I Haven’t Gotten a Satisfactory
Answer Yet, Have You?
June 21, 2002
by Andrew E. Carlan, Esq.
If we erected oil rigs around the Vatican, would it be beyond
comprehension that some in the Papal Curia less interested
in a slush fund and more sensitive to cultural humiliation
might resent it? That doesn’t mean they’d run the Popemobile
into a American facility in Italy.
Bin Laden says lots of things. But in 1998 he ordered attacks
to stop the United States from "occupying the lands of
Islam in the holiest of places." Who knows whether that’s
all he really wants? But in a world of increasing petroleum
sources isn’t it worth putting Al Qaeda to the test?
How eager would you be to sacrifice your son’s life to save
oil companies hit economically by a U.S. pullout? The companies
would have to leave behind billions of dollars of equipment.
Are we financing our own destruction?
Newsweek suggested that the 11 September attacks cost the
terrorists about $500,000, which was in part spent on renting
cars, flights and large cash withdrawals.
---Frank Cilluffo, of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic
and International Studies, October 29, 2001
Pacific News Service, left-wing cousin of Pacifica Radio, contributor
William O. Beeman teaches Middle East culture at Brown University.
He noted in a Pacifica article Bin Ladin’s decree in 1998 for
us to stop desecrating their holy places.
Maybe the National Security Agency needs Jesus Christ just
for his level-headedness. "Agree quickly with thine adversary."
KJV Matt 5:25. We ought to agree quickly with bin Laden. Is
our policy whipped by sadomasochism? "And if any man will
sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy
cloak also," KJV, Matt 5:40 confirms the Laughing Lawyer’s
experience. It’s a lot cheaper. You don’t lose sleep. You don’t
have to keep an arsenal to protect yourself. Do we Americans
enjoy being chained to the world’s most berserk region for vital
resources asks the Laughing Lawyer rhetorically.
Why are we boycotting Iraq? A petro-ocean leaks to the Europeans.
An Iraqi boycott and war may serve some international oil companies.
The Laughing Lawyer thinks it would be good for the Iraqi people.
But the Iraqi people didn’t ask my opinion on their family feud
nor if I were in power would I volunteer it. When the Iraqi
people are ready, they will do what they think best. Giving
unsolicited advice is one of the reasons we aren’t the most
popular nation around.
President Washington’s even rejected national pride as
justification for pushing other nations around or giving them
"the gift" of our Constitution.
I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism.
I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present
contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting
war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must
be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward.
George Washington (1732–99).
The Pentagon understandably would like to give the illusion
that any post-Cold War cutbacks in its cosmic bureaucracy would
be suicidal. Isn’t bureaucratic strategy unwieldy to respond
to changing conditions compared to other methods that might
achieve security leaner, which is good for a Republic, bad for
an Empire, far cheaper and faster.
Am I wrong? The Laughing Lawyer is frequently wrong. That’s
how he got his name. Money is the fuel of Islamic terrorists.
After withdrawal we would hang around the surrounding waters.
Our fleet would enforce a blockade against Saudi Arabia. Who
believes we have weaned the Saudi royal family from their extremist
Islam? President Bush calls them "coalition" members
when they are double agents. Would you get any sleep sharing
a bed with such "coalition" members?
Who prevents weeds from growing by going after the shoots?
Isn’t it faster to stop using Turf Builder? Let the Saudis keep
their quarter of the world’s oil reserves. They can become the
world’s biggest manufacturer of Vaseline.
Oil multinationals have no loyalties. They prefer to pay tribute.
For corporations tribute is almost always a bargain. Self-interest
is not unknown. The Laughing Lawyer understands where the oil
companies are coming from. They are no mystery. He finds it
a mystery who the State and Defense departments are working
for.
Since the foundation of the world in times of crisis it is
not unknown to try to mix one’s interest with a heavy dose of
patriotism. "What is good for General Motors in good for
the country" said Charlie Wilson, it’s one time chairman.
The first words out of the mouth of America Online after the
anthrax scare was "The anthrax attacks that have hit the
U.S. Postal System are likely to boost the use of the Internet.
It’s incredibly positive for the Internet."
It is no surprise to the Laughing Lawyer that the fastest projected
growth in oil production takes place where entrepreneurial investors
concentrate their capital. It surely can’t be a surprise to
my more economically sophisticated readers. But investment entrepreneurs
are often at odds, typically old vs. the new capital. Existing
relationship are contracts. Contracts reduce risk. Does camping
in the Middle East reduce risks for Americans who don’t own
oil refineries?
Source: Adapted by Anthony H. Cordesman from DOE/EIA, International
Energy Outlook, 1998, April, 1998. Note that this "proof"
that Saudi oil will be more critical in twenty years than
today was sponsored by Chevron and British American Petroleum.
The Department of Energy kindly provided the statistics.
What is the real cost of tapping new oil sources if we charge
much of the increase in our defense budget to Middle East terrorism
in a volatile mix with oil? Suppose investment capital abandoned
the Middle East for other parts. Wouldn’t extraction from these
new sources become increasingly competitive with Middle East
prices? Won’t the greater stability stimulate a recovery of
the stock market?
The Laughing Lawyer doesn’t know. Help him out.
|
