| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| American military spending and oil dependency |
| 2012-02-10 |
| One of the most crucial problems facing the United States is whether it will be able to maintain its strategic interests in the Middle East. It is expected that US defense expenditures will drastically decrease in the coming six years – official estimates are as high as eight percent, roughly $477 billion, a significant sum when it comes to defense. It is also projected that the US will not have the financial means at its disposal to bolster its allies, marginalizing the potential for Marshall-Plan type subsidies (which totaled $13 billion at the time). ...At the recent Herzliya Conference former CIA director James Woolsey advocated decreased dependency on oil. That can be achieved by the use of alternative fuels, including natural gas. For example, today in Brazil, cars are fueled by ethanol fuel produced from sugarcane. The view that the US should decrease its reliance on foreign oil is not a new one but given the economic downturn it is of even more importance. America’s policies in the Middle East in the last half century have often been skewed by the fact that it is beholden to the oil producing regimes. Through incremental decreases in foreign aid and defense spending, coupled with investment in alternative energy technology the US can reach a point where it need no longer rely on some of these local regimes and where it can pursue its true self interest and policies. The money saved on US defense expenditures in the region could be put toward placing its military in other regions. For instances, the US plans to expand its operations in Asia. This will be very difficult to achieve given the defense cuts and its many commitments around the world. It would also deliver a blow to the oil producing regimes that supply the US, and which are also among the greatest violators of human rights and sponsors of terrorism. Without money coming from oil producing countries, Islamist terrorists will suffer a major setback. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #20 AH, King of Jordan family(Hashemites) seem moderate in comparison. How many terrorist are wahabbi? The neocon delusion is that the populace in dictatorships are automatons whose world views and foundational beliefs are controlled by the whims of whatever dictatorship is in power. Maybe that's true in North Korea, but it's definitely not true in Islamic societies. Anyone non-Islamic who's ever conquered an Islamic majority society has had to convert to Islam (the Mongols) or evict the Islamic inhabitants (the Spanish during the Reconquista). The problem in Muslim societies is that the populace are by and large bloodthirsty troglodytes who are hemmed in only by the desire of their rulers to lead quiet lives that don't involve constant warfare with rival Islamic rulers and infidels. The Jordanian monarchy has been the target of repeated coup attempts precisely because of its moderation, which is not shared by the people it rules. In Iran, the Shah's excessive moderation - seen domestically as toadying up to the West, not to mention blasphemous and hypocritical in the Muslim sense - led to his removal from power. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2012-02-10 20:33 |
| #19 Why, Dr. White, that sounds like as President you'd want America to succeed. Silly you. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2012-02-10 19:37 |
| #18 If I were the President, here is my energy policy: 1) drill baby drill. The Gulf and both coasts are open for business. Ditto Alaska and the Beaufort Sea. 2) exploit shale NG and oil. Drill everywhere it's safe to drill. 3) you spill, you pay and pay big. Your political connections don't save you. Oil companies put up bonds to cover the costs. The Coast Guard runs all ocean cleanups (the CG has an Admiral that I as President can order about). 4) new, safe nuclear technology, including passive-fail plants and small, contained 'nuclear batteries'. Get moving. 5) cancel all government subsidies for all fuels. That includes the various gimmies to Big Oil. If you can't sell an energy source without a federal subsidy, then the energy source isn't worth having. 6) cancel all subsidies for electric cars. Ditto. 7) make deals with Canada and Mexico. They're our neighbors and friends. 8) harden the electrical grid, the pipelines, etc. 9) put in electrical-usage meters for homes, businesses, malls, etc that measure time of day of usage, and charge accordingly. 10) X-prizes for a) space elevator b) microwave transmission of solar energy to receiving stations in the US |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-02-10 19:26 |
| #17 Paul, the King of Jordan won't be around much longer. Jordan is about to have a |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-02-10 19:10 |
| #16 AH, King of Jordan family(Hashemites) seem moderate in comparison. How many terrorist are wahabbi? |
| Posted by: Paul D 2012-02-10 18:06 |
| #15 AH, you're arguing with Woolsey, not me. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-02-10 15:38 |
| #14 Regardless of the history and wisdom of an engaged foreign policy I'm seeing a lot of Americans worn and weary and tired of being the worlds policemen. Some so weary and tired they'd consider voting crazy Ron Paul |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-02-10 14:51 |
| #13 #12 - Are you kidding? The Saudis are probably the most moderate choice possible. Other choices are someone like Saddam Hussein, or perhaps like Khomeini. Regrettably, a Thomas Jefferson is not one of the available choices. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-10 13:35 |
| #12 It would be cheaper to overthrow Al Saud with someone more moderate! |
| Posted by: Paul D 2012-02-10 13:30 |
| #11 And we don't buy a lot of oil from the ME. The Euros and Japan do. That doesn't matter one bit. The US does not have a foreign source of oil imports locked in. The US, the Euros and Japan buy their oil imports from the world market. Go nukes! |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-10 13:23 |
| #10 They always mention Brazil's sugarcane ethanol but always fail to mention that Brazil has been very zealous in increasing oil and natural gas drilling both offshore and onshore. Hell, the editorialists are always very zealous about ignoring the fact that natural gas is drilled for. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-02-10 12:34 |
| #9 "drill baby drill", a once popular politician used to say before being destroyed by her own party and the msm. |
| Posted by: bman 2012-02-10 10:25 |
| #8 Oderint dum metuant, eh Bill? It does have it's attractions. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2012-02-10 10:20 |
| #7 Our international strategies are not limited to the World's Policeman and Isolationism. There are positions between them that would be far more cost effective. And we don't buy a lot of oil from the ME. The Euros and Japan do. And India and China are starting to crowd them. We simply act as hegemon keeping the sea lanes open with oil priced in dollars. We aren't making a profit on the deal on a fully costed basis. And we sure aren't expanding democracy or inherent stability. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-02-10 10:04 |
| #6 Oh and I forgot to say, that our response to any threat would have to be Soviet era, Vlad Putin ruthless. Fear not respect is the greatest deterent and we need to instill FEAR in the hearts of those that hate or oppose us. %$#!!! em. Let's drill for oil and boil oil shale here and build our industrial base. Once we quit buying their freaking oil, the price will drop and those terrorist funding perverts in KSA will not have the spare change to fund their crazy crap Wahabism brand of Moslem extremism. IF anything, I would fund every anti Saudi group out there and give them a taste of their own meds. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2012-02-10 09:49 |
| #5 In this day and time in which the village idiot terrorist and his minions do not stay in their own village, an isolationist foreign policy would probably drive an INCREASE in defense spending to keep the wolves off the door step. To pursue isolationism now, makes a lot of sense except our money grubbers have outsourced all of our jobs to Botswana and Viet Nam. An isolationist policy means those jobs have to come home....hey that's a good thing. Anyway, to be truly isolationist and telling the rest of the world to pound sand means having a military that scares the pant wetting wits out of even most illogical and crazed nut with a stick of C-4. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2012-02-10 09:44 |
| #4 I suspect if America really does get off of our oil dependence we'll develop a pseudo-isolationist drive-by foreign policy. The problem prior to WWII wasn't that we seldom got involved in other people's wars - it was that we had the weakest military of the major Western powers - the result of decades of 1% of GDP military spending even as our future adversaries bulked up beyond anything required for territorial defense. That weakness proved to be an irresistible temptation to Imperial Japan. As long as we match or come close to matching the expenditures of our peer competitors, we'll make out OK. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2012-02-10 09:23 |
| #3 Wouldn't go so far, rjschwarz. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-02-10 08:48 |
| #2 ....I've seen that movie before. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-02-10 08:18 |
| #1 I suspect if America really does get off of our oil dependence we'll develop a pseudo-isolationist drive-by foreign policy. That is lots of talk but generally leaving the world to rot and kill itself. Yeah we'll probably keep the sea lanes open and send carriers to help after natural disasters, but otherwise you are on your own. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-02-10 07:53 |