads is much harder than in Central America - Iraqi peasants are very well armed in comparison. Of course, flattening an Iraqi city or two is well within the proven skills of the American military.
The Cold War was not about America selflessly sacrificing itself to protect Europe. After all, the American concept of how to make peace in Europe after WWI was ignored, and look at what happened as a result.
But I do keep wondering how long everyone is going to have faith that America retains the power it did a generation ago. That was one of Bush's greatest mistakes, in my opinion - he has put on display for years the limits of American power, both soft and hard, and quite honestly, there was no reason to. Saddam would have happily sold oil to the West - he was already, after all - and the rate of dead and tortured Iraqis would likely have been the same, with the blood on Saddam's hands, not America's.
See, Europeans know how to play that sort of game, since they are so cynical. Not only do they want things both ways, they will actually balance pragmatism against principle while admitting (openly or not) they have interests which outweigh their principles.
I keep taunting, in a way, but again, Carter said America had a strategic interest in mid-east oil, and he backed it up with actions. Why is it not possible for any tough interrogation, decider type person to say the reason America remains in Iraq is oil? I mean let's be honest - after all, knocking off a dictator who did have the massive strategic point of being an opponent of Iran/Shias/anyone threatening his power without having any replacement means that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, the Iranians will be able to fill the power vacuum, and just coincidentally take over a significant percentage of those oil reserves which were supposed to be pumping for the West.
Truly, can you imagine that if a Democratic president like Clinton or Carter had committed such an epochal strategic blunder, the major Republican complaint would be that the American media was too negative? And again - I don't care for Democrat or Republican - I have never, in my entire life, voted for either, and can never imagine voting for either the rest of my life - and for those believing this is throwing away a vote, thank you for demonstrating how deeply flawed the current American political system is. As a side note - in 2004, I voted for a candidate who was pro-gun, anti-Iraq War, anti-abortion, and pro-debt reduction - and his reason for running is that since the Democrats couldn't even be bothered to field a candidate, he thought it important to support democracy by at least having two candidates run. 'Best democracy money can buy off' is probably the simplest way to sum up the current American system. Until the number of citizens clearly outweighs the number of consumers, that won't change either - and remember, all the economic news is about consumers, since an informed citizenry tends to make life harder for corporations. Democracy is always a flawed system, which is one of its charms - other systems trumpet their benefits, while democracy is embodied by how it handles never-ending problems.
expat and alistairC, many thanks for stepping up to bat on this one. It is a tireless, depressing, and unfortunately often futile task to attempt to correct the delusions held by US consumers (can't use the word 'citizen' any more) about the 'benovelence' of their empire. One of the more frustrating things about TOD is that many very clever people immediately abandon their critical thinking on this point. (And the irony of a large fraction of peak oilers suddenly talking about idealism when confronted with the invasion of a nation with enormous oil reserves!)
As for 'the Europeans' wanting to be protected by the Americans.... pfffft. The fact that US bases remain on European soil is to do with the weakness and greed of European leaders. I would venture that most Europeans (as opposed to politicians) want the US out. Europe faces no military threats and can take care of itself in any case. And who would think the 'protection' afforded by military incompetents is worth anything anyway? As expat has already pointed out, the world now has very good evidence of just how ineffective US military force really is. People were scared of the myth. Now they see the reality, and laugh.
Ah, why bother. The future will soon teach the Americans, but I doubt they'll be listening anyway.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
ASPO
The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
Energy Bulletin
Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
PowerSwitch
Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
ODAC
Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
I focused on these three countries in my original January, 2006 post on net exports because they were--based on Khebab's HL work--well past the 50% of Qt mark.
IMO, Russian data continue to be a problem. I have repeatedly wondered about the reliability of the reported production numbers, and the EIA has recently revised Russia's 12/05 to 6/06 cumulative oil production downward by about 50 million barrels.
In any case, collectively these three regions are showing declining production and declining exports, despite historically high (nominal) oil prices.
I've read comments from you that Russian production is reported to be increasing, while Russian export currently are declining.
Out of the blue:
Could the Russian be building up tank farms like SA? As far as my understanding goes, there is some concensus in Russia that it's unwise to flood revenues from oil into the domestic economy. So as an alternative i would think it could be natural that the Russians would wish to have an strategic reserve - or maybe not - would the world biggest oil producer spend money on maintaining a strategic reserve? I see that such idea might be plain stupid, but i appreciate comments.
Regretably i presently don't have opportunity to get the numbers (production, domestic consumption, export) which hopefully would riducule or justify such assertion. Well, the data is poor anyway.
two thoughts spring to mind -
- one is that Russia is reported to be setting up a state oil fund to invest surplus taxes. whether this has actually happened is difficult to see yet. This is logically a better
investment than tank farms
- secondly, if you are sitting on huge reserves, why would you not simply leave the oil in the ground and pump less. I'm not sure it makes sense to build a lot of storage above ground.
Strategic flexibility at some future date, perhaps? Peak oil is about limits on the rate of production, not reserves. If you anticipate the world entering a mode in which the oil market is driven by constraints on rate of production (including your own), then having a reserve from which you can release or withhold oil allows you to be, effectively, a swing producer. That's a very powerful position to be in.
It makes good peacetime sense to install storage aboveground, if you're planning on using it strategically.
Going the other way - ie. reducing production to manipulate the market - I stand by my view that its easier to simply produce less for a while. :) This is what opec does.
War would be an obvious reason to have those oil supplies at the ready. Since WWI and WWII proved that rapid ramp up in industrial ability and the ability to mobilize quickly, even if the target of a first strike, is critical to getting on a winning footing, then I could easily see the Russians or other nations wanting to have an oil supply which can be used rapidly and not be dependent on geology at hand.
Not everything is about market warfare, and I think there are a lot of players getting more nervous about energy than what is let on.
Although consumption did not increase from 2004 to 2005, total energy production fell 4.5% from 2004 to 2005, pushing up imports from 54% of consumption to 56%. Not a promising trend.
Crude oil production, -9%;
Gas production, -5.8%;
Coal, -5.7%;
Nuclear, -1.3%.
2005 total energy consumption per capita (Tonnes of Oil Equivalent, TOE):
EU, 3.6 TOE
Japan, 4.1 TOE
US, 7.8 TOE (We're #1!; We're #1!)
I think the conversion factor is about 7.3 barrels/tonne. IMO, the EU is going to be able handle higher energy prices much better than the US; however, the export/import trend is not promising (for any energy importer).
But the current American method, as practiced in Iraq, does not seem so promising, either in terms of oil production, or in improving the lives of Iraqis.
Europeans are very cynical, we could both agree - they would rather buy off dictators than smash societies. In part, this comes from European experience in doing such smashing in the past, and then getting nothing but ruin in return.
The wheel turns - Europeans now believe a standing military and the willingness to use it a handicap in terms of their well being, while America is abandoning exactly what a number of its founders thought important, such as avoiding the waste of having a standing military absorbing taxes, requiring government to tax its citizens heavily, or go into debt. Further, the founders in general sought to prevent a class of people arising who think military glory is a worthwhile goal (this included General Washington, by the way) - shocking how many of the founders were opposed to the military as an institution - I guess that comes from being occupied by what they thought to be an unjust power unconcerned about the will of people who had to pay the bills in blood and money.
A belief that has largely been backed by a military presence of the US in Europe. I wonder if they would be so quick to think like this if the US left NATO, or perhaps even more importantly, left NATO during the Cold War.
Also how much strain is removed from European governments in terms of defense funding due to the provision of their protection being handled by the US? Could some of these already highly taxed European societies manage to raise taxes further to sustain an Army capable of making their diplomatic, and self defense threats/promises viable?
Who is a military threat to Europe, by the way? European countries taken together have more soldiers than the US, and enough high-tech toys to put out small fires. For anyone with conqueror ambitions, the bomb is a sufficient deterrent. Not having an army suitable for conquest is one temptation less for the ruling elites.
Not meaning to make it sound like charity. I understand the strategic importance for the US to have been present when they were. However I think Europeans of late, due to the anti-Americanism, take for granted the defense edge they have which is provided by American forces.
More soldiers may be useful, but how well trained? Britain certainly has some well trained units, but how does say Spain, or Greece compare?
As for toys... how many of those toys were sold to the Europeans after American tax dollars funded the research. Granted there are weapons divisions in Europe, but most of their toys were bought from American defense contractors.
I'm not trying to take anything away from European defense forces. They have some fine soldiers, and are worthwhile allies. But don't go marginalizing the benefits that the US has provided Europe simply because you disagree with the current actions of the US.
I'll also be really curious what Russian removal of resources will do to promote European hegemony under the EU banner. I could easily see the EU becoming a LOT more Imperial once resource rich countries start looking after themselves, and all those diplomatic deals start to fall through. What would a few cold winters or record breaking summers without steady energy do to motivate the EU towards militarism? Ugly thought, but certainly not unthinkable.
The reason being nationalism, and also the Americans refuse to sell us the latest stuff-- the only country that gets that is Israel (which then sells it to China ;-). They won't even let British companies have it-- you know the people standing beside you in Iraq. (we are seriously talking about pulling out of the Joint Strike Fighter over access to the software).
It's inefficient, we run higher costs because we don't have your economies of scale and volume platforms. The separate national fiefdoms bugger us. But we do have our own weapon systems technology (in some areas clearly superior eg conventional submarines, some forms of artillery and light armoured vehicle etc.).
We (UK) use your nuclear systems, but we were offered the chance to co-develop with the French, and went with the US.
Put it another way, there is no 'Europe' on defence, what there is is different nations of different force projection capability. Its unsurprising the world didn't want the Germans to develop force projection (but they had the best armoured forces in NATO).
We don't spend as high proportions of GDP on defence, but then our labour costs are generally lower, too. What we don't get is your economies of scale.
I do think Europe is likely to strike its own deals with oil-producing states, not necessarily to the US's liking.
A lot of oil producers don't want to be dependent on the US alone, either as a customer or as protection. Hence the Saudis buy their air force from us (the BAe Al Yamamah II project) not from the USA.
This has bearing on the Palestinian problem, and also Venezuela, amongst others. Interests will diverge.
Anti-Americanism that is partially motivated by a different view on the effectivity of armed intervention. So I think the difference in strategical choices motivates the anti-US-sentiments rather than the other way around.
Conquering and occupying an already much more militaristic Russia or parts thereof? Whoever thinks that would work, let alone yield a net energy benefit deserves to become history instantly. Besides, the Baltic and the Black Sea are very nice blockade points even without large forces.
In any case, for the foreseeable future (which is short) Russia and the EU have needs and abilities that are complementary. There's no use in rushing to make enemies.
That raised apparent US defence spending, and suppressed apparent European spending. But in terms of diversion of what were, in fact, smaller GDPs, Europe was holding its end up.
And the basing infrastructure was on European soil, and therefore 'free'.
The US was pursuing a strategy of forward defence: fighting the next war on someone else's soil. A good strategy to be sure, but hardly altruistic.
Except of course, when the American merchants were not allowed to trade with areas the Royal Navy thought its own to protect - try the opium trade.
See where this is leading? Americans keep talking about the 'protection' they are so graciously providing to nations who don't want it (not that Europeans won't take it when it meets their interests, of course - just like American merchant ships did in the past). Of course, if Europeans where as enlightened as Americans, they would have supported the Iraqi invasion, instead of opposing an invasion considered illegal by many, by margins ranging from 60% to 90%.
Amazing how many Americans tend to view European opposition to such a shining success story in the Middle East (how many dead and tortured Iraqis this week? Who knows and who cares seems to be the general American attitude) as anti-Americanism, from some unnamed 'elites.' I guess the Europeans have the misfortune of belonging to that reality based community which the Bush League swept aside in their triumph of will.
I guess the idea that Iraq was a stupid strategic move of the type which only later generations can fully measure is hard for many Americans to accept, especially as the former world champions in invading and exploiting other societies said it was a stupid idea before it happened, while it is happening, and will undoubtedly lead to them to remark on its stupidity for generations into the future.
Unless the problem is that the press isn't reporting the success stories in Iraq, of course. What a comforting thought, that the problems in Iraq are the media, and anti-Americanism in Europe.
Though anti-Americanism among the Iraqis does seem to keep growing, doesn't it? I guess that is because Iraqis just don't understand how wonderful a 20mm armor piercing round through the window (and just coincidentally, through a family member) is, or what a friend a 500 lb through your roof is (it brings a whole meaning to having a blast at home). Really, such people are so ungrateful of the American protection they are now enjoying, without even having asked for it. Americans are just so misunderstood, and all they get for their generosity is resentment and abuse.
Must be real hard living with yourself as an American these days, knowing that all your niceness is so misconstrued. Lucky you can just snatch a few people off the street and torture them to reassure yourself of America's goodness in fighting the good fight, regardless of what other people think.
However, I don't think you can deny that there have been benfits as well. So it all comes down to an accounting of how much good versus how much bad, minus what would have happened if the US didn't try to police the world. Clearly this is too complicated.
More crucially it is entirely subjective. It all depends on what you value and how you think it would have turned out otherwise.
I do think US foreign policy lately has been a disaster and a net negative. Americans need to take an accounting of what has happened and what is the best course of action for the future.
But even if you accept your claim at face value, it is not clear what would be the best course of action for the US, or the world. Do you think another round of American isolationism is the ideal answer, or that the UN could effectively run the whole show? As much as yuo can rightly tout increasing gloal anti-Americanism, I can assure yuo that what US leaders are told behind closed doors in not the same thing.
Asians love to be able to count on the protection of the US, which they can criticize while cuddling up to China. But they know China would not look so cuddly if the US went home. If that happened it would set off an arms race here and could lead to regional conflicts. Then who would intervene?
How effective has Europe been at stopping problems, even in their own back yard?
Again, I am not claiming that what you have said is wrong, only that it is easy to find faults. I think you live in Germany. Didn't they have a go at running the world? How did that work out? How can Germans live with themselves?
I think, on the whole, that Europeans were fairly comfortable with the military role played by the US during the Clinton era (not trying to personalize this, still less to become party-political! Just a matter of historical dating, you understand?)
i.e. this "global policeman" thing, while a lot of the intellectuals didn't like it at the time, was not contested by the "European street", and sure as hell looks like a golden age now. The US engineered an end to armed conflict in the Balkans, and truly put Europeans to shame in doing so.
In the meantime, Europe as a defense community struggles to get any traction (Rumsfeld splitting it down the middle over the Iraq war is probably the proximate cause of this, and this paralysis was undoubtedly his aim). It'll take time to get co-ordinated, but the UK and France have the technology, know-how and logistics to form the backbone of a credible Euro force, filled out by the other members. It can certainly defend its own territory, and project a viable presence anywhere in the world. For the life of me I can't see why Europe actually needs to go begging cap in hand to the US to defend it (against whom?)
For the US : The worst possible outcome, for the world in general, would for the US to go into an isolationist phase. The best possible outcome (my preference) would be Wes Clark as president -- he understands this stuff. (Any other general, Dem or Rep, would be a good second choice).
But tacit bargains can't be expected to endure. The US post war role worked while it was needed and the pain of not having a policeman was fresh in people's minds.
The bargain is no longer valid. It now needs to be reformed or undone. I agree that Europe no longer needs defending as it is hard to image today's Russia or anyone else invading.
Perhaps the best option is a Clinton type approach - Wes Clark's version of I feel your pain involunatry world policemanism. Clearly that would be better than what we have now.
Or maybe it would be best to the US to adopt a tempory isolationist stance. Would the shit hit the fan and the world call for the US to come back, or would they party to the theme of good riddance for generations.
Again, I don't know. My main points here are that this situation is compex, we don't know the alternaives and the consequances are huge. It is easy to follow one's emotions to one extreme or the other. I could argue either ideological extreme now or after 20 beers. But I less hasty and more sober approach is needed.
I appreciate the good responses from you and expat. My favorite commenters here are those I disagree with. We learn or by debating than by agreeing.
I hope it is clear that there are different ways to view these complex situations and there are reason why we disagree other than because one of us is evil, stupid, or manipulated.
As for the UN - strange that an institution designed by Americans to serve American interests is so disparaged by Americans that the current American ambassador to it joked about blowing part of the UN building up. (And people say Americans have no sense of irony.) It is part of the dismantling of 50 years worth of American designed and implemented international institutions which is so incomprehensible to me - no nation has ever been as wasteful as the U.S. And the reasons for throwing away such power seem so short sighted and petty - for example, international conventions prevent torture, so America, needing a free hand, just throws it out. No wonder Bush was so worried about an international justice system - it would have tied his hands, where the American system uses plastic ties, hoods, and shackles. What an insult to American values that other people find torture barbaric. Oh wait - that used to be the other way round when I was younger, when the evil empire was the Soviets, with their mandatory ID for travel and wiretapping and secret detentions. You just needed to ask a Republican about those sorts of evils, and why America was superior.
And that part about Germans living with themselves? Partly they can because they are brutally honest about their mass murdering, warmaking past. Their past is also part of what motivates Germany in being a society deeply interested in pacifism, and trying to live in a way which avoids war - such as avoiding conflicts based on struggling for natural resources, which is one reason renewable energy sources are a major goal here. Of course, this is only one motivation among many, and German society is diverse.
But every German who goes to school visits a concentration camp as part of learning about their history. In Virginia, it is pretty hard to find the slave quarters in all the Virginian founding fathers' estates I'm aware of, and they tend not to be part of the guided tour, in general. It certainly was not part of the tour before the end of the civil rights era - who cared about slaves? After all, the the slaveholders' views on freedom were important, not how their unpaid help lived.
Yes, it is easy to find fault. What is hard is to live differently as a result. I thought around 2 million dead Southeast Asians would be enough for America to reflect about itself and change, but I was wrong.
Spend a bit of time in Vietnam, which incidentally has fought and won a war against China after the ones the fought and won against the US and France. Sit in people's houses in the Mekong Delta where they still have pictures of their sons who opposed the Communist goverment and were sent to "reeducation camps" afterwards and still can't get jobs now, thirty years later.
You would certainly have to agree that much more than 2 million dead in Southeast Asia would be enough for China to reflect about itself as well.
In the US, people did protest and air their concerns openly. The Vietnam war created massive changes in the psyche of Americans and dissent in the US is now as common as patriotism.
You may get your wish of American isolationism. It may be for better or worse. I honestly don't know.
I agree with you on the Germany issue. I do think the country has admirably accepted its wrongs and I do not desire to hold against today's Germans the faults of the forebearers. Similarly, I do think that the US changing the rules, when it suits them, particularly regarding the appalling sanctioning of torture is a shame.
American anti-UNism and UN anti-Americanism is ironic. But it would also be expected had one been able to anticipate US global dominance. What power has ever agreed to be counterbalanced?
At the end of day, I think the situation is complex. There are many parties at fault. To see the US role as all good or all bad is naive at best. I also do think Americans are wrestling with this very issue.
In the German case, the role of the Nazi party came to an abrupt end and the time for reflection was forced on them. As a country, Germans responded admirably, but not every individual did.
Personally, I would like to see a world where there is a better system of global governance and a stronger counter weight to US power. However, were it my job to represent the bbest interests of the American people, I don't think I could honestly say, abandoning the military and ignoring the countries lead role in international affairs would be for the best.
At some point, the US will be forced to step back and everyone will hope something better arises in its place. But the world is the one who will bear the consequences and owes its self a more responsible approach than merely seaking to tear the US down without doing the hard work of seeing if there is something better.
And notice your list (you left off the Japanese) - the Vietnamese don't want anyone else involved in deciding what happens in Vietnam. Whether the result is one we would approve is beside the point. And we all know that communist police states are bad, with their use of torture against 'enemies,' their ID requirements for all citizens for all travel, and their inability to change themselves when faced with new challenges. (Castro's Cuba hasn't really changed - it just survived a reduction in its external resource base.)
The United States became involved in a colonial/civil war mainly due to lies and flawed strategic thinking, and a generation later, America becomes involved in a colonial/civil war due to lies and self-interest (the flaw in the thinking is more along the lines that no strategic planning seems to have been allowed to enter the neo-con world view). But unlike Vietnam, which even now seems to have a touch of something resembling tragic idealism attached to it and where the U.S. wasted lives and treasure in part (however small) on principle, Iraq will be a lot harder to deal with - the U.S. cannot walk away from the oil that easily.
In my view, the only solution for many problems facing the U.S. is to turn back the clock and start again. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. The last 25 years was the time to prepare to deal with peak oil, not the next 10. Two oil producers with declining production invading a third oil producer (just coincidentally created as a 'nation' by one of the decling producers) is not preparation, it is amoral desperation. To use a German term, it is an 'Armutszeugnis' - 'evidence of incapacity' to use a stilted translation, though a literal translation of 'evidence of poverty' adds a certain touch.
But to say nations don't want American protection isn't exactly true either. When the idea of isolationism comes up from an American candidate it gets derided both by politicians here and statesmen abroad as being "naie" in the global community we live in. So which is it? Does America need to get their troops home or keep them abroad?
It seems to me Europeans want it both ways. They want American involvement when its convenient for THEM, but when its America looking at its own interests perhaps to the detriment of certain European interests then there is a cry for the Americans to mind their own business.
Sorry, but our American boys and girls are not the mercenaries of the European nations. They serve American interests first and foremost.
I agree that the Iraq war in its present state is looking pretty messy right now, and that its execution has been lacking. But what a lot of anti-Iraq war people forget was that we were maintaining a no-fly zone and military embargo for near a decade, and that situation was untenable to maintain long term. So America was going to be faced with the situation in Iraq regardless of 9/11 or not. And the two choices were either pull out, and let Saddam rebuild to full strength, or go in and take him out. Considering the screams that would've come from around the ME, and probably the rest of world had we just upped and left, the US was pretty much damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The Iraq War was a given, and this was recognized by the Democrats and Republicans alike. Clinton had plans drawn up to do something very similar. Multiple democrats made statements about the situation in Iraq needing to be resolved during Clinton's era. The only difference is the Republicans rightly or wrongly had the gumption to go do it.
I think not. I can't see the Euro strategic interests that are advanced by having US troops on European soil. Two European nations have an independent nuclear deterrent. What is it that we want from the US, again?
I'm not sure how true this is, but let's assume it is. He would not have intervened without a truly broad coalition; the motives and objectives would have been clearly stated; he would have planned for the occupation, rather than forbidding any planning; etc... Globally he would have acted pragmatically, rather than being driven by neocon wish-fulfillment fantasies.
And it still would have been a mess.
But he probably would have cut and run after a year or so, which would have been preferable for all concerned.
Great for those two nations, but can the rest of Europe count on France and the UK to come nuke an aggressor opponent? Those nuclear deterents are pretty much for French or British national interest, not collective European interest. Perhaps that will change if the EU succeeds in a united Europe into a single entity, but for now, that is not the case.
Secondly the French do not possess the conventional forces to handle some of the potential threats to European nations (Russia is it resurfaces as a more Imperial power for example). The UK I think could fend off aggression from their island, but not sure how that helps the rest of Europe either. Like it or not, the disjointed European armed forces are not in a situation to go it alone just yet and that is only talking about outside aggression. The story changes again if say an internal European power decided to go Imperial. I know Europeans like to think they are above all that now, but sorry, given the right motivations, that can change on a whim.
You mean like:
And that doesn't include several Middle Eastern nations who provided basing rights to launch the operation from i.e. Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Or Isreal who provided Air corridors, and "secretly" intelligence on Iraqi forces.
So how broad must broad be? Sorry, but the "lack of a broad coalition" is strawman argument. There was a very sizable coalition going in and even with some of the pullouts by smaller nations, the list of countries is still solid. Just because France and Germany didn't sign off on it, didn't mean there wasn't a sizable coalition.
The motives and objectives have been clearly stated. To oust Saddam in light of his refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, liberate the Iraqi people, and promote democracy in the region.
Granted the reasons themselves have been a little misguided, but W did say why he was going in there and I think he has some sincerity in those reasons. I also think he is misguided or overly optimistic about how to accomplish some of those goals, but I have serious doubts that he is somehow this tyranical idiot one moment, evil genius taking over the world next moment demogogue the Dems and a lot of the world portray him to be.
What I personally think is he is actually decent guy who got some bad advice about a Catch 22 situation with Iraq. Frankly I don't care who is in the White House, if they had to deal with the crap this president has, I doubt any of them would've fared much better, and quite a few would've fared worse. As I said.. Iraq was going to have to be dealt with, and W ended up with the hot tater. Short of maybe a Reagan or an FDR, I can't think of too many other American presidents who would've been able to handle the situation with any sort of "ease".
I know Gore wouldn't have done better, and Kerry would've been a nightmare in 2004. Pulling out at this stage of the game is a mistake, but so is staying the current course of the current administration. Some other tactic needs to be implemented. What that is I'm unsure, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have it right in my opinion. Which makes things really frustrating as we get ready to vote.
Hey, I'm sure you forgot a few. Nauru. Vanuatu. The Gilbert and Sullivan Islands.
The Cold War was not about America selflessly sacrificing itself to protect Europe. After all, the American concept of how to make peace in Europe after WWI was ignored, and look at what happened as a result.
But I do keep wondering how long everyone is going to have faith that America retains the power it did a generation ago. That was one of Bush's greatest mistakes, in my opinion - he has put on display for years the limits of American power, both soft and hard, and quite honestly, there was no reason to. Saddam would have happily sold oil to the West - he was already, after all - and the rate of dead and tortured Iraqis would likely have been the same, with the blood on Saddam's hands, not America's.
See, Europeans know how to play that sort of game, since they are so cynical. Not only do they want things both ways, they will actually balance pragmatism against principle while admitting (openly or not) they have interests which outweigh their principles.
I keep taunting, in a way, but again, Carter said America had a strategic interest in mid-east oil, and he backed it up with actions. Why is it not possible for any tough interrogation, decider type person to say the reason America remains in Iraq is oil? I mean let's be honest - after all, knocking off a dictator who did have the massive strategic point of being an opponent of Iran/Shias/anyone threatening his power without having any replacement means that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, the Iranians will be able to fill the power vacuum, and just coincidentally take over a significant percentage of those oil reserves which were supposed to be pumping for the West.
Truly, can you imagine that if a Democratic president like Clinton or Carter had committed such an epochal strategic blunder, the major Republican complaint would be that the American media was too negative? And again - I don't care for Democrat or Republican - I have never, in my entire life, voted for either, and can never imagine voting for either the rest of my life - and for those believing this is throwing away a vote, thank you for demonstrating how deeply flawed the current American political system is. As a side note - in 2004, I voted for a candidate who was pro-gun, anti-Iraq War, anti-abortion, and pro-debt reduction - and his reason for running is that since the Democrats couldn't even be bothered to field a candidate, he thought it important to support democracy by at least having two candidates run. 'Best democracy money can buy off' is probably the simplest way to sum up the current American system. Until the number of citizens clearly outweighs the number of consumers, that won't change either - and remember, all the economic news is about consumers, since an informed citizenry tends to make life harder for corporations. Democracy is always a flawed system, which is one of its charms - other systems trumpet their benefits, while democracy is embodied by how it handles never-ending problems.
As for 'the Europeans' wanting to be protected by the Americans.... pfffft. The fact that US bases remain on European soil is to do with the weakness and greed of European leaders. I would venture that most Europeans (as opposed to politicians) want the US out. Europe faces no military threats and can take care of itself in any case. And who would think the 'protection' afforded by military incompetents is worth anything anyway? As expat has already pointed out, the world now has very good evidence of just how ineffective US military force really is. People were scared of the myth. Now they see the reality, and laugh.
Ah, why bother. The future will soon teach the Americans, but I doubt they'll be listening anyway.