America seems trapped in an exploding Middle East minefield.
Revolts are breaking out amid the choke points of world commerce. Shiite populations are now restive in the Gulf monarchies. Not far away, Iran’s youth are sick and tired of the country’s seventh-century theocracy. Astride the Suez Canal, Egyptian demonstrators just threw out the Mubarak regime. On the coast of the southern Mediterranean, Tunisia and Libya are in upheaval, just a few hundred miles from Europe.
Advertisement
The politics of rebellion are often bewildering. Theocrats in Iran, kings in the Gulf states and Jordan, dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, and thugs in Libya are all gone or threatened. Some, such as Mubarak, were often pro-American. Others, such as Libya’s Qaddafi, hate the United States. Calls for reform now come from a bewildering menu of protestors: Muslim extremists, secular pro-Western liberals, hard-core terrorists, and everyday people who just want a better life.
Strategic concerns frame almost every one of these upheavals. Israel may soon have enemies on all of its borders. Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon. All the unrest reminds us that today’s supposed friend is tomorrow’s possible enemy — with no certainty about who will end up with a deposed strongman’s arsenal of weapons.
Proximity to Europe means millions of possible refugees could head north and westward. America either has military relations with or gives foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan, and the West Bank (and sometimes does both). Over the last decade, terrorists who have been caught in the United States plotting our destruction came almost exclusively from the restive Middle East.
Tens of thousands of American troops are dispersed throughout Iraq and the Gulf region. Oil-starved China has a hungry eye on these resource-rich, unstable states. More than half of the world’s daily supply of exported petroleum is shipped from the Middle East.
There are only a few constants in this welter of unrest. The common enemy is the autocracy that has impoverished and terrorized Middle Eastern populations for decades. Only a few governments in the general region that have democratic and legitimate governments — Israel and, to a much lesser degree, Turkey and Iraq — have escaped the most recent troubles.
What has been the American response to these crises? In a word, confused.
Israel of course excluded, all the Middle East essentially exports is oil and terrorism. Too bad so many petroleum deposits lie under the soil of Islamic nations. Bad luck. But we have, as Victor Davis Hanson points out, many areas in the United States or off our shores that our ripe for oil or shale oil exploration and retrieval. The big obstacle here? Why liberals like Barack Obama. Mankind needs energy, most particularly oil, and liberals feel badly about this. And so we will continue to rely on unreliable sources for oil. Dumb.
>>>" A cynic might have concluded from Obama’s weak, “make no mistake” sermons that if a ruthless regime kills its own, hates America, and bars the press, the United States will appear indifferent."<<<
I'm a cynic.
>>>"Anything less would be near-criminal negligence."<<<
Would that rise to the level of a high crime or a misdemeanor? Good Lord, I hope so. I really wonder if we can survive as a nation for two more years given Mr. Obama's malevolent view of America's position in world affairs.
Taken as a whole, Obama's insistence upon squelching any development of domestic energy sources coupled with his 'mismanagement' (I think it is deliberately malicious, myself) of the various crisis in the Middle East, it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain away the concept that he is acting to weaken the United States deliberately.
What we're seeing is the President's worldview on parade. We should stop being surprised that he leans toward anti-American regimes and away from pro-Western governments. We shouldn't be shocked that he is fiddling while gas prices burn. He sees $4-5 gas as a way to finally break us of our oil addiction. None of this is news. What we have to do now is get rid of him as soon as possible.
Leishac has it spot on. Higher gas prices validate the notion of energy dependence to fossil fuels. I think President Obama would love to see 5-6 dollar a gallon gas, because it would simply feed his argument for "green" energy. Any thinking that rising oil prices puts pressure on him to increase domestic sources misses his worldview altogether.
Obama is a ruthless ideologue. He cares not that we suffer.
We are expendable to his goals. He may put on a brave compassionate face, but behind the scenes the "change" continues.
America is only trapped if it again takes the bait and decides to play world cop.
Libya is a two bit dictatorship. And it's in the backyard of Italy, France and Spain who are big customers of Libyan oil. They have air forces. Let them set up a No-Fly Zone.
Re: Petroleum. The U.S. produces 11% of the daily world supply. Increasing domestic production is not a bad thing. But increasing it by 25% would add only 2.7% to global supply.
Moreover, America doesn't "own" the oil. The oil companies do. And oil to totally fungible. Unless the government puts a gun to their heads, (anathema from a Neo-Con Pov), that increased production gets shipped to the highest bidder. (China paying with American dollars?)
America is tanked. Bush was the set-up guy. Obama is merely the closer.
"I think President Obama would love to see 5-6 dollar a gallon gas, because it would simply feed his argument for "green" energy. Any thinking that rising oil prices puts pressure on him to increase domestic sources misses his worldview altogether".
I tend to agree. But he has to have at least some sense that $5-6 gas would lead to his certain defeat in 2012. Quite a predicament for the man. And the only silver lining I can see in this whole sordid mess.
Actually, the US imports relatively little oil from the middle East and most of that comes from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Most of our imports come from Canada and Mexico. Also Venezuela, who, despite Chavez' rants, can't do without exports to the US. Venezuela's Citgo brand owns several US refineries which have to be specially equipped to run on very poor quality Venezuelan oil.
On the US energy front, help may be on the way. Devin Nunes (R-Cal) is about to introduce sweeping legislation aimed at getting the US to produce substantially more energy, open up OCS and ANWR to drilling, permitting development of shale oil, coal to liquid, nuclear.
US presence in the Middle East mostly benefits Europe and Asia. Peter Beinart said recently that resentment there to the US is because our policies permit cheap extraction of their oil. That is one of the most asinine remarks ever made by a pundit who presumably knows what he is talking about.
Beck last night asked the question that should be asked. With all this turmoil in the Mid East, what about the safety of our military being encircled by the grip of this anti-Western uprising? I know Obama is not worried, but what about those men and women? Is there a plan to evacuate them if this thing explodes further?
JefTop: "Beck last night asked the question that should be asked. With all this turmoil in the Mid East, what about the safety of our military being encircled by the grip of this anti-Western uprising? I know Obama is not worried, but what about those men and women? Is there a plan to evacuate them if this thing explodes further?"
*laughs uproariously* Our military (of which I am a part) is not "encircled" by any "grip". We are well able to defend ourselves (at a macro level) against third-world countries with outdated weapons.
At a micro level, daily force protection issues (IEDs, suicide bombers, insurgent attacks) are the same as they always were - and quite possibly lessened, as certain regimes (Lybia for example) are now too busy to coordinate plots against us. The ones really at risk are US civilians in-country, and our Marines guarding embassies.
I used to respect Beck, but over the years I have concluded he's just a comedian entertainer with no particular qualifications except a penchant for stirring the pot. Comments like these prove my view. Give me O'Reilly any day.
Obama is incapable of principled leadership. He has been on the wrong side of countless issues, opposing either the will of the people or decisions that protect or advance America's interests. The same can be said of his mantle of Liberalism. America is currently in a crisis of leadership, and that's why Obama has bumbled the Middle East. While he indicted many of Bush's tactics as a campaigner, he has employed them as president. What he has not done, however, is provide a clear, consistent and principled message during this critical juncture, which is deeply unfortunate given how much American blood and treasure has gone towards igniting and stoking the embers of reform that could potentially transform the Middle East into something resembling the freedom and hope of the Bush Doctrine. So, Obama's frequent hypocrisy kept us in the fight, but his absence of leadership has failed to represent America's best interests when it mattered most.
Albeit it bumbled and consistent with his trend, the BP oil spill gave Obama lightning in a jar and he didn't let that crisis go to waste. One step forward and 10 steps back as the many will inevitably reach deep to pay for resources the misguided few confoundingly keep untapped. It is Tantalus within our own borders and further evidence that Obama’s utopian vision most demands an absence of rational logic, along with an unwillingness to confront reality and make adult choices that protect America’s interests.
Some geologic evaulations indicate the volume of Arabian oil deposits are declining and the source will dry out within 30 years. That shifts the search for fossil fuels to other areas. I believe the President extended loans to Petrobras to drill off the coast of Brazil while at the same time banned drilling off the Gulf of Mexico. Then an environmental fiasco erupted in the Gulf because BP was forced to look for oil in much deeper waters. The executive is sending mixed signals like mixing oil with water. If green is the focus then why did the President subsidize the Brazilian oil industry? Oh I forgot George Soros bought a controlling interest in Petrobras right before the President granted them a loan
The events of the last 3 months have marked an end to the so-called "Stability Wing" of the GOP. The Scowcrofts, Lugars, Bakers, and Powells and thier allies haven't a clue what to do. The regimes that encouraged and supported the Wahabists, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah are now the victims. From Lybia to Syria to Saudi Arabia dictators and Kings are litterally under the gun. Even Iran is feeling the pressure. And President Obama supported them all. To make matters worse, no one in the State Dept or the CIA saw it coming (that's what $100 billlion in combined intel spending gets you).
Oil of course compounds the problem. The US had a decade to get its energy house in order, and now we're paying the price for such fantasies as windmills, solar panels, and electric batteries. The US sits on the largest treasure of fossils fuels outside of Siberia. But most of these energy sources are untapped because Beardo-the-Wierdo in Vermont or San Jose dreams dreams of sustainable, carbon free energy.
We the people now have front row seats to a foreign policy and economic disaster in the makings. Lord help us if next winter is colder than this past one. Between blackouts and $200 a barrel oil things could get rather ugly.
I don't begrudge mistakes by the POTUS, but I do begrudge passive inactivity.
When Bubba said he was going to insert the US in Kosova, a lot of us on the right weren't happy. For me (at least) it was only b/c I wasn't sure it would be enough.
Ditto Somalia where a laudable goal was woefully unprepared for a nasty street fight.
Errors of actions ought to be debated.
But what the hey do you say about a POTUS who can't be bothered to say anything or can't get his staff on the same page when they do attempt to "get out in front of it".
Bush was derided for reading "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes on the morning of 9/11. Barry, meanwhile, can't be bothered for 2 days to comment on the panty-bomber, gives a "shout out" before mentioning the Ft Hood shooter and has no discernible strategy on the conflagration of an entire region. How very nuanced.
Barry looks as flat footed as an adjunct Professor thrust into the position of Commander in Chief in the West Wing.
Oh wait, Barry is an adjunct Professor thrust into that role.
If you focus on Obama's support for America-hating regimes, you miss the bigger picture. I believe he is simply a believer in totalitarian governmental style. He would support an America-liking totalitarian regime as well. However, there aren't any. The nanny state isn't just for America, you know. So the only difference is whether the people in charge of the foreign government offer him opportunities to give away our resources while abasing our country for improving the lot of everyone through capitalism.
Once again, domestic drilling comes to the forefront. We are consistently shooting ourselves in the foot by not opening our own floodgates. Our survival is at stake.
Toward the end of his essay VDH describes a deliberate attempt to reduce the U.S. to a post-industrial serfdom that turns on an state-imposed energy famine. That's more or less the ongoing design of our extreme environmentalist faction, but taken to a new dimension by this administration. That is a front that Republicans need to counterattack with renewed ferocity, right now.
In the area of foreign policy much is murky. As citizens we are seeing very little of the product from the intel community about the who and what of the ME uprisings. Reading street mobs as "democracy movements" is on a par with haruspication to predict the weather. "It will rain, someday."
A more pointed question might be whether the U.S. intel community (and I don't mean by that the junior varsity at Langley but rather the business end of the intel buggywhip at DIA) has sufficient confidence in this administration to actually share real intelligence with it. Even if you have no authority as a policymaker, you would be unready to help consummate an inversion of American values.
