US enters 'checkbook war' with China

Asia Times Online ^ | 15 Mar 2008 | Dmitry Shlapentokh

[BGHater]

One might assume that the approaching end of the George W Bush presidency is the beginning of the end of the American empire, at least as empire-building is usually seen - as an attempt to impose power on others by force.

The reason is simple: US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are badly stretched, and the pleas of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to European countries to send more combat troops have fallen on deaf ears. Still, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, notes that the war could proceed "for a hundred years".

The war in the Middle East is qualitatively different from the Vietnam War, in which McCain participated. In withdrawing from Southeast Asia, the US actually put itself out of danger, its battered prestige notwithstanding. The point is that Vietnam would not make any attempt to create problems for the US at the end of formal hostilities.

The situation is entirely different in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US debacle will lead to intensifying efforts to harm American interests - and not only those of the US, but countries all over the globe.

From this perspective, the current wars are open-ended conflicts from which the US cannot extricate itself. Therefore, one could argue that the American empire is coming to its end and its global span could well be replaced by other powers, with China as the major candidate. The present situation in Africa serves as a prime example.

[JasonC]

What's "winning"? We already control the entire Iraqi countryside, for example. Now that everyone there is a subject, shall we murder them all?

You have to be able to rule the places, or get them to rule themselves, with governments you can live with succeeding with their own people.

Napoleon was frustrated in Spain, Talleyrand was trying to explain to him that a political solution was necessary. He said "You can do anything with bayonets, sire, except sit on them."

[Zhang Fei]

Still, the shrinking of the US's imperial presence in Africa and elsewhere would correspondingly shrink its access to vital natural resources.

That's a silly assertion. You mean mineral suppliers won't sell to the US when we have less troops overseas? Does China have problem buying iron ore because it doesn't have troops near Australia or Brazil?

[deuteronlmy232]

To be blunt about it, we are not in the Persian Gulf to bring "freedom" to Iraq. We are in the Persian Gulf to protect the lifeblood of modern Western civilization (a reliable supply of oil).

It is not a life blood when diesel fuel is 4 bucks a gallon. If we are there to protect it, let's get some of it. Either nuke the *&^%^&'s back into the stone age or start taking some of the oil to repay us for our cost. I am not in the least interested in continuing this endless bull going on in the mid east. Either fight to win and get the oil or nuke them into absolute submission.

[deuteronlmy232]

What's "winning"? We already control the entire Iraqi countryside,

So, why am I paying 3.60 a gallon for heating oil? Your idea of winning and my idea of winning are a long way apart. When do they start reimbursing us for our cost and losses?

[Polybius]

To be blunt about it, we are not in the Persian Gulf to bring "freedom" to Iraq. We are in the Persian Gulf to protect the lifeblood of modern Western civilization (a reliable supply of oil).

It is not a life blood when diesel fuel is 4 bucks a gallon.

And if you were stranded in a waterless desert for three weeks after a plane crash and the Water Genie showed up offering you a 55 gallon barrel of drinking water for the cost of your entire life's savings, you would consider drinking water as "not a life blood when it costs X hundreds of thousands dollars a barrel"?

Whether you like it or not, without oil, 21st Century society would be back in the 1850's.

Oil is the "lifeblood" of the current level of technology because internal combustion engines will not run on gold, silver or dollar bills.

If we are there to protect it, let's get some of it.

We are getting it. You may not like the price but we are getting it.

For an example of "Not Getting Any of It", see 1973 Oil Embargo.

Either nuke the *&^%^&'s back into the stone age or start taking some of the oil to repay us for our cost. ..... Either fight to win and get the oil or nuke them into absolute submission

You do not see the strategic Big Picture.

The Persian Gulf contains 70% of the World's known oil reserves.

Note the word "WORLD'S".

From that "waterhole" that keeps the machinery of a 21st Century alive, drinks not only America but every other country in the World including nuclear superpower Russia and nuclear superpower China.

In the strategic Big Picture, the Arabs are merely the irritating flies buzzing around the "waterhole".

In a nuclear fight to the death over access to the World's oil "waterhole", the nuclear fight will be with the World's other nuclear superpowers and not with the Arabs.

I am not in the least interested in continuing this endless bull going on in the mid east.

Then invent a replacement for all of modern society's internal combustion engines that does not require oil or discover a U.S. oil reserve that will meet all of America's needs for oil long into the future ( and, no, the ANWAR oil represents a drop in the bucket ) or find some way that the World's other nuclear superpowers no longer have any need for oil or find a way to achieve the nuclear disarmament of the World's other nuclear superpowers.

Until then, no matter how long it takes, America will have to be protecting its place by the edge of the Persian Gulf Oil "waterhole".

Or die of thirst as a modern society.

[JasonC]

Your idea of what military power can do, and reality, are what are a long way apart.

You can't sit on bayonets. They aren't going to pay you anything. Bluster all you like, they aren't.

[indthkr]

bump for later..........