Going to war
This administration (top-heavy with Houston energy whozits) can go to war over oil without having or even wanting ownership of the attacked nation's oil reserves. Ownership is not the issue. Control of the flow is the issue. Maintaining the strategic status-quo is the issue. These modern-day energy conglomerates have put old man Rockefeller to shame. The US Government forced father John's Standard Oil to break off (some would say mastesize) into Esso and other smaller entities. Today, the hand-in-glove relationship with energy and government is so intertwined that you cannot have one without the other.
To get a clear picture of this, research James Baker, whom Bush recently sent abroad seeking help to reduce Iraq's debt. Does Baker represent the US Government? The Saudis? His other clients? Just look at the cases Baker's Houston-based law firm, Baker Botts, represents. Also take a look at Enron’s political contributions.
We would all be better off -- and less fog-headed -- if these energy people (from the President on up) simply told us the truth; simply said that energy (oil) maintenance has become the job of our government. It has become the mandate of the military to make certain that political instability (present or future) in no way effects the flow of our energy needs. Energy, the military industry, and the bureaucracy now unabashedly determine our political fate.
This rationale should stand on its own merits. We don’t need the pretense of WMDs, terrorists, or bringing “enlightened” government to the hapless natives who happen to walk over all that oil which we have laid claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment