Afghanistan and Oil

[M.Dancer]

Doesn't OPEC set oil prices? Or more accurately...the market?

Correct. The US has very little control over the price. They could open up the strategic reserves but that would be a short term event.

[DogOnPorch]

So just to make sure we're all on the same page here, the confluence of oil and communists in the region surrounding the ME have never had anything to do with the west's reasons for interfering there...ever?

Astounding.

Ever? Of course not...but you weren't speaking in past-tense re: the situation.

eyeballs: What about the US's need to control or deny other countries from accessing the flow of oil or gas from the region? In some people's minds these stakes are probably even higher than their own domestic needs.

[eyeball]

I wasn't speaking in any particular tense really, not compared to BC at least who made it pretty clear that oil and communists past or present never had anything to do with our being in Afghanistan or anywhere in the region.

In the meantime and in the quest to dispell accusations and innuendos about oil, Keepitsimple alluded that other greedy commercial interests in the Middle East are possibly behind the situation, as you put it.

I wonder who these might be? If the market has settled all the issues surrounding oil and its control why can't it settle these other greedy commercial interests? What could possibly be of so much value in Afghanistan to make these interests so greedy and inspire all the international investment in so much blood, death and turmoil in protecting or controlling them?

[DogOnPorch]

I wasn't speaking in any particular tense really, not compared to BC at least who made it pretty clear that oil and communists past or present never had anything to do with our being in Afghanistan or anywhere in the region.

In the meantime and in the quest to dispell accusations and innuendos about oil, Keepitsimple alluded that other greedy commercial interests in the Middle East are possibly behind the situation, as you put it.

I wonder who these might be? If the market has settled all the issues surrounding oil and its control why can't it settle these other greedy commercial interests? What could possibly be of so much value in Afghanistan to make these interests so greedy and inspire all the international investment in so much blood, death and turmoil in protecting or controlling them?

I think you're on the wrong track re: oil....or gas...or any energy source. Initially at least, Afghanistan was about getting you-know-who and his chums. Revenge pure and simple. I think these days it is also viewed in a strategic sense re: Iran...cutting its overland supply routes to potential chums. Plus, we're there now, so we might as well rebuild. T'is the Western way. As usual, the hearts-and-minds crap enters into it in terms of population support. But, I suspect that all that is secondary to the reality it creates on the ground for Iran...Allied troops surrounding it.

Edited September 10, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

T'is the Western way.

Yeah I know, that's the problem.

Bump... for what its worth.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah I know, that's the problem.

Bump... for what its worth.

Problem for who? The world's hydrocarbon economies took time out after 9/11 for some serious beat downs (revenge) and escalation against such threats, real or imagined. Even school kids learned new terms such as "asymmetric warfare". The board game called "Risk" is obsolete, but we are still rolling the dice. Welcome to post Cold War reality and "peace dividend....LOL!

[DogOnPorch]

Problem for who? The world's hydrocarbon economies took time out after 9/11 for some serious beat downs (revenge) and escalation against such threats, real or imagined. Even school kids learned new terms such as "asymmetric warfare". The board game called "Risk" is obsolete, but we are still rolling the dice. Welcome to post Cold War reality and "peace dividend....LOL!

War is merely the continuation of policy by other means, after all....

[eyeball]

Sounds like war is a real hoot too.

[DogOnPorch]

Sounds like war is a real hoot too.

I suggest you read Von Clausewitz to understand.

Edited September 10, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

To understand why you guys think war is funny? I'll pass thanks.

[DogOnPorch]

Your choice, McFly. Ignorance = bliss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

[eyeball]

Sounds like you've settled for the bliss.

The real problem in determining Clausewitz's continuing relevance lies not with his own theoretical approach, which has stood up well over nearly two centuries of intense military and political change. Rather, the problem lies in the way that thinkers with more immediate concerns have adapted Clausewitzian theory to their own narrowly defined eras. When times change, people familiar only with Clausewitz's most recent interpreters, rather than with the original works, assume that the passing of cavalry, or Communism, or the USSR's Strategic Rocket Forces, means that Clausewitz is passé. Yet we always seem to be comfortable describing the age of warfare just past as "Clausewitzian"—even though Clausewitz never saw a machinegun, a tank, a Viet Cong, or a nuclear weapon.

I suspect Clausewitz saw enough to recognize a super-rogue when he saw one.

So the military campaign in Afghanistan underscores Clausewitz's central idea that war is dominated by politics which in turn is pretty much dominated by oil and other greedy commercial interests. Go figure.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I suspect Clausewitz saw enough to recognize a super-rogue when he saw one.

So the military campaign in Afghanistan underscores Clausewitz's central idea that war is dominated by politics which in turn is pretty much dominated by oil and other greedy commercial interests. Go figure.

All except your "greedy interests"....right?

[M.Dancer]

Sounds like you've settled for the bliss.

I suspect Clausewitz saw enough to recognize a super-rogue when he saw one.

So the military campaign in Afghanistan underscores Clausewitz's central idea that war is dominated by politics which in turn is pretty much dominated by oil and other greedy commercial interests. Go figure.

whoosh..right over your head

...that was not his central idea.

[DogOnPorch]

As mentioned, I think you'll find the (current) strategic military goal of Iraq and Afghanistan is to surround and further isolate Iran...see

Von Clausewitz: real war vs ideal war.

You might also want to google how oil prices come to be.

[eyeball]

As mentioned, I think you'll find the (current) strategic military goal of Iraq and Afghanistan is to surround and further isolate Iran...

Yes...we're just making it up as we go, I already knew that thanks.

You might also want to google how oil prices come to be.

Why, what's oil got to do with anything now?

see

Von Clausewitz: real war vs ideal war.

Screw Von Clausewitz...whatever the hell you think he's talking about its probably something you dreamed up on the fly.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Screw Von Clausewitz...whatever the hell you think he's talking about its probably something you dreamed up on the fly.

Really? So why are there US and other allied forces in....

Iraq

Afghanistan

Bahrain

Djibouti

Kuwait

Saudi Arabia

Dubai

Oman

Qatar

Israel

Turkey

UAE

Diego Garcia

...that is quite a dream!

[fellowtraveller]

The relationship between Afghanistan and oil and with most of the turmoil in the region has its roots in the Cold War. Oil was clearly a vital strategic resource and in any war securing a supply of it is only marginally more important than denying it to the enemy.

But now there's never been any need to keep ME oil from falling into communist hands? Who'd have thunk it?

What are you talking about?

Afghanistan has no oil, is landlocked so has no strategic posiiton in the transport of oil, is far away from the oil of the ME, and any pipeline built across it by extremely rich idiots would be utterly indefensible and a terrorist magnet.

[eyeball]

What are you talking about?

Afghanistan has no oil, is landlocked so has no strategic posiiton in the transport of oil, is far away from the oil of the ME, and any pipeline built across it by extremely rich idiots would be utterly indefensible and a terrorist magnet.

No kidding its got nothing worth fighting over yet there we are anyway because Afghanistan happens to be adjacent to the same region we started fighting over years ago, for oil.

In some circles this is considered hilarious.

[DogOnPorch]

No kidding its got nothing worth fighting over yet there we are anyway because Afghanistan happens to be adjacent to the same region we started fighting over years ago, for oil.

In some circles this is considered hilarious.

"They didn't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."

"What law says they don't have to?"

"Catch-22."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Afghanistan is a source of disruption in the same corner of Asia as Korea and China. It seems to me that there is more than what meets the eye there. Wheels within wheels so to speak. I think they are being played as pawns in a much larger game.

[waldo]

As mentioned, I think you'll find the (current) strategic military goal of Iraq and Afghanistan is to surround and further isolate Iran...

and a prevailing view of many analysts suggests that Bush's so-called "regime change" in Iraq has not favoured that stated strategic military "goal" of further isolating Iran... that, in fact, it has given rise to a strengthened Iran given the emergence of the Iraqi Shia, the historical ties and ongoing relations between Iraqi-Iran Shia and the emerging relations between the 2 countries. There is considerable legitimacy given to the eventual prospect that the Iraqi people... with their new-found "democracy"... may eventually elect to bring forward the next Islamic state.

disclaimer: the aforementioned reference to Bush's "regime change" is exercised as one of the favoured remaining justifications for the U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq... having dispatched with previous false justifications related to WMD, Iraq links to Al Qaeda, Iraq ties to 9/11, national security threats to the U.S. posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, etc.

[DogOnPorch]

Iran nearly had a 'regime change' when they apparently rigged the last election to favor Mr Ahmedadinnerjacket. I'd imagine it'll be more a waiting game...waiting for Iran to trip and fall. Then comes the velvet hammer. That'd be my guess.

[bush_cheney2004]

disclaimer: the aforementioned reference to Bush's "regime change" is exercised as one of the favoured remaining justifications for the U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq... having dispatched with previous false justifications related to WMD, Iraq links to Al Qaeda, Iraq ties to 9/11, national security threats to the U.S. posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, etc.

Irrelevant, as "regime change" in Iraq was stated policy and Public Law for the United States as of 1998.

[waldo]

Irrelevant, as "regime change" in Iraq was stated policy and Public Law for the United States as of 1998.

bingo! Then why the false campaign lead up to the Iraqi war... why the Rice WMD dance and her mushroom cloud pronouncements... why the Powell charade at the UN... why the incessant Bush rhetoric over Iraqi links to Al Qaeda... why the campaign to link Iraq to 9/11, etc., etc., etc? After all... you had your Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 in the bag!