South China Sea and China

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Ken White

On the first item, I wouldn't bet on that.

On the second, you can expect that to increase markedly as we near the election in November. After which it will drop precipitously...

I wonder what will be the effect on the US election when the 'educated' are as 'educated' as Sarah Palin, the hockey mom, and believe it or not, the Vice Presidential candidate (sic!) whose foreign policy acumen lies in the fact that she see Russia through her window or Joe the Plumber, who is good at his job, but Foreign Policy?

[Ray]

Of course the requirements are never less. The point is simply that the US has an abundance of gas (it's been described as "the Saudi Arabia of natural gas") and is thus less concerned with foreign gas supplies than with foreign oil supplies.

The whole idea that the SCS is rich in oil and gas reserves has become a mantra, mindlessly repeated without question or analysis. The media love the idea because it raises the prospect of conflict: everybody knows that conflict is "all about oil".

So the question remains: how much oil and gas is really there, by credible estimates? If you looked at the link referenced above, you'll see that, as I pointed out, estimated discovered and undiscovered oil reserves for all of SE Asia, not just the SCS, are a miniscule fraction of the proven reserves in the GCC.

There's a bit more gas in SE Asia than oil but the disparity remains. Estimated discovered and undiscovered gas reserves for all of SE Asia (again, much of this is not in or near the SCS) are 299tcf, per the same USGS report. That's about 1/3 of the proven reserves in Qatar alone. US recoverable reserve estimates are up to 2543tcf.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no tangible evidence that the SCS is or is likely to be anybody's energy "gold mine", to use your phrase. That's why I said above that no matter how much we talk of a shift to the Pacific, the Middle East is likely to continue being an equally large focus of naval attention, maybe a larger focus, for years to come. Policies shift every few years. Where the oil is doesn't shift, and it ain't in SE Asia.

Even if the SCS energy reserves are developed, that oil and gas is goong to be consumed locally, where demand is large and growing, not in the US... and from the US perspective, it doesn't matter at all whether that oil and gas is pumped and used by China, the Philippines, or Vietnam.

The whole SCS energy non-issue is a classic example of a molehill being hyped into a mountain. That's not a "pro-Chinese" or "pro-US" perspective, it's just a feeble attempt to bring some rationality into the conversation.

US Energy import



Abundance or otherwise, the US still requires to import.

Again it is most odd that, for the sake of proving a point, one trots out disingenuous arguments. For instance this one of yours:

no matter how much we talk of a shift to the Pacific, the Middle East is likely to continue being an equally large focus of naval attention, maybe a larger focus, for years to come. Policies shift every few years. Where the oil is doesn't shift, and it ain't in SE Asia.

Anyone who has an iota of understanding strategy (in any field) requires no reminder that one does not put all of one’s eggs in one basket.

As an aide memoir this may help:

When first assuming office as President in early 2001, George W. Bush’s top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction (or any of the other goals he has espoused since 9/11); rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from foreign suppliers to markets in the United States. In the year preceding his assumption of office, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electric-power blackouts in California. In addition, U.S. oil imports had just risen over 50 percent of total U.S. consumption for the first time in American history, provoking great anxiety about the security of America’s long-term energy supply. For these and other reasons, Bush asserted that addressing the nation’s "energy crisis" was his most important task as President.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4458.htm

There is no guarantee that this will not happen again!

And given the way the Arab Spring is throwing up Islamic political forces to head Govts, what is the guarantee that it will be hunky dory for the US or for the West?

One should not forget that even if hypothetically speaking US is flush with oil for her own use, the US cannot let the West sink or else where will be the “Coalition of the Willing’, when the chips are down?

Or will there never the again be requirement of the “Coalition of the Willing’?

That the Caspian basin or CAR or SCS is rich in oil maybe a media mantra, but surely it cannot be their figment of imagination or is it? The media does base their articles on some facts or don’t they? Even if it were catalyst for conflicts, is it being suggested that the Govts of the world are so stupid as to base their policies on media report? It is so outlandish a suggestion that one does not know if it were out of a deficiency of comprehension of the process of policy making or being totally naïve.

One does not really have to remind one of what is 'strategic reserves'. Suffice it to say that one does not depletes one's own resources when one finds the item available in the world market!

In so far as to who uses the oil of SCS this may help in understanding the US’ attitude towards global energy (from the earlier link)

= The implications of all of the above are unmistakable: in its pursuit of ever-growing supplies of imported petroleum, the United States is intruding ever more assertively into the internal affairs of the oil-supplying nations and, in the process, exposing itself to an ever-increasing risk of involvement in local and regional conflict situations. This reality has already influenced U.S. relations with the major oil-producing nations and is sure to have an even greater impact in the future……

an energy plan that calls for increased reliance on the Persian Gulf countries and on other suppliers located in areas of recurring turmoil will not be able to overcome every conceivable threat to American energy interests through economic and diplomatic efforts alone. At some point, it may prove impossible to ensure access to a particular source of oil without the use of military force.….

What we have, therefore, is a two-pronged strategy that effectively governs U.S. policy toward much of the world. One arm of this strategy is aimed at securing more oil from the rest of the world; the other is aimed at enhancing America’s capacity to intervene in exactly such locales. And while these two objectives have arisen from different sets of concerns, one energy-driven and the other security-driven, they have merged into a single, integrated design for American world dominance in the 21st Century. And it is this combination of strategies, more than anything else, that will govern America’s international behavior in the decades ahead

:
Trying to stay with the point, the US has not committed itself to protecting anyone in SE Asia, and certainly isn't like to exchange such a commitment for access to resources that aren't even all that remarkable. The idea that the US is going to protect the SE Asian nations in exchange for access to energy reserves just doesn't hold up to examination. The reserves aren't that exciting and no commitment of protection has been made... so what's to talk about, beyond speculation?

I'm honestly not all that interested in the statements or travels of officials. Lots of talk, but they are always talking. We won't know what any of it means until and unless actual policy changes or force redeployments are made. Until (and unless) that happens, any assessment of where the talk is going remains highly speculative at best.

That is the most extraordinary statement –

, the US has not committed itself to protecting anyone in SE Asia

Are you suggesting that you lay down the policies for the US?

Are you suggesting that Admiral ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND is daft to testify
BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND POSTURE when he states:

 The need to continuously manage and optimize U.S. alliances and strengthen regional partnerships, in particular, advancing the relationship with India.

 China’s military modernization – in particular its active development of capabilities in the cyber and space domains – and the questions all these emerging military capabilities raise among China’s neighbors about its current and long-term intentions

And are the Senate Committee and the Govt constituted to merely hear fairy tales, having nothing better to do?

You do project the US governance instruments in real poor light.

It is your prerogative to find the travels and statements of the US leaders as puerile and justifiably so since it is not your tax money they are burning to keep the US and the US interest safe.

What really astonishes me is that two ‘wars’ against rag tag lots (Iraq and Afghanistan) has done such wonders as to Americans wanting peace at all cost and being ever ready to abandon their pristine role that they had charted ever since WWII and have lost all their bravado, brouhaha and gung ho!

The meek shall inherit the Earth.

China is going about it with its meek aggressiveness.

[Ray]

A clarification

NO country is altruistic.

Therefore, to project that China is ever so good and others including the US are negatively aggressive, it appears to be purely motivated and agenda driven, for reason best known to such folks.

[Dayuhan]

All this talk of oil and gas misses the point completely. According to the USGS (link provided above), SE Asian reserve estimates are extremely modest. Even if developed, there's simply not enough there for significant exports to the US or anywhere else... in fact even if these resources were fully developed, given the rate at which consumption in that region is growing, the region would still have to import. It's not as if there's nothing there, but it is in no sense of the word a "gold mine", and it's in no way significant enough for the US to go to war over. If you don't believe that, look carefully at the reserve estimates published by USGS, do some research on the percentage of reserves that are typically recoverable, and compare to other energy-producing areas.

Chinese estimates are higher, but they have not published any data to support those estimates or anything that indicates how those estimates were derived, and it's unlikely that the US would base its planning on Chinese estimates, especially when they are wildly inconsistent with those of its own specialists.

Originally Posted by Ray

That the Caspian basin or CAR or SCS is rich in oil maybe a media mantra, but surely it cannot be their figment of imagination or is it? The media does base their articles on some facts or don’t they?

News media often handle facts very loosely indeed. In this case the media say one thing about SE Asian oil reserves, the USGS says another. Who are you going to believe, the newsman or the geologist?

Originally Posted by Ray

Even if it were catalyst for conflicts, is it being suggested that the Govts of the world are so stupid as to base their policies on media report?

I do not think any government would base its assessment of energy reserves on media reports. I think the US government is probably basing its assessment of SE Asian energy reserves on what it hears from USGS. That's why I don't think US involvement in the region is driven by a desire to get the energy: because the US agency that informs the government doesn't seem to think reserves are all that large.

That's also why I think that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does. Take away all the talk, look at the numbers. There are energy reserves in a number of places, but SE Asia is way down the list. That's not to say the US has no interest, but the interest is not driven by a desire to get energy, and any talk of an energy "gold mine" for the US is way off base.

Originally Posted by Ray

That is the most extraordinary statement –


Are you suggesting that you lay down the policies for the US?

Certainly not. It was a simple statement of fact. The US has not committed itself to protect anyone in SE Asia, and it has not committed itself to protect Taiwan. The preference seems to be to maintain a level of strategic ambiguity, leaving everyone in the picture wondering what the US would or would not do in the event of conflict.

I don't think that's an unreasonable policy, as it allows the US to put a response together according to the needs of any given time, unburdened by previous commitment.

Originally Posted by Ray

What really astonishes me is that two ‘wars’ against rag tag lots (Iraq and Afghanistan) has done such wonders as to Americans wanting peace at all cost and being ever ready to abandon their pristine role that they had charted ever since WWII and have lost all their bravado, brouhaha and gung ho!

The Vietnamese, the Filipinos, and a whole lot of others would tell you that the US role since WW2 has been anything but "pristine". I think the US is trying to accept reality and straighten out its act a bit... no perfection there of course, but there never is.

Why would one not want peace? Certainly not at all cost, but what unacceptable cost looms in the SCS? There's a bit of simmering going on and the situation bares watching, but I don't see how it calls for strutting confrontation, bombastic saber-rattling, or any other form of posturing. We've worked through far riskier situations and there's no reason this can't be worked through as well.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Ray

I wonder what will be the effect on the US election when the 'educated' are as 'educated' as Sarah Palin, the hockey mom, and believe it or not, the Vice Presidential candidate (sic!) whose foreign policy acumen lies in the fact that she see Russia through her window or Joe the Plumber, who is good at his job, but Foreign Policy?

That's why Jedburgh, Dayuhan and I all criticized the pathetic US educational system which in 60 years has gone from being one of the best in the world to one that is atrocious and is failing.

A significant problem is that many of the 'educated' in this country are not really educated, they are instead indoctrinated, convinced of their own rectitude, have degrees in something studies -- and fail to understand their own ignorance.

All why I say that there a lot of little old retired NKVD / MVD/ KGB guys watching CNN over their Vodka in Ekaterineburg who get a lot of chuckles from Sarah and Joe. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams...

However, the saving grace is that while we collectively get a lot of things wrong, we seem, mostly, to get the big ones about right. We may or may not continue to do so. We'll see.

I will note that it is sort of incongruous of you to state the US is super smart and has grand and great designs on the one hand while dismissing Hanlon's Razor (never attribute to malice that which is engendered by stupidity...) and on the other, to realize that the flaws you mention above are prevalent. Can't have it both ways. Or can we...

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Ray

A clarification

NO country is altruistic.

Therefore, to project that China is ever so good and others including the US are negatively aggressive, it appears to be purely motivated and agenda driven, for reason best known to such folks.

I have not seen anyone here who is doing that? If you believe you have seen that, could it be that your agenda drives your perception?

What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...). Most seem to me to state the US certainly pursues its own interests and the while doing so it may maintain a fiction of innocence -- but all nations do that. All as you say, none are altruistic nor are many innocent.

No two, three or more of the largest nations are going to be either of those things while none are likely to be totally ill intentioned and that accords generally, IMO, with what appears on this board...

[Ray]

All this talk of oil and gas misses the point completely. According to the USGS (link provided above), SE Asian reserve estimates are extremely modest. Even if developed, there's simply not enough there for significant exports to the US or anywhere else... in fact even if these resources were fully developed, given the rate at which consumption in that region is growing, the region would still have to import. It's not as if there's nothing there, but it is in no sense of the word a "gold mine", and it's in no way significant enough for the US to go to war over. If you don't believe that, look carefully at the reserve estimates published by USGS, do some research on the percentage of reserves that are typically recoverable, and compare to other energy-producing areas.

Chinese estimates are higher, but they have not published any data to support those estimates or anything that indicates how those estimates were derived, and it's unlikely that the US would base its planning on Chinese estimates, especially when they are wildly inconsistent with those of its own specialists.

All this talk about oil and gas does not miss the point at all.

Without going into the obvious, there is no doubt that Crude Oil has had profound impact on the world civilization than any single natural resource in recorded history


Oil is a finite item. It impinges on the ‘health’ of the world, socially, economically and even politically.


Therefore, the desire of powerful nations to acquire areas where there is potential oil or, at least, be a cognisable influencing factor. Hence, it is not merely having abundance available domestically, but also be able to influence the oil industry and the markets by regulating the oil supply to the world and thereby deciding on the price of oil and thus the calculus of the world economies. The US’ influence on the OPEC to increase oil production to tide over economic problems requires no elaboration.

The country that can influence the countries that produce oil and also influence the market, thus, also can influence the calculus of world economics. It makes Oil a powerful weapon to shape the destiny of the world.

The discovery of oil beyond the Middle East and known oil producing countries may not affect the US consumption demand as is current, but to leave it out of the US’ Sphere of Influence’ would weaken the hold that the US has on the destiny and development of the world, the world development being highly dependent on the use of oil.

Before, the facts in the above paragraph be perfunctorily in an Oracle like fashion be dismissed, it would be worth noting that the US has been hard at it to overthrow Chavez and the problems of Nigeria is not that the tribals have gone wild! It may not be known but Nigeria has some very highly educated and competent people. I refrain from commenting on the underlying rationale about the Arab Spring because it is too simplistic to believe that democracy has suddenly visited obscurantist Arabs when historically since Islam came into being in ancient times, democracy was never even thought of and instead oppressive Sultans and regimes ruled them, mostly under the laws of the Sharia!


It all boils down to the fact that oil is a political weapon.

Therefore, oil is not only a functionary in the well being of the population of a single country, but also that of the world, the comity of nations being interdependent on the economic well being.

The sum total being that the nation that can influence the trade of oil and can control it is but the arbiter of international political and economic equations.

An interesting fact is that Oil is not only used as a political weapon internationally as it is being done against Iran currently to Iran’s economic and social discomfort, but it has been done to influence domestic politics of other nations too!

In 2000, Gore was the de facto incumbent. The economy was still OK, but oil prices had definitely risen in the 12 months before the election. It was an open secret that the Arab countries -- led by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- did not want Gore as president and they played a role in keeping oil prices high. (Remember in the summer of 2000 as prices rose the Clinton administration even moved to sell off some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?)
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...9/125155.shtml

Even though oil is a political weapon as has been and is being demonstrated that it was always a political weapon is summarised thus:

The concept of oil as a weapon first appeared in 1935-1936 when the League of Nations considered using oil sanctions against Mussolini's Italy. The League could not use the oil embargo against Italy because it was not able to stop the supply from third-country sellers.
The U.S. used oil sanctions for the first time against Japan in 1941. The reason for the embargo was Japan's occupation of China. The measure was effective, but only because Japan's oil supply routes were vulnerable, and more importantly, 80% of the oil in Japan was coming from the United States. Roger Stern argues in his research paper "Oil Market and United States National Security"that the Pearl Harbor attack was a countermeasure to the oil weapon.
The real danger to the US national security is not the oil, but the power of oil cartels over the market. The manipulation of supply and prices is more dangerous than all fears related to the scarcity of oil. We hypothesize that threats do arise in the oil market, not from the oil weapon but from the cartel's management of abundance. The opposite to the fears: the oil weapon seems an implausible threat when the economic, geographic, and military attributes of prospective user and victim are considered.
(Paraphrased from http://www.themontrealreview.com/200...s-a-weapon.php)

Iran is in dire straits because of the embargo put on world nations not to import Iranian oil.

That is why oil has become the concern of governments, a vital ingredient of their politics and a crucial factor in the political and diplomatic strategies.

Hence SCS oil or oil anywhere is of import to the US, if it is to ‘influence’ its production and hence control the international market. And it if falls into Chinese hands, US’ influence on the calculus of world economics will take a toss and its influence as a global power would be cast asunder.

An interesting side note that I found was that the American with only about 5% of the total world population and 28% of global GDP in 2006 consumes about 25% of the world’s total oil production and 40% of the world’s gasoline production.

News media often handle facts very loosely indeed. In this case the media say one thing about SE Asian oil reserves, the USGS says another. Who are you going to believe, the newsman or the geologist?

I would believe only the oil companies who have invested in the oilfields and the pipelines to Europe because rarely do businessmen fall under the category of ‘A Fool and his money are soon parted’.

I do not think any government would base its assessment of energy reserves on media reports. I think the US government is probably basing its assessment of SE Asian energy reserves on what it hears from USGS. That's why I don't think US involvement in the region is driven by a desire to get the energy: because the US agency that informs the government doesn't seem to think reserves are all that large.

That's also why I think that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does. Take away all the talk, look at the numbers. There are energy reserves in a number of places, but SE Asia is way down the list. That's not to say the US has no interest, but the interest is not driven by a desire to get energy, and any talk of an energy "gold mine" for the US is way off base.

Why the US is interested in the SCS, I have tried to give my point of view above.

I, for one, don’t subscribe to your view that - ‘ that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does.

Correct me if I am wrong, when the Iraq War took place, did the Pacific Command of the Third and Seventh Fleets steam off to Iraq?

If they didn’t, then I wonder what greater catastrophe would make them steam off to the Middle East and leave a void in the Pacific.

Unlike you, I do have faith in the US military and the US Govt and like to believe that they are competent.

[Ray]

[Quote:]Originally Posted by Ray
That is the most extraordinary statement –


Are you suggesting that you lay down the policies for the US?

Certainly not. It was a simple statement of fact. The US has not committed itself to protect anyone in SE Asia, and it has not committed itself to protect Taiwan. The preference seems to be to maintain a level of strategic ambiguity, leaving everyone in the picture wondering what the US would or would not do in the event of conflict.

I don't think that's an unreasonable policy, as it allows the US to put a response together according to the needs of any given time, unburdened by previous commitment.

[/QUOTE]

You leave me bewildered.

You had stated

Trying to stay with the point, the US has not committed itself to protecting anyone in SE Asia

And that runs contrary to what the person entrusted to protect US interests in the Pacific, ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD has stated:

 The need to continuously manage and optimize U.S. alliances and strengthen regional partnerships, in particular, advancing the relationship with India.

 China’s military modernization – in particular its active development of capabilities in the cyber and space domains – and the questions all these emerging military capabilities raise among China’s neighbors about its current and long-term intentions

So who is right.?

You, an expat in the Philippines or the US Admiral who is entrusted to shape the US destiny in the Pacific?

The Vietnamese, the Filipinos, and a whole lot of others would tell you that the US role since WW2 has been anything but "pristine". I think the US is trying to accept reality and straighten out its act a bit... no perfection there of course, but there never is.

Why would one not want peace? Certainly not at all cost, but what unacceptable cost looms in the SCS? There's a bit of simmering going on and the situation bares watching, but I don't see how it calls for strutting confrontation, bombastic saber-rattling, or any other form of posturing. We've worked through far riskier situations and there's no reason this can't be worked through as well.

In this very forum I was told that one of the US instincts is that the desire for ‘revenge’ or word to that effect when I wondered if the US is to pull out before it has achieved it aims, why did the US come to Afghanistan in the first place! In other words, it was conveyed that no one can fool around with the US.

Even the US Presidents have categorically stated that they will hunt down anyone who works against the US and its citizens.

Rhetoric?

I wonder; more so, since they got OBL finally when the sceptics thought it was all gas (hot air) and no go!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Ken White

That's why Jedburgh, Dayuhan and I all criticized the pathetic US educational system which in 60 years has gone from being one of the best in the world to one that is atrocious and is failing.

A significant problem is that many of the 'educated' in this country are not really educated, they are instead indoctrinated, convinced of their own rectitude, have degrees in something studies -- and fail to understand their own ignorance.

All why I say that there a lot of little old retired NKVD / MVD/ KGB guys watching CNN over their Vodka in Ekaterineburg who get a lot of chuckles from Sarah and Joe. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams...

However, the saving grace is that while we collectively get a lot of things wrong, we seem, mostly, to get the big ones about right. We may or may not continue to do so. We'll see.

I will note that it is sort of incongruous of you to state the US is super smart and has grand and great designs on the one hand while dismissing Hanlon's Razor (never attribute to malice that which is engendered by stupidity...) and on the other, to realize that the flaws you mention above are prevalent. Can't have it both ways. Or can we...

'If US education standards are so poor as you claim, then whatever the US Administration is doing in the Asia Pacific region will have no effect.

Therefore, how does all these activities affect the US election as you were trying to suggest?

It is not incongruous at all as to what I was saying about the US policies being very focused.

Like it or not, neither Obama, Ms Clinton, Panneta and others appear to be of the same genre as Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber.

And if you will forgive me, there are many US posters here too and they would hardly be classified to be of the genre of Sarah Palin, let alone Joe the Plumber.

Therefore, I do not subscribe to the theory that US education across the board is pathetic as you wish to convey.
You do injustice to many, sir!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Ken White

I have not seen anyone here who is doing that? If you believe you have seen that, could it be that your agenda drives your perception?

What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...). Most seem to me to state the US certainly pursues its own interests and the while doing so it may maintain a fiction of innocence -- but all nations do that. All as you say, none are altruistic nor are many innocent.

No two, three or more of the largest nations are going to be either of those things while none are likely to be totally ill intentioned and that accords generally, IMO, with what appears on this board...

Sir,

You are too good a man to notice these issues!

One has to have an eye for detail!

Some see a glass half full and some see it as half empty.

So, who is right?

It is not I alone who feels so.

Observe this comment:

A previous comment of yours in a thread about cyber-espionage demonstrated that you have a poor understanding of information security concepts. Combine that with your reflexive apologizing for China, and I’m not sure your opinion alone on this matter is worth a damn.

Post #4
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...495#post136495

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Ken White

I have not seen anyone here who is doing that? If you believe you have seen that, could it be that your agenda drives your perception?

What I've read is that those who do not totally support you or Carl in the 'China is totally e-vul' mantra is that she is evil but no more totally than any other nation, that she does deserve respect due to size and capabilities and that she may not be benign but that fear is not necessary -- or desirable (complicates thinking and planning...). Most seem to me to state the US certainly pursues its own interests and the while doing so it may maintain a fiction of innocence -- but all nations do that. All as you say, none are altruistic nor are many innocent.

No two, three or more of the largest nations are going to be either of those things while none are likely to be totally ill intentioned and that accords generally, IMO, with what appears on this board...

NO country is evil.

Each country is pursuing their agenda.

Could you tell us as to why is the US acting like a Big Brother in the SCS?

Let China solve it with other Asians, right?

On the one hand, posters like you want bask in being the head honcho and on the other hand, you want to be politically correct and oh la la la.

Why are you in Afghanistan or why did you invade Iraq if people like you fee that you are ever so benign and are not interested in global geostrategy or geopolitics?

You claim that all things happening in the SCS is election oriented and then you claim US education is tripe and that people who are educated are actually illiterates suggesting that they have no idea of foreign issues or policies!

One cannot be hypocrites depending on the flavour of the moment!

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

Without going into the obvious, there is no doubt that Crude Oil has had profound impact on the world civilization than any single natural resource in recorded history

Undoubtedly so. The point you're not addressing is that according to the USGS - the agency that informs the US Government on matters pertaining to oil and gas reserves - the quantity of such reserves to be had in SE Asia is extremely limited, despite the repetitious exaggerations in media reports. Hence it is difficult to believe that anyone making decisions in the US sees the SCS as a potential energy "gold mine", or that energy resources are a major factor drawing US attention to the reason. That's true precisely because oil is important, and one seeks oil where your scientists say it is, not where the newspapers say it is.

Originally Posted by Ray

The discovery of oil beyond the Middle East and known oil producing countries may not affect the US consumption demand as is current, but to leave it out of the US’ Sphere of Influence’ would weaken the hold that the US has on the destiny and development of the world, the world development being highly dependent on the use of oil.

So why should the potential presence of very small amounts of oil in an area tht is in actual point of fact outside the US sphere of influence be a major factor in US policy?

Again, there just isn't that much oil there.
.

Originally Posted by Ray

I would believe only the oil companies who have invested in the oilfields and the pipelines to Europe

Do you see the oil majors flocking to SE Asia?

Originally Posted by Ray

I, for one, don’t subscribe to your view that - ‘ that despite all the talk of a shift to the Pacific, you're going to see the Navy hustling back to the Middle East if trouble stirs up over there, which it inevitably does.

Correct me if I am wrong, when the Iraq War took place, did the Pacific Command of the Third and Seventh Fleets steam off to Iraq?

If they didn’t, then I wonder what greater catastrophe would make them steam off to the Middle East and leave a void in the Pacific.

I'll be more specific: if (when) trouble resumes in the ME, that region will be restored to the disproportionately high weighting in US deployments that it has had for the last few decades. Yes, there will still be forces elsewhere, just as there will still be forces in the ME after the discussed "shift to the Pacific". I thought that obvious; apparently I was wrong.

Originally Posted by Ray

Unlike you, I do have faith in the US military and the US Govt and like to believe that they are competent.

Take that up with JMA sometime, just for our amusement.

Originally Posted by Ray

You leave me bewildered.

It seems a habitual state.

Originally Posted by Ray

You had stated

And that runs contrary to what the person entrusted to protect US interests in the Pacific, ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD has stated:

So who is right.?

I see nothing in Admiral Willard's statement that commits the US to protect any nation.

Originally Posted by Ray

Even the US Presidents have categorically stated that they will hunt down anyone who works against the US and its citizens.

Rhetoric?

I wonder; more so, since they got OBL finally when the sceptics thought it was all gas (hot air) and no go!

OBL was, alas for him, devoid of nukes. The Chinese are not, nor have they attacked America or Americans. We do a lot of business with them. We disagree on a number of things, as we do with others elsewhere, but not not on anything sufficiently compelling to provoke violence.

I have noticed on a number of threads pertaining to China that there are a few people around who seem to believe that anyone who fails to cast China as an absolute enemy that must be challenged and confronted at every possible opportunity is therefore apologizing for China or taking a pro-Chinese line. That seems a strange opinion to me, but people are strange (Jim Morrison said so, and I believe him), and of course they are entitled to whatever opinions they like, just as others are free to put forth contrasting opinions.

[Bob's World]

Dayuhan,

I was surfing radio channels on the way to work the other day, and on one channel the commentator were accusing anyone who did not agree completely with Israeli policies and US support to them as being "anti semitic." I thought I must be mistaken, so I listened a while and it became clear I had heard right the first time.

There seems to be a great deal of "conform or be labeled in some hateful way" going on. I take that as a metric of how irrational many of those positions are becoming. Sad.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Ray

'If US education standards are so poor as you claim, then whatever the US Administration is doing in the Asia Pacific region will have no effect.

Umm. No. They will have an effect, just not a well designed, well planned and competently executed effect. Unintended consequences are an effect. Some effects will be intended, some will not be but they will occur and the level of education in the US has little to do with that; it's mostly a function of our somewhat chaotic political system and the fact that we pay little real attention to international affairs until crises occur -- our focus, unfortunately, is inward...

Therefore, how does all these activities affect the US election as you were trying to suggest?

I believe I said it was an attempt to affect the election (you may have noted I agreed with Carl that it likely wouldn't make much difference) and that by generating 'problems' which the Administration is 'working mightily to solve.'

It is not incongruous at all as to what I was saying about the US policies being very focused.

Like it or not, neither Obama, Ms Clinton, Panneta and others appear to be of the same genre as Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber.

Nope, different genres. The first three may be a little sharper (or appear to be) than the last two -- or they may just have better staff and advisors. [quote]And if you will forgive me, there are many US posters here too and they would hardly be classified to be of the genre of Sarah Palin, let alone Joe the Plumber.

Therefore, I do not subscribe to the theory that US education across the board is pathetic as you wish to convey.[quote]Your choice. I live here, you read a lot...

You do injustice to many, sir!

No, I do not. You're quite wrong. The nominal 50% of the nation's populace that is less well educated than the other 50% are not in that situation due to choice; they are mostly there due to the fact that system failed them. I criticize that system, not the people who suffer due to its failures.

BTW, do not make the mistake of believing that the Sarahs and Joes, that unfortunate 50% less well educated are incompetent boobs. They are not. They may not be as sophisticated as some or as erudite but they aren't stupid. Joe for example was far more correct on the economy than was Obama.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Ray

Therefore, I do not subscribe to the theory that US education across the board is pathetic as you wish to convey.

Control of public education in the United States is localized and so by definition variable. There are certainly some excellent public schools in the United States but access to them is a crapshoot. (My home state runs a residential secondary school for promising students in response to this fact. There aren’t many slots and it’s rather late in the game at that point, but hey, it’s something.) So U.S. education isn’t across-the-board pathetic, just generally so.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Ray

NO country is evil.

Is that your statement or is purported to be one of mine? Dunno. What I do know is that they are all a mix of good and evil and that which factor is on top varies from time to time and according to one's perspective...

Each country is pursuing their agenda.

Well, yeah...

Could you tell us as to why is the US acting like a Big Brother in the SCS?

Uh, because it's in our perceived interest at this time to do so?

Let China solve it with other Asians, right?

If you wish -- not what I said or believe.

On the one hand, posters like you want bask in being the head honcho and on the other hand, you want to be politically correct and oh la la la.

Lemme tell you something, RSM to Brigadier, last time I was politically correct you were probably not yet weaned.

Head Honcho? Bask in that? -- pain in the tail and we don't do it very well. So no, I don't bask in it; bring back the Pax Britannica, I say. Most Americans, I think would agree. However, most also agree one has to do what one has to do (I just wish we were better at sorting what must be done versus what can be done... ). That, in essence is what I contend in this thread; just that we can do things stupidly or not, our call and it must be oen that we make, not what is necessarily best for others though that is certainly a consideration.

Why are you in Afghanistan or why did you invade Iraq if people like you fee that you are ever so benign and are not interested in global geostrategy or geopolitics?

You're getting confused. I am possibly one the most far from benign persons with whom you have ever exchanged words. I have no problem with violence and no problem with the US -- or India, any nation -- taking care of their interests. I simply think that taking care of those interest wisely instead of precipitously make sense.

I happen to be interested in geostrategy and global politics as many in the US are. Fortunately or unfortunately, most American aren't all that much interested -- just as I suspect most Indians are less concerned about those matters than you happen to be. Our experiences define us.

You claim that all things happening in the SCS is election oriented...

That is incorrect -- I said the hyperactivity (your word...) of SecDef and SecState and its attendant publicity was directed at the election. I admit that I should have caveated that by saying much of the activity -- the Shangri La Conference and some of the other items have been planned for years. So their attendance was foreordained and serves a purpose -- the flurry of publicity about that attendance though is aimed at 'look what we're doing.'

and then you claim US education is tripe...

Yes, I surely did -- I firmly believe that, too...

Are there exceptions? Of course but we as a nation have definitely regressed in educating our children. The Colleges and Universities do better but even they are not what they once were.

and that people who are educated are actually illiterates suggesting that they have no idea of foreign issues or policies!

Wrong again -- didn't say or imply that. Here's what I said:

""A significant problem is that many of the 'educated' in this country are not really educated, they are instead indoctrinated, convinced of their own rectitude, have degrees in something studies -- and fail to understand their own ignorance.""

Note I did NOT say or imply that anyone you and I discussed in this thread was among the number of not really educated or failed to understand their own ignorance -- that I di so was your incorrect assumption. You also missed the fact that I placed part of the blame for many of the failures of our education system where I believe it belongs:

""All why I say that there a lot of little old retired NKVD / MVD/ KGB guys watching CNN over their Vodka in Ekaterineburg who get a lot of chuckles from Sarah and Joe. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.""

Not only did they succeed in infiltrating and corrupting western educational systems, they also succeeded in finding all the fault lines on the Maps created by former Colonial Powers and instigating long lasting troubles (See, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir et.al.)

One cannot be hypocrites depending on the flavour of the moment!

True that. None here. Read and quote more carefully and thus avoid standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions...

As an aside re: your question on why Afghanistan and Iraq; in both cases because four previous Presidents had failed to adequately respond to probes and minor attacks emanating form the ME and had thus unintentionally encouraged escalation in those efforts. G. W. Bush did what need to be done -- and then, being a nice guy and deciding it was in our interest, stayed longer in both nations than we really needed to -- but that's another thread.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ken White

I believe I said it was an attempt to affect the election (you may have noted I agreed with Carl that it likely wouldn't make much difference) and that by generating 'problems' which the Administration is 'working mightily to solve.

It probably won't make much difference, but it does solve a problem for the administration's campaign. Americans are generally unaware of foreign policy details, but they do notice some broad strokes. As a general rule they want leaders to appear assertive, strong and tough. In today's specific environment, they also want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration then has the problem of trying to appear tough and assertive while engaged in what many will perceive as a retreat.

Enter the shift to the Pacific. China is a bully! We will deploy 60% of our fleet to the Pacific! Of course those looking at the fine print know that we are actually taking great pains to avoid confronting China or committing ourselves to support any of those who feel threatened by China. Those tuned in to detail will also note that the 60% shift is proposed "by 2020", by which time Obama will be out of office and policies will be (naturally) realigned to meet the needs of that day, which may or may not involve Pacific deployments.

In short, there's not a lot of substance to it so far, but it's going to provide some beautiful assertive Presidential-sounding quotes for the upcoming campaign. No, we're not retreating from Afghanistan, we're realigning forces to meet the needs and challenges of the brilliant future to which I and only I can lead you!

I'm actually not anti-Obama, but politics are what they are.

Originally Posted by ganulv

So U.S. education isn’t across-the-board pathetic, just generally so.

[rant]

To get back on my personal panic-stricken hysteria hobbyhorse, proficiency in math and reading is only the tip of the iceberg. What's even more worrisome is the loss of competitiveness, self-discipline, work ethic, and the "soft skills" like showing up on time, accepting supervision, working in groups, etc. That's not all about the schools, parenting is also a big issue, but it's a real problem. An entitlement society where people don't want to study demanding fields where some answers are wrong is going to be poorly equipped to survive in a really competitive world.

As I said elsewhere, a society where astrologers outnumber astronomers 100 to 1 doesn't need to look across the ocean for threats.

[/rant]

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Dayuhan,

I was surfing radio channels on the way to work the other day, and on one channel the commentator were accusing anyone who did not agree completely with Israeli policies and US support to them as being "anti semitic." I thought I must be mistaken, so I listened a while and it became clear I had heard right the first time.

There seems to be a great deal of "conform or be labeled in some hateful way" going on. I take that as a metric of how irrational many of those positions are becoming. Sad.

Nothing to be sad about, if I may console you.

One may make a statesmen, but one has to justify it to be believable.

One cannot be Sir Oracle as some have been!

That 'I said so and Period'!

In Punjabi that attitude is Main Dasiya.

I cannot be clubbed in the category since not only I explain but also gives links to justify.

Others merely state that they know all and the US is made up of low IQ people even in Govt and are mere bumbling dolts

Now, I wonder if that is right. If so, one wonders if the US voter also is as cretinous as is being made out to be.

Be apologetic and champion of China.

But prove that they are right and others are wrong.

Why escape this and go beating about the Bush and state others are wrong and are misunderstanding.

If indeed other are wrong and misunderstanding the Chinese, let us know how.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

[rant]

To get back on my personal panic-stricken hysteria hobbyhorse, proficiency in math and reading is only the tip of the iceberg. What's even more worrisome is the loss of competitiveness, self-discipline, work ethic, and the "soft skills" like showing up on time, accepting supervision, working in groups, etc. That's not all about the schools, parenting is also a big issue, but it's a real problem. An entitlement society where people don't want to study demanding fields where some answers are wrong is going to be poorly equipped to survive in a really competitive world.

As I said elsewhere, a society where astrologers outnumber astronomers 100 to 1 doesn't need to look across the ocean for threats.

[/rant]

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Undoubtedly so. The point you're not addressing is that according to the USGS - the agency that informs the US Government on matters pertaining to oil and gas reserves - the quantity of such reserves to be had in SE Asia is extremely limited, despite the repetitious exaggerations in media reports. Hence it is difficult to believe that anyone making decisions in the US sees the SCS as a potential energy "gold mine", or that energy resources are a major factor drawing US attention to the reason. That's true precisely because oil is important, and one seeks oil where your scientists say it is, not where the newspapers say it is.



So why should the potential presence of very small amounts of oil in an area tht is in actual point of fact outside the US sphere of influence be a major factor in US policy?

Again, there just isn't that much oil there.
.


Do you see the oil majors flocking to SE Asia?



I'll be more specific: if (when) trouble resumes in the ME, that region will be restored to the disproportionately high weighting in US deployments that it has had for the last few decades. Yes, there will still be forces elsewhere, just as there will still be forces in the ME after the discussed "shift to the Pacific". I thought that obvious; apparently I was wrong.



Take that up with JMA sometime, just for our amusement.



It seems a habitual state.



I see nothing in Admiral Willard's statement that commits the US to protect any nation.



OBL was, alas for him, devoid of nukes. The Chinese are not, nor have they attacked America or Americans. We do a lot of business with them. We disagree on a number of things, as we do with others elsewhere, but not not on anything sufficiently compelling to provoke violence.

I have noticed on a number of threads pertaining to China that there are a few people around who seem to believe that anyone who fails to cast China as an absolute enemy that must be challenged and confronted at every possible opportunity is therefore apologizing for China or taking a pro-Chinese line. That seems a strange opinion to me, but people are strange (Jim Morrison said so, and I believe him), and of course they are entitled to whatever opinions they like, just as others are free to put forth contrasting opinions.

1. You tend to selectively pick and chose what I write for your replies. An ingenuous mode to appear relevant. Do take the whole issue and then discuss.

Read what I have written on Oil and it being a political, social and even a military weapon.

Also read how and why sanctions by the League of Nations on Italy did not work. And why it workled elsewhere.

Read also why in Venezuela, apart from other nations subjected to the US 'wrath', the US is hell bent to get rid of Chavez!

Then apply it to the present. Check Iran for starters and why US has forced others to cut down, if not cease using Iranian oil and gas.

2. You conveniently interpret statements (that I append with links) to suit your convenience. It is most amusing that you expect Admiral Willard to state that the Pacific Fleet is to committed to protect Nation A or B. I have never heard such a preposterous mission aim during peacetime. Most amusing to say the least. I am also delighted to learn that you find the Admiral's testimony redundant and incorrect. TO imagine he is paid to command a Pacific Command after what you have told us!

Next you will expect NATO to state that they are to protect specific Nations!

Indeed you bewilder. If bewilderment is my habitual state as far as your post is concerned, I am not surprised. If a person has a one point agenda and has blinkers on and a tunnel vision, what else can the other person be but bewildered since elaborate explanation and with links does not elicit a reply that is laced with logic and instead it forces itself with selective picking and an exuberance in an Oraclish pontification!