Written 30 September 2008
Although the progress in Iraq continues to be blacked-out by the national media, and Barack Obama would like all of us to think it’s still a lost cause, (he is proving to be locked in the stubborn bubble of denial liberals always believed President Bush lived in) normal life continues to return to Iraq.
This month the Iraqi parliament passed updated election laws. The many different groups within Iraq once again demonstrated their ability to reconcile differences and find compromise in legislation, as they’ve been doing from the lowest to the highest levels of government for the last two years. They will hold elections early this winter. One quarter of the seats have been reserved for women, strong election laws to prevent voting fraud were enacted, and an electoral set up was established which allows strong voices for most of the minority groups, including the Sunni’s.
Dexter Filkins of the New York Times recently provided us with a detailed look at the peaceful streets of Iraq. His report about the conditions in Iraq was stunning, not only because it was positive news from a New York Times columnist, but because of the turn-around he’s seen since his last visit in 2006 and the depth of surprise captured in his column.
Restaurants and wine shops had not only been repaired and reopened, but were crammed with customers. Many places he’d seen before that had been “shuttered, shattered, broken, and dead” were now alive and active. On several occasions he didn’t recognize places he’d been before because their transformation was so dramatic. A two mile long riverside park in Baghdad that had been a no-man’s land was filled with thousands of people enjoying themselves, even after sundown.
Violence is down by as much as 90%. Wanted posters, or even whole billboards, encouraging citizens to turn in Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda militants or warning those same terrorists they have nowhere to hide have become part of the landscape. Civil infrastructure projects including sewer systems in once filthy ghettos have turned life on its head, for the better. The Iraqi Army is clearly taking the lead and American forces have moved into the background. Although he did speak to the fragility of the peace, there are still occasional suicide bombings; it is clearly a country prospering, as reflected in the tens of billions of excess dollars being generated by Iraq’s economy.
The conditions in Iraq have become so peaceful that it is once again open for tourism. Amir Taheri reported on companies which are making Iraq a tourist destination. Tours through Iraq’s holy sites, Christmas pilgrimages through historic Biblical locations, and a tour titled “Forgotten History” which visits places relevant to Iraq’s role in the development of civilization the last 2000 years are garnering more and more customers. Tours through Iraq’s ecological jewel, the marshes of the southeast, are also in play now that 60% of the marshes have been restored after Saddam Hussein tried to drain them while attempting to rid Iraq of the Shiites living there.
Arabs, Turks, and Iranians are now heading to Iraq for holidays and Europeans are just starting to make the country a tourist destination. Iraq is also reemerging as a cultural center with a recent festival featuring new Iraqi films, poetry, plays, concerts, paintings, comedy, and lectures drawing hundreds of artists from across the Arab world, including one poet who read some of his latest work to a full hall and “was surprised by the contrast between the reality in Iraq and images broadcast in the West.”
For those who refused to stick their head in the sands of defeat, those who continue to throw off the cloak of deceit placed on Iraq by liberal politicians and national media types, none of this comes as a surprise.
Those of us who have had the privilege of getting to know the Iraqi’s aren’t surprised by this either. We know them to be wonderful people determined to have a normal life. Mr. Filkins captured that sentiment simply but beautifully in his column when he quoted an Iraqi man who told him, “We are normal people, ordinary people, like people everywhere. We want what everyone else wants in this world.”
What everyone else in this world wants is freedom, something that must be fought for and nurtured at times, like in Iraq, but a force strong and motivating enough to drive an entire people to a new way of life; we should know.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Honestly Supporting Strong Women
Written 23 September 2008
Even though she’s nearly the epitome of what they’ve always said women should be, Sarah Palin has learned that she can’t count on feminists to have her back in this election.
She is a woman of strong character and possesses a force of will that is well balanced with astute leadership skills. She is confident in herself and in her decisions. By all accounts, she tolerates no nonsense and demonstrates the courage to take on tough problems.
Strength, force, leadership, confidence, courage; all qualities feminists advocate for women.
These are also the same qualities I try to instill and develop in my own daughter. I’m always reminding her that she can be whatever she wants to be. The only limits she encounters will be those she places on herself.
Not only do I try to nurture these characteristics in her, she also participates in a program called Girls on the Run. Completely apolitical, Girls on the Run teaches young girls many of these same things at an age when they can be quite vulnerable to the negative messages society sends about “a girl’s place” in the world.
As the name implies, Girls on the Run coaches physical health (the girls work up to a 5K run), but it also does much more. Through several months of a structured course, it trains young girls to be confident in themselves, to be happy with themselves, and most importantly to not let the world pigeon-hole or stereotype them.
The program is designed to help them resist the attempts by others to shove them into the small box of physical appearances and “acceptable” behavior of girls when they’re in the 3rd through the 5th grades. They learn to define and choose who they are and who they will become, not letting societal influences dictate who they should be.
It’s an incredible program that has garnered much confidence and an unexpected, but wonderful growth of personality in my daughter.
Guiding my daughter and watching her mature, it makes sense that someone like Sarah Palin, someone who has succeeded in becoming her own woman, would be a role model for my daughter.
And, having successfully utilized all these skills feminists admire, I thought Palin would garner at least some support among leading feminists. There were probably going to be some who disagreed with her political views and others who might simply ignore her; both fair positions. But some would surely support her, right?
Wrong. I misunderstood feminism. I thought feminists were for women. Turns out they’re not for women, they’re just for liberalism.
Not only have they not supported Palin, they have been the most vicious in the attacks against her. They have tried harder than most to push Sarah back into the little box the world likely tried to squeeze her into when she was 10. Suddenly, a woman’s place was not in a position of power or utilizing all of her God-given talents as they’ve espoused and as I’ve taught my daughter.
They have questioned whether or not she could be a mother and Vice President. Quite hypocritical since they’ve always been admirable proponents of women being able to work and be mothers.
They have attacked her ability to lead because she’s a woman. Could she actually handle the job? Suddenly they were the chauvinists asking whether or not a woman could handle any job.
They have attacked her mercilessly on a personal level because of her political views.
Their overall attitudes were captured in a New York Sun story reporting feminists who describe themselves as “flipping out, in fits of rage, experiencing all consuming panic, beside themselves with terror, freaking out, and feeling violent murderous rage, visceral hostility, incandescent anger boiling in the skull, wanting to vomit with rage, and surprised by the depths of their own anger” about Palin.
Their problem with her is she refuses to toe their line. She is pro-life, evidently a mortal sin among feminists. She is an advocate of gun ownership, another sacrilege. She is a practicing Christian, how dare she? And she has succeeded without them.
Ironically, a group that claims to have fought so hard against society’s attempts to stereotype women is now attacking a woman who has become almost everything they advocate because she refuses to fall in line with their stereotype of a woman.
If they won’t support her, plenty of us who truly believe a woman can become whatever she wants will support her, especially since she’s a conservative, a Christian, and a role model for young girls.
Even though she’s nearly the epitome of what they’ve always said women should be, Sarah Palin has learned that she can’t count on feminists to have her back in this election.
She is a woman of strong character and possesses a force of will that is well balanced with astute leadership skills. She is confident in herself and in her decisions. By all accounts, she tolerates no nonsense and demonstrates the courage to take on tough problems.
Strength, force, leadership, confidence, courage; all qualities feminists advocate for women.
These are also the same qualities I try to instill and develop in my own daughter. I’m always reminding her that she can be whatever she wants to be. The only limits she encounters will be those she places on herself.
Not only do I try to nurture these characteristics in her, she also participates in a program called Girls on the Run. Completely apolitical, Girls on the Run teaches young girls many of these same things at an age when they can be quite vulnerable to the negative messages society sends about “a girl’s place” in the world.
As the name implies, Girls on the Run coaches physical health (the girls work up to a 5K run), but it also does much more. Through several months of a structured course, it trains young girls to be confident in themselves, to be happy with themselves, and most importantly to not let the world pigeon-hole or stereotype them.
The program is designed to help them resist the attempts by others to shove them into the small box of physical appearances and “acceptable” behavior of girls when they’re in the 3rd through the 5th grades. They learn to define and choose who they are and who they will become, not letting societal influences dictate who they should be.
It’s an incredible program that has garnered much confidence and an unexpected, but wonderful growth of personality in my daughter.
Guiding my daughter and watching her mature, it makes sense that someone like Sarah Palin, someone who has succeeded in becoming her own woman, would be a role model for my daughter.
And, having successfully utilized all these skills feminists admire, I thought Palin would garner at least some support among leading feminists. There were probably going to be some who disagreed with her political views and others who might simply ignore her; both fair positions. But some would surely support her, right?
Wrong. I misunderstood feminism. I thought feminists were for women. Turns out they’re not for women, they’re just for liberalism.
Not only have they not supported Palin, they have been the most vicious in the attacks against her. They have tried harder than most to push Sarah back into the little box the world likely tried to squeeze her into when she was 10. Suddenly, a woman’s place was not in a position of power or utilizing all of her God-given talents as they’ve espoused and as I’ve taught my daughter.
They have questioned whether or not she could be a mother and Vice President. Quite hypocritical since they’ve always been admirable proponents of women being able to work and be mothers.
They have attacked her ability to lead because she’s a woman. Could she actually handle the job? Suddenly they were the chauvinists asking whether or not a woman could handle any job.
They have attacked her mercilessly on a personal level because of her political views.
Their overall attitudes were captured in a New York Sun story reporting feminists who describe themselves as “flipping out, in fits of rage, experiencing all consuming panic, beside themselves with terror, freaking out, and feeling violent murderous rage, visceral hostility, incandescent anger boiling in the skull, wanting to vomit with rage, and surprised by the depths of their own anger” about Palin.
Their problem with her is she refuses to toe their line. She is pro-life, evidently a mortal sin among feminists. She is an advocate of gun ownership, another sacrilege. She is a practicing Christian, how dare she? And she has succeeded without them.
Ironically, a group that claims to have fought so hard against society’s attempts to stereotype women is now attacking a woman who has become almost everything they advocate because she refuses to fall in line with their stereotype of a woman.
If they won’t support her, plenty of us who truly believe a woman can become whatever she wants will support her, especially since she’s a conservative, a Christian, and a role model for young girls.
Anbar, Georgia, Energy, and Palin
Written 1 September 2008
Security for the once troublesome Anbar Province was turned over to the Iraqi’s from our Marines this week. At one point an intelligence analysis of the province deemed it a lost cause. However, the counter-insurgency led by our Marines which opened the door to the Anbar Awakening and the Iraqi’s fighting back against Al Qaeda proved successful. Maybe it’s time to follow up on the Marines’ desire to head to Afghanistan?
We learned this week that 3500 terrorists were “taken off the streets of Baghdad” during the last 18 months by the British SAS. Most of the 3500 were members of Al Qaeda and involved in suicide bombings. What’s that argument from the left about Al Qaeda not being in Iraq?
The Georgia-Russia conflict continues to be tense, not only between those two countries, but between Russia and the west as well. Russia continues to threaten while the west scrambles for diplomacy. If this is the start of another cold war, we must be wary of an advantage the Russians have this time that they lacked before, a tremendous stream of income from petroleum exports. They are in a much better place financially than they were before, especially compared to our unwillingness to use our own energy resources.
On the energy front, T. Boone Pickens has been criss-crossing America sharing his plan for energy independence. Congratulations to him for having a plan, especially one that has a use for many available energy sources. We do need to be cautious of one part of his plan, using natural gas so heavily. Because our agricultural nitrogen fertilizers are based on natural gas, we need to know the impact such a dramatic increase in its demand would have on the agricultural economy and food prices before proceeding.
Does anyone else find it humorous during an election year that Presidential (and VP) candidates who are very far removed from our daily lives try so hard to relate to the struggles of jobs, family, and the economy? Although McCain’s ideas in these areas are much preferred to Obama’s, neither they nor Biden really have a clue what it’s like to try and make it as a middle class family. They’ve been pretty far removed from every day America for quite some time. Governor Sarah Palin being selected by John McCain as his running mate is an exciting turn of events though.
How many of us have often wondered at the possibilities of having someone in the White House who actually understood our lives and governed accordingly? Well, it looks like we have that with Palin. The hockey-mom who spends time hunting and fishing, has very recently lived a blue collar life (her husband still is), has some tough roots, and is working through many of the same family challenges you and I are doesn’t have to go through seven degrees of separation to relate to us, she’s living it.
McCain’s choice of Palin was an unconventional move and solidified his position as a maverick, which brings up a point for us to ponder about the left and his maverick status. They used to applaud his willingness to go against President Bush and other Republicans. The very public differences McCain had with his own party were praised by the left and earned him a maverick reputation and that title from them. I find it curious they are now trying so hard to say he’s the same as Bush, when not so long ago they hailed him as a hero for being very different.
What will be the far left’s next attack? McCain and Palin have taken away at least one of their assaults. A mantra from them was that neither Bush nor Cheney were volunteering their children to go fight the war against terrorists, how dare they ask anyone else to? McCain and Palin both have children serving in the military. What next lefties?
The radical, kooky far left did answer that question in one way this week with their smear against Governor Palin’s family, her infant son, and pregnant daughter via the radical Daily Kos website. That attack had to be about as low as politics have ever gotten.
Speaking of the Daily Kos, after that despicable attack on the Palin family, is U.S. Senate Candidate Scott Kleeb regretting his associations with them?
Lastly, based on the response to hurricane Gustav, it appears that many lessons were learned with Katrina. Initial indications are that individuals and government at all levels responded much better this time, “kudos” to all.
Security for the once troublesome Anbar Province was turned over to the Iraqi’s from our Marines this week. At one point an intelligence analysis of the province deemed it a lost cause. However, the counter-insurgency led by our Marines which opened the door to the Anbar Awakening and the Iraqi’s fighting back against Al Qaeda proved successful. Maybe it’s time to follow up on the Marines’ desire to head to Afghanistan?
We learned this week that 3500 terrorists were “taken off the streets of Baghdad” during the last 18 months by the British SAS. Most of the 3500 were members of Al Qaeda and involved in suicide bombings. What’s that argument from the left about Al Qaeda not being in Iraq?
The Georgia-Russia conflict continues to be tense, not only between those two countries, but between Russia and the west as well. Russia continues to threaten while the west scrambles for diplomacy. If this is the start of another cold war, we must be wary of an advantage the Russians have this time that they lacked before, a tremendous stream of income from petroleum exports. They are in a much better place financially than they were before, especially compared to our unwillingness to use our own energy resources.
On the energy front, T. Boone Pickens has been criss-crossing America sharing his plan for energy independence. Congratulations to him for having a plan, especially one that has a use for many available energy sources. We do need to be cautious of one part of his plan, using natural gas so heavily. Because our agricultural nitrogen fertilizers are based on natural gas, we need to know the impact such a dramatic increase in its demand would have on the agricultural economy and food prices before proceeding.
Does anyone else find it humorous during an election year that Presidential (and VP) candidates who are very far removed from our daily lives try so hard to relate to the struggles of jobs, family, and the economy? Although McCain’s ideas in these areas are much preferred to Obama’s, neither they nor Biden really have a clue what it’s like to try and make it as a middle class family. They’ve been pretty far removed from every day America for quite some time. Governor Sarah Palin being selected by John McCain as his running mate is an exciting turn of events though.
How many of us have often wondered at the possibilities of having someone in the White House who actually understood our lives and governed accordingly? Well, it looks like we have that with Palin. The hockey-mom who spends time hunting and fishing, has very recently lived a blue collar life (her husband still is), has some tough roots, and is working through many of the same family challenges you and I are doesn’t have to go through seven degrees of separation to relate to us, she’s living it.
McCain’s choice of Palin was an unconventional move and solidified his position as a maverick, which brings up a point for us to ponder about the left and his maverick status. They used to applaud his willingness to go against President Bush and other Republicans. The very public differences McCain had with his own party were praised by the left and earned him a maverick reputation and that title from them. I find it curious they are now trying so hard to say he’s the same as Bush, when not so long ago they hailed him as a hero for being very different.
What will be the far left’s next attack? McCain and Palin have taken away at least one of their assaults. A mantra from them was that neither Bush nor Cheney were volunteering their children to go fight the war against terrorists, how dare they ask anyone else to? McCain and Palin both have children serving in the military. What next lefties?
The radical, kooky far left did answer that question in one way this week with their smear against Governor Palin’s family, her infant son, and pregnant daughter via the radical Daily Kos website. That attack had to be about as low as politics have ever gotten.
Speaking of the Daily Kos, after that despicable attack on the Palin family, is U.S. Senate Candidate Scott Kleeb regretting his associations with them?
Lastly, based on the response to hurricane Gustav, it appears that many lessons were learned with Katrina. Initial indications are that individuals and government at all levels responded much better this time, “kudos” to all.
Obama Sees America Wrong
Written 26 August 2008
Without the lines of his teleprompter, we often get to see the real Barack Obama. We get insight into the guy who usually finds some way slip in a negative comment about America. Sometimes it even happens with the teleprompter, but there is a pattern of skewed condemnation from him.
At one campaign stop, in response to a seven year old girl’s question about our nation, he replied, “America’s no longer what it could be, what it once was.”
Interesting perspective since it’s the very same liberal mentality and policies he espouses which have and continue to try and pull America away from the founding principles and beliefs which made it great.
If America is less than it once was, it’s because of the policies of his liberal predecessors which act as a political meat axe, cleaving away at the conservative Constitutional principles that ushered America to greatness.
If this country isn’t what it once was, it’s because of those who believe themselves to be “progressives,” progressively trying to drag America down.
In a way though, I agree with Barack Obama. This nation isn’t what it once was.
We used to value life in this country.
Americans used to actually care about the unborn and newborn infants. There was a time when we would have found reprehensible the practice of allowing them to die slowly in a cold, stainless steel surgical pan after being born as a result of a botched partial birth abortion. At the Saddleback Forum Obama said that America’s greatest moral failure was caring “for the least of these.” If a newborn baby struggling for life after being tossed aside isn’t “the least of these,” then who among us is? If he really lamented how America used to be, why does he support the death of infants in such a manner?
We used to value hard work in this country.
Weren’t we a better nation when it was okay to pursue the American dream, instead of demonizing those who have? Political rhetoric and public condemnation of those who have been successful coupled with a punishing progressive tax system that confiscates the fruits of ones labor are quite contrary to the American dream. If Obama really lamented how America used to be, why does he not only engage in this type of rhetoric, why does he also support punishing anyone who succeeds?
We used to want our troops engaged in a foreign conflict to win.
Remember World Wars I and II? America supported the troops by supporting the cause to which they had been committed. Whether we were driven by patriotism, nationalism, national security, or the cause, Americans rallied to victory. Now we have a group of people on the left who have advocated for America’s defeat through two major conflicts. If Obama really cared how America used to be, why did he vote for defeat and why does he belong to the crowd who believes it’s now okay to want our troops and our nation to lose?
It used to be okay to be religious in America.
Freedom of religion is one of the foundational principles of our nation. Judeo-Christian beliefs were woven into the very fabric of our society and done so in a skillful manner that also encouraged and protected the freedom of everyone to worship as they chose. It had been the glue that held us together and the moral compass that pointed us toward doing what’s right. But the liberal mentality has systematically attacked and condemned religion, pushing it out of people’s lives and certainly out of any public place. If Obama really cared about what made America great, why does he believe that Americans only “cling” to religion out of economic frustration?
There are pages that could be written with specific examples of the founding principles that made America great, where we’ve “progressed” to, and how Obama possesses the liberal position which is contrary to those founding principles.
At the end of those pages one would easily see where Obama is doubly wrong.
First, he is wrong with his policies. What he advocates are the very things which take away from America’s greatness.
Second, he is wrong about our country. It is still the greatest nation on earth, and most of us don’t need a teleprompter to say so.
Without the lines of his teleprompter, we often get to see the real Barack Obama. We get insight into the guy who usually finds some way slip in a negative comment about America. Sometimes it even happens with the teleprompter, but there is a pattern of skewed condemnation from him.
At one campaign stop, in response to a seven year old girl’s question about our nation, he replied, “America’s no longer what it could be, what it once was.”
Interesting perspective since it’s the very same liberal mentality and policies he espouses which have and continue to try and pull America away from the founding principles and beliefs which made it great.
If America is less than it once was, it’s because of the policies of his liberal predecessors which act as a political meat axe, cleaving away at the conservative Constitutional principles that ushered America to greatness.
If this country isn’t what it once was, it’s because of those who believe themselves to be “progressives,” progressively trying to drag America down.
In a way though, I agree with Barack Obama. This nation isn’t what it once was.
We used to value life in this country.
Americans used to actually care about the unborn and newborn infants. There was a time when we would have found reprehensible the practice of allowing them to die slowly in a cold, stainless steel surgical pan after being born as a result of a botched partial birth abortion. At the Saddleback Forum Obama said that America’s greatest moral failure was caring “for the least of these.” If a newborn baby struggling for life after being tossed aside isn’t “the least of these,” then who among us is? If he really lamented how America used to be, why does he support the death of infants in such a manner?
We used to value hard work in this country.
Weren’t we a better nation when it was okay to pursue the American dream, instead of demonizing those who have? Political rhetoric and public condemnation of those who have been successful coupled with a punishing progressive tax system that confiscates the fruits of ones labor are quite contrary to the American dream. If Obama really lamented how America used to be, why does he not only engage in this type of rhetoric, why does he also support punishing anyone who succeeds?
We used to want our troops engaged in a foreign conflict to win.
Remember World Wars I and II? America supported the troops by supporting the cause to which they had been committed. Whether we were driven by patriotism, nationalism, national security, or the cause, Americans rallied to victory. Now we have a group of people on the left who have advocated for America’s defeat through two major conflicts. If Obama really cared how America used to be, why did he vote for defeat and why does he belong to the crowd who believes it’s now okay to want our troops and our nation to lose?
It used to be okay to be religious in America.
Freedom of religion is one of the foundational principles of our nation. Judeo-Christian beliefs were woven into the very fabric of our society and done so in a skillful manner that also encouraged and protected the freedom of everyone to worship as they chose. It had been the glue that held us together and the moral compass that pointed us toward doing what’s right. But the liberal mentality has systematically attacked and condemned religion, pushing it out of people’s lives and certainly out of any public place. If Obama really cared about what made America great, why does he believe that Americans only “cling” to religion out of economic frustration?
There are pages that could be written with specific examples of the founding principles that made America great, where we’ve “progressed” to, and how Obama possesses the liberal position which is contrary to those founding principles.
At the end of those pages one would easily see where Obama is doubly wrong.
First, he is wrong with his policies. What he advocates are the very things which take away from America’s greatness.
Second, he is wrong about our country. It is still the greatest nation on earth, and most of us don’t need a teleprompter to say so.
Russian Conflict Highlights Our Need for Energy Independence
Written 19 August 2008
Russia’s invasion of Georgia highlights the strategic importance of energy independence. Their aggression demonstrates several areas of weakness where other forces can easily influence and affect our energy situation and national security.
First, an antagonist can directly limit or impair the supply and movement of oil in the world. In the case of Russia and Georgia, a major oil pipeline runs through Georgia. By their actions, the Russians could have taken control of that line. They still could.
Similar risks to the free movement of petroleum exist in the Straits of Hormuz where Iran threatens to disrupt the movement of oil if “provoked.” It’s a point of leverage they have, and would willingly use.
Second, when nations are beholden to others for energy needs, the suppliers hold great sway. In this case, much of Europe depends very heavily on the Russians for their petroleum energy needs.
This puts Russia in the driver’s seat for negotiations about their involvement in the conflict. Europe must tip-toe gingerly around Russia with their disapproval, and is limited in how much and what it can say because of their dependence upon Russia for fossil fuels. If angered or offended, the Russians have simply to close the spigot in order to affect a change in attitude amongst the Europeans.
We run into the same potential problems with the many nations who supply us petroleum. Although we have fairly friendly relationships with Canada and Mexico, we understand the limits of friendship with some nations who send us oil from the Middle East and South America. Billions of dollars go to Middle Eastern nations who tolerate Islamic terrorists. Hugo Chavez is constantly threatening to cut off the supply of oil to our country from Venezuela.
Third, is the direct ability to supply our own energy needs during a time of crisis. Beyond the strategic petroleum reserve (which will only last a relatively short duration in an extended conflict) our unwillingness to use domestic petroleum resources puts us in a weak strategic position because it fuels our military and runs the infrastructure that feeds our nation.
By contrast, Russia’s willingness to utilize her own energy sources has created a strong national security position.
Lastly, not as direct a threat but none the less a consideration in being dependent upon other nations for energy, is the fact that international diplomacy and influence are either enhanced or limited, depending upon a nation’s place on the spectrum of energy dependence.
Beyond affecting outcomes of direct conflict as seen with Russia and Europe, is the capacity to persuade actions elsewhere in the world.
For example, Iran is unquestionably a troublesome child on the world’s playground. We, along with Europe, depend heavily upon Russian influence to diplomatically reach solutions and win over the Iranians to a less disastrous course.
In this international diplomatic arena, Russia has most certainly gained a very powerful seat at the table. She can use her own energy sources, as shown above, to dictate to both east and west the terms of negotiations. She can allow Iran’s threats in the Straits to affect the negotiations or not, without any potential harm to herself.
Russia can simply choose to affect the situation or not, because it holds so many of the cards, based on its domestic and international energy position.
Once financially broke and searching for direction after the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Russia now enjoys a multi-faceted position of strategic power because she was willing to use all of the resources available to her.
Returning to the thuggish ways of the old socialist/communist mentality is not admirable, but we do have to acknowledge the powerful position they’ve craftily obtained.
By contrast, our unwillingness to use our own petroleum and other energy assets hurts our financial security and is a strategic vulnerability.
The situation in Russia should be a wake up call to all of our elected officials, especially those many Democrats who won’t even discuss the energy issue and are out on vacation. Necessity dictates that it be addressed sooner rather than later. Necessity also dictates we pursue all sources of energy to the maximum extent including fossil fuels everywhere and in every form available, unless and until our entire nation is realigned away from them
Russia’s invasion of Georgia highlights the strategic importance of energy independence. Their aggression demonstrates several areas of weakness where other forces can easily influence and affect our energy situation and national security.
First, an antagonist can directly limit or impair the supply and movement of oil in the world. In the case of Russia and Georgia, a major oil pipeline runs through Georgia. By their actions, the Russians could have taken control of that line. They still could.
Similar risks to the free movement of petroleum exist in the Straits of Hormuz where Iran threatens to disrupt the movement of oil if “provoked.” It’s a point of leverage they have, and would willingly use.
Second, when nations are beholden to others for energy needs, the suppliers hold great sway. In this case, much of Europe depends very heavily on the Russians for their petroleum energy needs.
This puts Russia in the driver’s seat for negotiations about their involvement in the conflict. Europe must tip-toe gingerly around Russia with their disapproval, and is limited in how much and what it can say because of their dependence upon Russia for fossil fuels. If angered or offended, the Russians have simply to close the spigot in order to affect a change in attitude amongst the Europeans.
We run into the same potential problems with the many nations who supply us petroleum. Although we have fairly friendly relationships with Canada and Mexico, we understand the limits of friendship with some nations who send us oil from the Middle East and South America. Billions of dollars go to Middle Eastern nations who tolerate Islamic terrorists. Hugo Chavez is constantly threatening to cut off the supply of oil to our country from Venezuela.
Third, is the direct ability to supply our own energy needs during a time of crisis. Beyond the strategic petroleum reserve (which will only last a relatively short duration in an extended conflict) our unwillingness to use domestic petroleum resources puts us in a weak strategic position because it fuels our military and runs the infrastructure that feeds our nation.
By contrast, Russia’s willingness to utilize her own energy sources has created a strong national security position.
Lastly, not as direct a threat but none the less a consideration in being dependent upon other nations for energy, is the fact that international diplomacy and influence are either enhanced or limited, depending upon a nation’s place on the spectrum of energy dependence.
Beyond affecting outcomes of direct conflict as seen with Russia and Europe, is the capacity to persuade actions elsewhere in the world.
For example, Iran is unquestionably a troublesome child on the world’s playground. We, along with Europe, depend heavily upon Russian influence to diplomatically reach solutions and win over the Iranians to a less disastrous course.
In this international diplomatic arena, Russia has most certainly gained a very powerful seat at the table. She can use her own energy sources, as shown above, to dictate to both east and west the terms of negotiations. She can allow Iran’s threats in the Straits to affect the negotiations or not, without any potential harm to herself.
Russia can simply choose to affect the situation or not, because it holds so many of the cards, based on its domestic and international energy position.
Once financially broke and searching for direction after the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Russia now enjoys a multi-faceted position of strategic power because she was willing to use all of the resources available to her.
Returning to the thuggish ways of the old socialist/communist mentality is not admirable, but we do have to acknowledge the powerful position they’ve craftily obtained.
By contrast, our unwillingness to use our own petroleum and other energy assets hurts our financial security and is a strategic vulnerability.
The situation in Russia should be a wake up call to all of our elected officials, especially those many Democrats who won’t even discuss the energy issue and are out on vacation. Necessity dictates that it be addressed sooner rather than later. Necessity also dictates we pursue all sources of energy to the maximum extent including fossil fuels everywhere and in every form available, unless and until our entire nation is realigned away from them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
