Turning Point

June 20, 2005
     Iraq is not Vietnam, all right, because there is no way the US can pull out now without severe consequences, namely the loss of our access to all the oil in the Middle East -- where two-thirds of the world's remaining oil is.

     In Vietnam, there was the primal fear that if we cut-and-run all of Indochina would "go communist," whatever that meant. What actually happened after we cut-and-ran in 1975 was Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, a military dictatorship in Burma, and Vietnam becoming the friendliest tourist country for westerners (including Americans) in all of Asia.

     It is actually hard to tell whether the strategy to "democratize" Iraq is a childish pretense or a cynical cover story. There may be some grownups in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department who believe that a functioning, democratically-elected Iraq government would be such a mind-blower for the people of other nations in the region that all the jihadistas of, say, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Afghanistan would enter a mystical transport and wake up as Jeffersonian democrats.

      The Iraq adventure so far seems to indicate that wishing can only accomplish so much. For instance, despite desperate US offensives in Karabilah and Anbar province this weekend, Iraqi hostiles managed to blow up fifty of their fellow Iraqis in Baghdad. The New York Times had an interesting way of capturing the mood: "Life along the street running past the restaurant quickly returned to normal. Older men 80 yards away resumed curbside games of checkers before men had finished sweeping away chunks of flesh." In America these days, a wish is sometimes just another horror movie at the cineplex.

     My own theory is that the war is a desperate attempt by a nation desperate over its energy supplies to retain a foothold, and therefore an economic claim, on the region where the oil is. Iraq was supposed to be our police station in a strategically vital bad neighborhood. The salient questions are: 1.) assuming we can't stay there forever, how long might we hope to stick around there? And 2.) at that point somewhat short of forever, will we lose our ability to even buy Middle East oil?

      The conventional belief is that oil is fungible, meaning that once it enters the universal market pool, it finds its own way to customers, determined by who will pay the most for delivery. This idea was based on the assumption that there would always be a swing producer -- some entity that could always open up the valves and goose up the world supply, keeping global prices within a reasonable range. The global production peak -- Peak Oil in shorthand -- seems to have obviated that mechanism. It's especially problematic that even Saudi Arabia and the Middle East generally appear to have peaked (see Twilight in the Desert by Matthew Simmons). From now on, access to oil may be determined by other things.

     It was Amercia's hope that by turning Iraqis and other Middle Eastern people into democrats, they would magically become much friendlier and that our military presence would be happily tolerated -- and that eventually all the Middle East would become so democratic, friendly, and stable that our presence there would be regarded as a Godsend. Whoops, wrong God. For starters.

       The world may no longer have a swing producer of oil, but this period can probably be viewed as a swing period of history. By that I mean a period when we hoped that there was a quick and easy way to keep the oil flowing westward and found out that it wasn't so. The time is now coming when the American public won't tolerate a dozen US casualties a week, nevermind fifty Iraqis. But Americans won't tolerate $5 a gallon gasoline, either. We'll now see how the public will reconcile these intolerances.

     We enter this week with oil nearing $60 a barrel. Global finance, hedging, interest rates, and the continued zest of America's last remaining industry, real estate, will all hinge on the price of oil and on America's prospects for getting it at any price. President Bush last week shifted the responsibility for an energy policy to congress, because the ideas coming out of the White House have been so transparently lame (the hydrogen economy).

      My guess is that we are about to see the first act of the Hooverization of George W. Bush.

Comments

[FutureMeme]

Great post, Jim. You said from the beginning that this war was about securing access to oil, our great and tragic addiction. BushCo. knows about peak and they have shamefully taken to Plan War instead of pushing for sustainable land use, transit and developing better renewable energy sources. For this alone they deserve an eternity of infamy.

To all the Americans out there who drive 50 miles per day--and I don't care how anti-war you are--this war's for you. You want your cul-de-sac and your overblown yard? This war's for you? Feel tough in your SUV? This war's for you. And Halliburton and all the usual cronies. But also for you.

Just as the period of schadenfreude is now ending, so is the time of worried, stultified paranoia. As Henry Miller said, the time of the assassins is here, so get ready to act. And that means undercutting the major source of our oil addiction by DRIVING LESS. Yeah, you! Take the bus. Live near transit. Walk or bike to work. Or go fight in Iraq. You can no longer have the entropic, paved-over cake and eat it too.

As for myself, I've not owned a car since 2001. I live a block from a rapid transit station. I don't eat meat (another source of considerable waste and fossil fuel inputs). I don't even drink Diet Coke, for chrissakes. Oh yeah, and I just got my master's in urban planning and work for a transportation agency doing transit-oriented development for Chicago suburbs. And I've been starkly aware of Peak Oil since early 2003. Fuck Nike, but Just Do It. Do something positive. Stop worrying. You are going to die someday, regardless. I think a big change can do some good for our fat, bloated country anyway. Plastic junk is not the source of human happiness. Neither are crappily-made exurban McWhatevers.

One other issue I'd like to briefly address: posters, please stop projecting your vague fears and feelings on everyone. Most arguments on this blog stem from the "I can't see how it won't be the case" variety. Like the notion that everyone will have to have a private mini-farm. Please. Did every Chicagoan have a plot in 1890? Not even close. Plus, we can lower our caloric intake by nearly half in this country and be healthier and happier. As far as heating and air conditioning goes, Doug Farr (whom I'm sure Jim knows) here in Chicago lectured on how heating systems can pump heat from the ground (always 52 degrees here) to heat and cool buildings. All it requires is an electric pump. Finally, I must disagree with all the prognosticators who think big cities are doomed. First, they have better transit. Second, yes some tall buildings will be abandoned, but that doesn't mean cities will be. Third, based on my experience and simple reasoning, given our large population, the future of urbanites (and many suburbanites) is high-density 3-4 story condo living near transit. If you want a community garden too, fine. I am optimistic about the future. (I will also inherit 90 acres of prime farm land in Iowa, if need be.) And if some Mad Max band of marauders comes to kill me for my soybeans, at least I'll have had a happy life in the meantime.

Jim put it best when he signed my copy of City in Mind: Good luck kicking ass in the 21st century!

[Oggie]

Well, if democratising Iraq is a cynical ploy, 60% of the Iraqis fell for it so hard they put their lives at risk. So we might as well wing it.

[Eligere]

Oggie, I believe their lives were already at risk. But given that they were willing to go to the polls, I think they deserve a real democracy, rather than the free-trade, union-prohibited, no nationalization of industry zone of piracy that we've bequeathed to them and that our poor troops are required daily to promote and defend.

[Ulrich Schreglmann]

The elections were actually the Shi’ites’ idea, not the US Administration’s. They knew they were in the majority and they’d win, so they pushed for those elections.

The US merely intended to install a puppet regime for the time being, which would undoubtedly still be in power if America had any control left over the place…

[Dave]

That first blog is correct in terms of the anxiety and sense of doom and gloom the prospect of Peak Oil presents. It is inevitable given our addiction to the good life but the heroic transition he describes can only happen if we have a stable society with a functioning progressive goverment doing the planning, funding, taxing and rsource alloocation needed to make the transition possible. The only government I can think of in our hemishpere with that abilty is the command and control structures associated with Cuba and the emerging Venezuala revolution ( soon to be followed by Bolivia ?)
When the people try that alternative in destperation they will face the reality that so many other societies in distress have faced when attempting to meet their challenges with a socialist alternative. A rabid, violent right based in the glorious homeland that will not think twice in releasing the attack dogs on any emerging left response to Peak Oil that threatens capitalist control and capital accumulation. Take a look Guatamala, Nicargua, the recent coup attempt in Venezuala, the drity war in Aregentina, Chile in 73, and on and on. These events were all directed by the central command and control structure of captal-i.e. US.
So you may have positive feelings and think your "if only's" but take a hard look at the sources of reactionary violence in the world these past 75 years and get real about the propects with a revolutionary effort to wrest control from the capitalist elite and its bourgweis ( sorry about the spelling) state. There is no future with out a world wide workers revolution. The elite are crazed and will gladly destroy the world before they give up control in service to humanity or nature. That is the blind spot JHK dearly holds too and many bloggers on this site adhere to. The world revolution is coming and coming soon and it its going to destroy captialism for the sake of humanity and our planet. If it does not succeed I can't adequately state whats in store for us and our Planet. It may well be already to late.

[kd]

Another great post, Jim.

For those "liberators" of Iraq:

"A permanent feature of American opinion and action in foreign policy is the wish, the hope, that other nations might turn from the error of their ways and become democracies...let us help those governments that are democratic, make them our allies, and let us oppose the others--indeed, if necessary, take action to coerce them...But there remains a question on this subject that has long bothered the thoughtful. What is it exactly that we want others to copy? What is the theory of democracy that we mean to export? Not all democracies are alike. Whose constitution is the best? On what theory is it based?
Different persons would give different answers. [Not even the "framers' of "our" democracy could agree on what its exact form & how to make it "work"]...When we actually read these [democratic] documents we find that each theorized about a few subjects among many which very properly go by different names. We have: democracy, republic, free government, representative government, constitutional monarchy. There are besides: natural rights, civil rights, equality before law, equal opportunity. Then there are also: universal suffrage, majority rule, separation of powers, and the the two-party system. Nor should we forget another half-dozen topics that are found associated in modern times with the so-called democratic process--primary elections, the referendum, proportional representation, and so on.
The array of ideas and devices ccannot but be daunting to the propagandist for democracy. Which of them are essential? How should they combine? The very need to explain what the terms mean bars the way to easy acceptance and enthusiasm."

In short, our attempts to "bring" democracy to the Middle East are finally a sham. The last thing "we" want is for the nations of the Middle East to imbibe a theory of democracy, & let it evolve into their very own, possibly unique, version of a government of the people, by the people, & for the people (with a different God & a wholly different "scripture" behind it). What the military-industrial complex of the United States wants is control of the region, whether covert or overt. Why? Oil. No more, no less.

To borrow a phrase made popular by Right Wing pundits: Jim's got it right. Period.

(quote is from an excellent essay by Jacques Barzun titled "Is Democratic Theory for Export?" written in 1986)

[kd]

Another great post, Jim.

For those "liberators" of Iraq:

"A permanent feature of American opinion and action in foreign policy is the wish, the hope, that other nations might turn from the error of their ways and become democraticies...let us help those governments that are democratic, make them our allies, and let us oppose the others--indeed, if necessary, take action to coerce them...But there remains a question on this subject that has long bothered the thoughtful. What is it exactly that we want others to copy? What is the theory of democracy that we mean to export? Not all democracies are alike. Whose constitution is the best? On what theory is it based?
Different persons would give different answers. [Not even the "framers' of "our" democracy could agree on what its exact form & how to make it "work"]...When we actually read these [democratic] documents we find that each theorized about a few subjects among many which very properly go by different names. We have: democracy, republic, free government, representative government, constitutional monarchy. There are besides: natural rights, civil rights, equality before law, equal opportunity. Then there are also: universal suffrage, majority rule, separation of powers, and the the two-party system. Nor should we forget another half-dozen topics that are found associated in modern times with the so-called democratic process--primary elections, the referendum, proportional representation, and so on.
The array of ideas and devices ccannot but be daunting to the propagandist for democracy. Which of them are essential? How should they combine? The very need to explain what the terms mean bars the way to easy acceptance and enthusiasm."

In short, our attempts to "bring" democracy to the Middle East are finally a sham. The last thing "we" want is for the nations of the Middle East to imbibe a theory of democracy, & let it evolve into their very own, possibly unique, version of a government of the people, by the people, & for the people (with a different God & a wholly different "scripture" behind it). What the military-industrial complex of the United States wants is control of the region, whether covert or overt. Why? Oil. No more, no less.

To borrow a phrase made popular by Right Wing pundits: Jim's got it right. Period.

(quote is from an excellent essay by Jacques Barzun titled "Is Democratic Theory for Export?" written in 1986)

[JGulick]

I'm yet another admirer of Jim Kunstler's work in general who believes he has never been wider of the mark than with his ill-conceived disquisitions on the US' imperial misadventures in West Asia.

The fatally flawed premises underlying JK's "analysis" (which he shares, BTW, with many Pentagon types and mainstream enviros who have recently formed the truly ugly, and neo-nationalist, "Geo-Green" alliance): 1) US imperialism is fundamentally driven by the US economy's reliance on primary commodity inputs (especially hydrocarbon energy resources) sourced abroad and 2) the lion's share of these inputs are located in the jurisdictions of countries who happen (for inexplicable or inscrutable reasons
having zippo do to with the history of US involvement in their affairs) to "hate us." QED, if the US simply reduced its per capita resource consumption and became more self-reliant in the realm of energy resource production, it would be able to disentangle itself from nasty, brutal regimes it would otherwise have no dealings with... and the "necessity" of US imperialism would magically vanish overnight.

Why any critically minded person would subscribe to this perspective is beyond me, when those who occupy the commanding heights of the US foreign policy apparatus have made it abundantly clear in several publicly available documents (not the least of which is the Bush Administration's 2002 NSS) what the orienting purpose of US foreign policy is: to prevent any state or combination of states (be it China, the EU, whomever) from posing a realistic challenge to US global hegemony (including its influence over economic growth formulae and security arrangements in East Asia and Europe themselves).

In other words, to the extent that the Anglo-American invasion and occupation was (and is) about oil, it was (and is) about shoring up pliable client states in and around the Persian Gulf so that it could (and can) exercise more leverage over its erstwhile allies and would-be rivals in the developed (and rapidly developing) world, not so that it could (and can) slake its own thirst for imported petroleum.

As a figure with considerable ability to shape discourse on this subject, JK also does a great disservice by insinuating that a) the peoples of the Muslim world are genetically or culturally unfit for democratic self-governance and b) the true folly of the neo-cons was not their harebrained insistence that the Iraqis would gratefully welcome US occupation, but their naive supposition that parliamentary self-rule could flourish in the region. JK thereby studiously overlooks the fact that it was the _Iraqis themselves_ (especially the forces and movements around Al Sistani)who demanded that popular elections be held, despite Bremer and crew's preference that the US handpick the successors to the CPA.

[One Eye Open]

Right on Dave! A revolutionary, soul brother power fist salute goes out to ya' bro. Just one question. After the smoke clears and the "workers" have won the day how are these genius' going to govern? What is their utopian vision? I mean, since it is inevitable that they will rule the day may I ask the question, "Whats the fuckin' plan, Stan?"

[One Eye Open]

FutureMeme

Hey swizzle dick. I take the bus walk, when I can, etc. etc. Big fucking deal. So you are the arbitrator of the correct useage of precious resources? I don't think so. You make posts on the internet. It takes electricity to make posts on the internet. Electricity is a valuable, precious resource that unless generated by wind, solar or water demands the use of non-renewable resources. I don't think you should be using these valuable resources just to post your thoughts. Especially when your thoughts are so fucking stupid.

[kd]

JGulick,

You're right of course that the overall neocon plan is to "prevent any state or combination of states from posing a realistic challenge to US global hegemony." In plain words, global domination. Economically, militarily, & (interestingly) culturally.

But that's okay, right? We Americans are good, noble, decent people. We're the Crown of Creation, by God. What more benign despots could the world want? (& surely that's what the world wants!)

[Loveandlight]

I have gathered from what some commentors have said in previous postings on this blog that you initially supported this misbegotten military adventure. The curmudgeons may wish to bust your chops for that now that you don't, but I would just as soon say, "Glad ya came around, welcome to the truth!"

[Mike Harrington]

I think the occupation of foreign oilfields by US troops is the least likely way of securing oil for the clusterfuck nation. The US already *had* access to Iraq's oil under Saddam Hussein, about one half a million barrels more of oil production than today. The preposterous assertion, like in the recent Fox drama, Oil Storm, that sending US troops among foreign nationals will "secure" oil production, ignores the effectiveness of asynchronous, fourth generation warfare against foreign occupiers.

Decentralized, determined partisans of national resistance movements will *always* defeat conventional military forces. The US military cannot win against the Iraqi resistance, and all the resistance has to do is not lose before they bleed the US military to death. It is likely that US losses in Iraq are much higher than the fit-to-print press admits. Iraq is under the control of the resistance, not the US. The situation will not improve for Washington, and every delay of the withdrawal of US forces will prolong the agony.

Different groups of Iraqis will simply have to come to some status quo after the US leaves. They've managed to do that for the past six thousand years, and they will undoubtedly reach another modus vivendi once the US is gone. Then, and only then, will the political climate be stable enough for the investment necessary to rehabilitate Iraq's oil production. Until the US leaves, their presence will aggravate world oil prices.

My message to Kunstler is this: the only way to gain access to Iraqi oil is by withdrawing. Oil production requires a stable political climate, much less a full-blown resistance. Tactically, the US are still fighting in Iraq. Strategically, the US lost the war shortly after Dumbya started it.

[FutureMeme]

One Eye,

Might want to get your "good" one checked. And while you're at it, you should really take your 'Murkin rage and direct it toward the sources of the problem. Yes, if everyone in America lived like me, we wouldn't have a clue to the difference between Iraq and Iran, let alone have invaded. Sorry, but the 20 million barrels our country consumes daily are the product of many individual choices, in addition to horribly misguided land use and transportation policies. (I mistakenly wrote we consume 20 bbl/yr. It should be about 7.) Maybe with a bunch of people like you running around out there, I should be afraid after all.

[ck40579]

"Whats the [cl]uckin' plan, Stan?"

As subjects of the quantum, we are all one. As subjects of the macro, we all share basic requirements of clean water, food, air and a place to get in out of respective elements. There ends what is easily agreed upon. The amplitude one can expect to realize each of those needs is subject to as wide a range of interpretation as there are practically persons on the planet at the time of definition.

To the extent that our current mode of dominant lifestyle can be defined by the operating requirements of market driven economics, as powered by the engines of industry reliant upon one or multiple finite resources to both power and provide feedstock, it should be self evident that all of the variant manifestations, socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism et al, have proven to be flawed beyond repair and have contributed one and all to the possible collapse of all civilisation, yea even life in the smallest form, on this host planet.

It is enough to accept the collective responsibility without seeking to sanction group or individual.

Henceforth, as a point of definition, group refers to that number of people which can reasonably be summoned to assemble in one place, by unaided innate foot power only, within 10 minutes of initiate call for council.

It is a matter of opinion, open now for discussion, the merit with which any form of representative government is in the interest of any group.

[Biff Baxter]

The Kunt manages to avoid mentioning the 2000 pound elephant with the Yamulka dancing in the living room.

All that conjecture, alas the razor with Occam's monogrammed initials that cuts right down through the middle of Tel Aviv sits rusting and unused in its case.

Who contributes 2/3 of all political campaign money in America? Who owns all major media outlets in the West? Who has lobbying offices right on Capitol Hill that never close and their own official museum of suffering right next door? Is it those damned Arabs again? The nerve of those subversive, traitorous bastards! Imagine exerting that much iron control over the American political process and refusing to admit to it or allow anyone else to say it! I knew that Abdul was not to be trusted! Arabi Raus! Raus!

[One Eye Open]

Biffy,
Got an uncircumcised root for ya' ta' toot anytime big goy (I mean boy).

[Rodrigo]

Suppose it is all about oil. It makes more sense than misssing WMDs or "Freedom." Why not put some effort in pumping and delivering the oil? The Iraqis would probably welcome the income.

With oil at 60$ a barrel, why not start an initiative on conservation. It will only slow things down a bit, but it will be a great education tool to inform the masses of things to come.

BTW, I heard on the radio today that Saratoga Co. is the only NYS municipality that is solvent and the reason is that the city and county merged services and administration. The suggestion was made that this might be a lesson for other areas, combining city & suburbs into regional entities sort of like bio-regions first suggestioned by Kirkpatrick Sale, et al.

Whaddaya think?

[Mike Harrington]

Presumably, Baxter is talking about the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, Nancy Pelosi, and the whole, ambarassing, stinking mess. So it has come to this.

[One Eye Open]

Meemie,

You just wasted some more precious resources. Shame on you!

[One Eye Open]

ck,

So you say you and your mommie are going to make something up in your basement? Sounds like a plan to me.

[Weaseldog]

Well, Iraq had elections for many years before the invasion. You can argue endlessly whether they were democratic or not.

Fact is, there was a movement underfoot to lift sanctions from Iraq, before the war. This movement was gaining steam. On top of that, Saddam was signing contracts with every nation not directly associated with the US to sell them Iraqi oil. The US was not invited to buy Iraqi oil after sanctions were lifted.

Had sanctions been lifted, Russia, Germany, France and China would've had contracted all of the Iraqi oil with the spigot to the US turned off.

Go to the library and read newspapers from the period to see for yourself.

[Quentin]

'The Hooverization of George Bush'. No one can even begin to contemplate the effects today of a recession as deep as the Great One. No one. The times are so different. The geo-political conditions entirely different. There is so little space for leeway or maneuvering: we're screwed, locked up in an economic cage, completely at the mercy of an oligarchy. Even the christian and islamic fundamentalists will have trouble imagining such a cosmic disaster. After all, SUV and all, things might get rough even for them, god's people.

[Weaseldog]

You can't be right about this Jim. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh last week, the spokesperson for all Conservatives, and he made it clear, Iraq is a Holy War.

He went on at length that if we thought the fighting in Iraq was about anything except religion and the very survival of Christianity, then we had it wrong.

According to Rush, we invaded IRaq because Muslims want to kill or convert every living Christian alive today and completely stamp out Christianity.

[One Eye Open]

Any talk regarding access to country "X's" oil is silly. Oil is not an F16 fighter jet nor is it a Swedish sauna. It's a commodity traded on global commodities markets. It will end up (save an act of piracy, a natural disaster, or a blockade) exactly where the purchaser wishes it to end up.