by b real
lifted from a comment
If you haven’t read Michael Klare’s article, The Global Energy Race and Its Consequences, it’s good. But before I get to that, today SecDef Gates gave a very relevant answer to the question of what this ongoing buildup for a military attack on Iran is really about:
Gates said the time is not right for diplomatic talks with Iran, but left open that possibility for the future.
After meeting with senior officials at NATO headquarters, Gates was
asked at a news conference what was behind the Bush administration’s
decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft
carrier to the Gulf region – moves announced in connection with a
further buildup of ground troops in Iraq.He noted that the United States has taken a leading role in Gulf security for many decades.
"We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the
Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing
strong presence in that area for a long time into the future," he said.
While "simply" may be an understatement, the reaffirmation is nothing surprising.
In his article on the "global struggle over ever-diminishing
supplies of energy," Klare identifies four "basic features" of how this
struggle is shaping up. Two of those features are directly relevant to Gates’ statement.
* The transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil protection service
whose primary mission is to defend America’s overseas sources of oil
and natural gas, while patrolling the world’s major pipelines and
supply routes.* A ruthless scramble among the great powers for the
remaining oil, natural gas, and uranium reserves of Africa, Latin
America, the Middle East, and Asia, accompanied by recurring military
interventions, the constant installation and replacement of client
regimes, systemic corruption and repression, and the continued
impoverishment of the great majority of those who have the misfortune
to inhabit such energy-rich regions. [italics in original]
Client regimes is a key ingredient here. We’ve seen
this in
afghanistan, w/ oil-man Karzai, in Iraq, in Somalia, Rwanda, and no
doubt others that have slipped my mind or of which I am not currently
aware. The Pentagon recently declared their (temporary?) success in
installing a client regime in Somalia as a blueprint for future actions
in similiar settings. and regime change appears to be the objective of
aggression on Iran, though the Somalia model is nowhere near
applicable. Instead, should the U.S. attempt such in Iran, it will most
probably follow a plan similar to the efforts to bomb the hell out of
Iraqis until they turn on their own leaders, which, if attempted again
after such stupendous failure in Iraq, certainly qualifies as another
high/lowlight in their delusional pathologies.
Back to Gates’ remark that "[w]e are simply reaffirming that
statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States." Klare writes:
Already we have the beginnings of the energy equivalent
of a classic arms race, combined with many of the elements of the
"Great Game" as once played by colonial powers in some of the same
parts of the world.
…
The most significant expression of this trend has been the
transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil-protection
service whose primary function is the guarding of overseas energy
supplies as well as their global delivery systems (pipelines, tanker
ships, and supply routes). This overarching mission was first
articulated by President Jimmy Carter in January 1980, when he
described the oil flow from the Persian Gulf as a "vital interest" of
the United States, and affirmed that this country would employ "any
means necessary, including military force" to overcome an attempt by a
hostile power to block that flow.When President Carter issued this edict, quickly dubbed the Carter
Doctrine, the United States did not actually possess any forces capable
of performing this role in the Gulf. To fill this gap, Carter created a
new entity, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), an ad hoc
assortment of U.S-based forces designated for possible employment in
the Middle East. In 1983, President Reagan transformed the RDJTF into
the Central Command (Centcom), the name it bears today. Centcom
exercises command authority over all U.S. combat forces deployed in the
greater Persian Gulf area including Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.
At present, Centcom is largely preoccupied with the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but it has never given up its original role of guarding
the oil flow from the Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter
Doctrine.
Controlling the spigots too. And, as has been pointed out recently here
at MoA, the U.S. is looking to replace Centcom’s role in Africa w/ a
dedicated African command. That’s how serious this "game" is getting.
Again, Klare:
When first promulgated in 1980, the Carter Doctrine was
aimed principally at the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. In recent
years, however, American policymakers have concluded that the United
States must extend this kind of protection to every major oil-producing
region in the developing world. The logic for a Carter Doctrine on a
global scale was first spelled out in a bipartisan task force report,
"The Geopolitics of Energy," published by the Washington-based Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in November 2000.
Because the United States and its allies are becoming increasingly
dependent on energy supplies from unstable overseas suppliers, the
report concluded, "[T]he geopolitical risks attendant to energy
availability are not likely to abate." Under these circumstances, "the
United States, as the world’s only superpower, must accept its special
responsibilities for preserving access to worldwide energy supply."This sort of thinking — embraced by senior Democrats and
Republicans alike — appears to have governed American strategic
thinking since the late 1990s. It was President Clinton who first put
this policy into effect, by extending the Carter Doctrine to the
Caspian Sea basin. It was Clinton who originally declared that the flow
of oil and gas from the Caspian Sea to the West was an American
security priority, and who, on this basis, established military ties
with the governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
and Uzbekistan. President Bush has substantially upgraded these ties —
thereby laying the groundwork for a permanent U.S. military presence in
the region — but it is important to view this as a bipartisan effort
in accordance with a shared belief that protection of the global oil
flow is increasingly not just a vital function, but the vital function of the American military.More recently, President Bush has extended the reach of the Carter
Doctrine to West Africa, now one of America’s major sources of oil.
Particular emphasis is being place on Nigeria, where unrest in the
Delta (which holds most of the country’s onshore petroleum fields) has
produced a substantial decline in oil output. "Nigeria is the fifth
largest source of U.S. oil imports," the State Department’s Fiscal Year
2007 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations
declares, "and disruption of supply from Nigeria would represent a
major blow to U.S. oil security strategy." To prevent such a
disruption, the Department of Defense is providing Nigerian military
and internal security forces with substantial arms and equipment
intended to quell unrest in the Delta region; the Pentagon is also
collaborating with Nigerian forces in a number of regional patrol and
surveillance efforts aimed at improving security in the Gulf of Guinea,
where most of West Africa’s offshore oil and gas fields are located.Of course, senior officials and foreign policy elites are generally
loathe to acknowledge such crass motivations for the utilization of
military force — they much prefer to talk about spreading democracy
and fighting terrorism.
So, contrary to Paul Craig Robert’s simplistic conspiracy-mongering,
the (secondary) ‘war on terror’ is not being waged against Muslims
because they are necessarily enemies of Israel, but is being waged
against Muslims & any other groups that resist having their
governments stuffed w/ client regimes loyal to imperial interests and
do not submit to the idea that their natural wealth should wind up
benefiting foreigners.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?