The Andrew Bacevich collection

[Danny]

I will not criticize or speak against a man who has lost a son in the war. I hope that that is a feeling I never experience. Bacevich has a right to hold any position he wants. But the one proferred here is the tired "we went to war for oil" meme, so incorrect that it doesn't warrant the time spent to refute it. Discussion threads at the SWC have graduated beyond that meme.

I'm all in favor a national energy policy, something we have never had as a country. But assuming that we have the grandest policy imaginable in the future (drill for oil off our own shores, start up another hundred nuclear reactors, electric cars, etc., etc.), it will have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with battling militant, Islamic extremism where it exists.

As for whether we do this overseas or within the homeland, well, take your pick. Don't be surprised if you choose to wage counterinsurgency on the homeland soil and that's actually what happens. In other words, be careful what you ask for. The "evils" of imperialism have kept the battle off of the homeland soil thus far. We have enjoyed peace and stability, including Bacevich who believes it's all about oil.

I understand the dangers of imperialism. There are consequences - and unintended consequences - to both isolationism and imperialism. But the long war - as Abizaid called it - will go on until one side or the other capitulates, one way or the other, one place or the other.

[Ken White]

cited here is that they were testifying truth to power in every sense.

Most of their testimony is essentially correct; one could quibble about war for oil and reindustrialization plus a few others but those cited are basically correct in their assertions. We need to fix a lot of things.

Every thing we need to fix that we can indeed actually fix can be laid directly at the feet of Congress. This or that President may have facilitated what Congress wanted but those guys only serve for four or eight years -- as all the testimony above shows, we've been headed downhill since the '60s. Only the Congress has been around that long. So congress can do the fixing. Somehow, I doubt Congress will fix itself...

Thus, we need to fix Congress.

[Tacitus]

But the one proferred here is the tired "we went to war for oil" meme, so incorrect that it doesn't warrant the time spent to refute it. Discussion threads at the SWC have graduated beyond that meme.

Well, I guess we went to war in Afghanistan because of the attacks on 9/11.

As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.

[Ken White]

...As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.

was that it could be invaded with minimal disturbance to world oil supply -- and we really want China and India, two large users of ME Oil, to have all the Oil they need with no interruptions. There were some other synergistic effect involving oil but they were minor and paled into insignificance alongside the no-disruption factor and Iraq's geographical centrality in the ME and its pariah status at the time.

Thus the oil issue is not Iraq's oil but that in the greater ME.

[wm]

Well, I guess we went to war in Afghanistan because of the attacks on 9/11.

As to why we are at war in Iraq, it seems pretty persuasive to me that petroleum has something to do with it. If Iraq's principal economic resource was that it was rich in say, carrots, I doubt we'd be that interested in the goings on in Mesopotamia.

I think it may be tied more to forward basing for American troops than to oil for American automobiles. However, I suspect that Ken White's point about oil for China and India is an important piece of the whole decision. We wouldn't want either of those countries pulling a "1930's and 40's Japan plan" to get access to petroleum resources, would we?

So, if I'm right, how does the latest from Iraq on troop withdrawal timetables fit into the way ahead? Where else do we go to replace all those kasernes and POMCUS sites in Germany?
Diego Garcia isn't big enough; Romania is too far from the -stans; Afghanistan is too inaccessible. Do we retrench back into Kuwait or try to work a deal in
Oman?
Maybe the Iranians wouldn't mind if we just took up a small enclave around Bandar-e Abbas. After all, China had no problems with such efforts by European powers in places like Hong Kong and Tsingtao in the latter 1800s, right?

[Fuchs]

So, if I'm right, how does the latest from Iraq on troop withdrawal timetables fit into the way ahead? Where else do we go to replace all those kasernes and POMCUS sites in Germany?
Diego Garcia isn't big enough; Romania is too far from the -stans; Afghanistan is too inaccessible. Do we retrench back into Kuwait or try to work a deal in
Oman?

Turkey is ideal.

Ukraine and Georgia, two countries that are still in between NATO and Russia, are in range.
Iran, Syria, Iraq are very close as well.
The Suez channel is in strike range.

Turkey is getting alienated by Europeans because we don't want them to join the EU (actually, our politicians want it much more than the population).
They have no history of being colonialised, so they might not object bases as fiercely as many other nations.

Turkey would be the crown jewel of all forward deployments. There's no other country in the world that can offer so much for forward deployed forces.
Two shipping lane bottleneck, proximity to buffer region with Russia, proximity to Near East, immensely large and still capable indigenous forces that ensure the safety of the bases, easily accessible by sea, close to many other important allies.

[SethB]

I would question the necessity for forward based troops in the Middle East if oil were not a consideration. Oil is a strategic commodity because we need it, and it benefits them because they don't really have much else to offer.

In fact, oil has been an incessant source of conflict, and where it is not the source it seems to provide a disproportionate amount of funding.

Or as James Woolsey pointed out in a video I posted in another thread, this is the first war (I would point out the Barbary Wars) in which the United States has funded both sides.

[wm]

Turkey is ideal.

. . . there's that little sticking point known as Cyprus, which is also a problem for EU admission. The Turks' official positions wrt Kurds and Armenians are also concerns. And, we've already had trouble getting cooperation from Turkey--remember the 4ID debacle in 2003?

[Fuchs]

. . . there's that little sticking point known as Cyprus, which is also a problem for EU admission. The Turks' official positions wrt Kurds and Armenians are also concerns. And, we've already had trouble getting cooperation from Turkey--remember the 4ID debacle in 2003?

If Kuwait only had made as much trouble as well in 2003...it would have been a great friend.

[davidbfpo]

For all manner of reasons I suggest any "forward basing" should be on the islands available, for a moment ignoring politics: Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia.

If access from the Indian Ocean is required, yes no islands - unless Yemen allows use of Socotra (no facilities) - so Oman seems to be the only option.

davidbfpo