[venky]

The military lead that the US currently enjoys over the rest of the world is staggering by any strech of the imagination. Thus any restraints on the exercise of American power are largely self-imposed, thus the US can go from seeming a relatively benign superpower under the Clinton administration to a thread to world peace under George Bush. The actions of the Bush administration seem clearly to indicate that they plan to bring the middle east under American dominance. While now, this may only partly be motivated due to energy geopolitics, post peak oil, this could be a dangerous threat to all industrial powers in the world with a single power controlling the flow of oil out of the middle east.

The topic of this post is how US power (for fairness, to a lesser extent Russia and China) can be restrained under an international framework. Only then can any oil depletion protocol be successfully implemented. Some ideas might be

1. Scaling back of military strength and arms control agreements: The United States agrees to scale back its military to a level more realistic to its security needs. Similar agreements could be reached with regard to Russian and Chinese military power.

2. International guarantee to middle eastern countries: The sovereignity and territorial integrity of the major oil producing countries could be guaranteed within an international framework. This could include Israel. Ofcourse, these countries would have to agree to desist from military aggression against their neighbours, curtail the rise of Islamic fundamentalists and gradually move to implement democratic reforms.

3. International frameworks for collective security: This was actually the original purpose of the United Nations post WW II, but good intentions were torn apart by the tensions of the cold war. Now it could be implemented on the lines of an expanded Security council of permanent members namely Germany, Japan, Italy, India, Brazil and perhaps Pakistan. All military action would have to be taken within this framework of this body.

I am writing this thread without a judgemental attitude on the nature of US power in the world. I am more interested in discussing how rather than if the above ideas or others can be implemented. Ofcourse many Americans would see continued US hegemony as the best safeguard of their security. Even others, who are disillusioned with the current system, might be sceptical if an international system can work.

So I think it is unlikely that the United States might be brought into such an order entirely willingly. The question then becomes what leverage, if any, can the rest of world use on the United States? More importantly could the rest of the world even stand together?

[Daryl]

Since the Persian Gulf is already an American lake (and has been since the demise of the Red Army), why doesn't the US stop shipments of oil to the China and Europe? Or charge a higher price for oil flowing anywhere but the US? They could pay off the national debt quickly with the profits.

[venky]

Since the Persian Gulf is already an American lake (and has been since the demise of the Red Army), why doesn't the US stop shipments of oil to the China and Europe? Or charge a higher price for oil flowing anywhere but the US? They could pay off the national debt quickly with the profits.

The point is that they could do it if they wanted. I would be distrustful of any country, not just the US in the position of such enormous power. Like I said, US restraint is largely self-imposed at the moment.

I want to discuss this without ideological posturing. For non-American powers, US military might could become menacing in the future. So how can the rest of the world restrain American power in an international framework?

As an American, you may ofcourse feel that maintaining the current status quo is to your best interest.

[Daryl]

Yes, but the point is that American power is supposed to be menacing. It is a stabilizing force in the world. Why do you think Europe is at peace for the first time in its history? Because US provides security. France doesn't have to worry about Germany's military strength anymore, so no arms race starts. That's why guys like Milosvic and Saddam need to be removed. That's why they are trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They will become another North Korea. These guys threaten the open sea lanes and stability that allows the global economy to function. In the last decade the US has been forced to establish a greater presence in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf because of two militaristic fascists.

[venky]

Yes, but the point is that American power is supposed to be menacing. It is a stabilizing force in the world. Why do you think Europe is at peace for the first time in its history? Because US provides security. France doesn't have to worry about Germany's military strength anymore, so no arms race starts. That's why guys like Milosvic and Saddam need to be removed. That's why they are trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They will become another North Korea. These guys threaten the open sea lanes and stability that allows the global economy to function. In the last decade the US has been forced to establish a greater presence in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf because of two militaristic fascists.

It comes down to matter of trust. Whether one can expect the US to act in a responsible manner. The majority of the world clearly does not trust the US and would want to see external restraints on US power and a scaling down of US military presence in the middle east.

I am more interested in discussing how this can accomplished rather than if it should be.

[ALBY]

defacto US dominance of ME oil is already a forgone conclusion.

we are never leaving voluntarily.

but these large outlays to dominate the crazy people who live on top of the oil bnetter seen for what they are: a futile waste of resources.

other nations would be advised to be smarter than we are and forget about oil and mobilize their resources to move on to the next thing.

the money we've wasted in the middle east could have gone a long way toward providing the US with the means to develop technology capable of providing energy independence. with the added benefit of physically seperating us from the insufferable islamic death cult that is sweeping over europe and asia.

we are dumb.

[Daryl]

It comes down to matter of trust. Whether one can expect the US to act in a responsible manner. The majority of the world clearly does not trust the US and would want to see external restraints on US power and a scaling down of US military presence in the middle east.
I am more interested in discussing how this can accomplished rather than if it should be.

I don't thnk that's true at all. If it were, there would already be attempts of the aggrieved parties to join forces to balance the US. I think the US is mostly viewed as a positive influence. It creates and ensures global stability. Not only that, globalization has bound everyone so tightly together that such a global balance of power system might not even make sense anymore. I think globallizaiton is the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) of the 21st Century. The costs of starting up this kind of conflict and confrontation far outweigh the benefits. It's just the occasional local psycho like Milosvic, Saddam or Kim Il Yung that needs to be removed or contained.

[Daryl]

defacto US dominance of ME oil is already a forgone conclusion.

we are never leaving voluntarily.

but these large outlays to dominate the crazy people who live on top of the oil bnetter seen for what they are: a futile waste of resources.

other nations would be advised to be smarter than we are and forget about oil and mobilize their resources to move on to the next thing.

the money we've wasted in the middle east could have gone a long way toward providing the US with the means to develop technology capable of providing energy independence. with the added benefit of physically seperating us from the insufferable islamic death cult that is sweeping over europe and asia.

we are dumb.

One of my points that the US is not just ensuring the free flow of oil to itself from ME, but it is ensuring the free flow for everyone else as well. This is part of the cost it bears throughout the world for providing security, say for South Korea and Japan. It is worth is for the US because we don't want Japan and South Korea militarizing, which they would surely do if we reduced our military footprint, as you seem to be advocating. This would make the world less stable and more dangerous. This was the lesson learned from WW2. You don't sit in a clam shell and ignore or appease the Hitlers of the world, you confront, contain and remove them. This was applied brilliantly versus the Soviet Union during the Cold War. That's not to say the US doesn't need to increase its energy independance. We definitely need to.

[ALBY]

I agree with a lot of that daryl, except for the fact that South korea is already very highly militarized. but consider this: without an unhealthy dependence on ME oil, the ME is sub saharan africa with olives and palm trees. if we cure our oil addiction, others are sure to follow. with the added benefit of putting the oil shieks out of business.

to your point. the chinese are a strategic competitor that must be contained.

in the absence of our unhealthy addiction to petroleum, the homicidal koran addled wuhab-maniacs constitute nothing more than a motley collection of wifebeating ignoramus. they are a waste of bullets. for us anyway. they are europes 'mexicans'. they should not be our problem.

we have stupidly made ourselves the great satan to the death cult.

we had two oil warnings in the 70's and we ignored them. now we are going to pay. rather than mobilise to protect the dwindling oil, we should have mobilized for energy independence. securing that oil is not possible with a politically correct occupation. if we are not prepared to conquer and go roman, we are not prepared to dominate the ME. plus, IMO, doing so will be just as bad for us as it is for them. the patriot act, suveillance society, massive deficits, wear and tear on our transformed military. it's just not worth it.

so to address venky's premis: why would anyone want to repeat these mistakes ? if you want strategic equilibrium, remove yourself from the competition for dwindling resources. one mans opinion anyway...

[venky]

I started the thread in order to look at ways that the military strength of the major powers be restrained in order that the remaining oil resources of the world can be shared in a reasonable manner and reduce the risks of resource wars. Its my opinion that collective security is better than the dominance of a benign super power.

I dont really want this thread to turn into a flame war between pro and anti american posters. Rather, I am interested in exploring how collective security schemes can practically be implemented to the mutual benifit of all parties involved, perhaps even the United States.

[lutherquick]

I think the main reason there is so much peace in the world is because more countries have nukes. America is attacking nukeless countries with oil / gas.

Regardless of American plans and dreams or requirments are, not much is succeding with American new imperialism and very little success will be seen in the future.

All the money blown on "bright ideas" in Iraq could have been spent at home deversiving away from imported energy.

We lost the opertunity, it's gone forever. Unfortunatly, as America dies for oil, she will attack more countries.

Ultimatly, after this American, emotional was of resources is finished, then the world will have a future. But for now, the world needs to humor and yes America to death until "peak oil" realy sets in... the peaceful countries of the world simply need to buy time until the US contracts.

[Daryl]

if we cure our oil addiction, others are sure to follow. with the added benefit of putting the oil shieks out of business.
in the absence of our unhealthy addiction to petroleum, the homicidal koran addled wuhab-maniacs constitute nothing more than a motley collection of wifebeating ignoramus. they are a waste of bullets. they should not be our problem.

Fine, but keep in mind that in whatever scenario you construct, oil is going to get more and more expensive. It will be an important input to the world economy until it runs out completely. Threrefore you will continue to have this huge influx of monetary wealth into a region that is a) full of crazies b) has been politically unstable since the 19th Century decline of the Ottoman Empire. The lesson of 9/11 was that if you ignore this stuff, it just bites you in the ass later, and harder.

we should have mobilized for energy independence.

Absolutely. The American voter is to blame. Energy policy has been the 3rd rail of American politics ever since they dragged Jimmy Carter's broken body out of the White House. Politicians here only have the War option available. They will be voted out of office if they try to alter peoples lifestyles, or order industry around.

securing that oil is not possible with a politically correct occupation. if we are not prepared to conquer and go roman, we are not prepared to dominate the ME.

That's a great point. You know how the Ottomans ran things? Believe me, you don't want to know. Is a Western lliberal occupation of bloodthirsty Bedouins possible? This is the experiment being conducted at present. Stay tuned, car bombings timed to the 24 hour news cycle do not constitute failure.