Rather Than Peak Oil
Webster Tarpley believes the root causes of the 9/11 attacks were:
1) global devaluation of the US dollar.
2) the increasing tendency of oil-producing countries not to trade oil in dollars (pre-invasion Iraq, Iran), further weakening the dollar and the ability of the US to control oil supples. Saudi Arabia has threatenend switching to the euro.
3) general global monetary instability.
4) the desire of the neocons to maintain American pre-eminence by waging war.
5) the desire of the neocons to confront the muslim world, whose huge population growth threatened American predominance.
Clearly this is a much more nuanced view than the idea that the US set-up the 9/11 attacks so as to provide an excuse to invade oil-rich countries, which was necessary because total oil supplies are peaking and will soon run out.
Tarpley's thesis fits in the neocons much better than the Peak Oil theory, and certainly the neocons are an important group who was pushing for more aggressive US military responses around the world and was looking for a spark or a new "Pearl Harbor".
Personally, I have tended to disbelieve the doomsday aspects to the Peak Oil theory, and thus Tarpley's thesis makes somewhat more sense to me.
Further, Tarpley posits that rather than wanting the Muslim world to democratize and modernize, the Anglo-US elites want destabilized Muslim countries. The reason being that modern forward-looking Muslim countries would look away from the US for economic development and seek separate economic accords with Europe, Japan and large third-world countries like Brazil. Thus, by fomenting Islamic fundamentalism, the US can keep Muslim countries backwards and isolated, and dependent upon the US. From this point of view, the US war in Iraq has been a smashing success-- in that rather than truly democratizing Iraq, the country is likely to be very unstable and ruled by backwards-looking Islamic leaders. Thus, Iraq is ripe for the picking by colonial powers such as the US. Moreover, the anti-American anger created by the US invasion of Iraq also plays right into the hands of this US strategy.
Note then, the false criticism waged by prominent US Democrats-- that the Iraq war will spark more instability and Islamic fundamentalism. The reason that this is a false criticism is because it misses the key point that this instability is exactly what the American elites and the neocons want. A major problem with US Democrats, it seems, is their ability to miss the big picture-- most acutely with Bush's "war on terror". If they do see the big picture, they are afraid to articulate it-- much to our detriment as a society.
Perhaps Democrats are more-or-less resigned to this imperial US policy-- they enjoy the benefits too-- and are content to merely criticize the sick US foreign policy around the edges for political purposes. If so, shame on them.
Not that Democrats are the major problem. That distinction obviously belongs to the evil and rapacious tendencies of the US elites, and their representatives in the Bush administration. But Democrats, by and large, are clearly enablers of these policies.
The ultimate goal the US elites and neocons is to maintain US world domination. The major obstacles to world domination are China (because of its population and incredible economic growth potential) and the Muslim world (for its control of oil supplies and huge population). Since China is highly militarized and has nuclear weapons, it is likely suicidal for the US to directly take on China. The US strategy therefore seems to be to take on the Muslim world, which is more ripe for domination, and in so doing, control much of the world's oil supply-- on which China is dependent for its growth. In other words, by taking on the Muslim world, they hope to kill two birds with one stone.
Whether the US elites and neocons can actually succeed in this or not is another question. Iran will be key for them-- especially in light of newly developing relations between Iran and China. Clearly, however, we are looking at a future with large-scale global tensions, perhaps played out slowly over the next decade rather than in the next four years.
1) global devaluation of the US dollar.
2) the increasing tendency of oil-producing countries not to trade oil in dollars (pre-invasion Iraq, Iran), further weakening the dollar and the ability of the US to control oil supples. Saudi Arabia has threatenend switching to the euro.
3) general global monetary instability.
4) the desire of the neocons to maintain American pre-eminence by waging war.
5) the desire of the neocons to confront the muslim world, whose huge population growth threatened American predominance.
Clearly this is a much more nuanced view than the idea that the US set-up the 9/11 attacks so as to provide an excuse to invade oil-rich countries, which was necessary because total oil supplies are peaking and will soon run out.
Tarpley's thesis fits in the neocons much better than the Peak Oil theory, and certainly the neocons are an important group who was pushing for more aggressive US military responses around the world and was looking for a spark or a new "Pearl Harbor".
Personally, I have tended to disbelieve the doomsday aspects to the Peak Oil theory, and thus Tarpley's thesis makes somewhat more sense to me.
Further, Tarpley posits that rather than wanting the Muslim world to democratize and modernize, the Anglo-US elites want destabilized Muslim countries. The reason being that modern forward-looking Muslim countries would look away from the US for economic development and seek separate economic accords with Europe, Japan and large third-world countries like Brazil. Thus, by fomenting Islamic fundamentalism, the US can keep Muslim countries backwards and isolated, and dependent upon the US. From this point of view, the US war in Iraq has been a smashing success-- in that rather than truly democratizing Iraq, the country is likely to be very unstable and ruled by backwards-looking Islamic leaders. Thus, Iraq is ripe for the picking by colonial powers such as the US. Moreover, the anti-American anger created by the US invasion of Iraq also plays right into the hands of this US strategy.
Note then, the false criticism waged by prominent US Democrats-- that the Iraq war will spark more instability and Islamic fundamentalism. The reason that this is a false criticism is because it misses the key point that this instability is exactly what the American elites and the neocons want. A major problem with US Democrats, it seems, is their ability to miss the big picture-- most acutely with Bush's "war on terror". If they do see the big picture, they are afraid to articulate it-- much to our detriment as a society.
Perhaps Democrats are more-or-less resigned to this imperial US policy-- they enjoy the benefits too-- and are content to merely criticize the sick US foreign policy around the edges for political purposes. If so, shame on them.
Not that Democrats are the major problem. That distinction obviously belongs to the evil and rapacious tendencies of the US elites, and their representatives in the Bush administration. But Democrats, by and large, are clearly enablers of these policies.
The ultimate goal the US elites and neocons is to maintain US world domination. The major obstacles to world domination are China (because of its population and incredible economic growth potential) and the Muslim world (for its control of oil supplies and huge population). Since China is highly militarized and has nuclear weapons, it is likely suicidal for the US to directly take on China. The US strategy therefore seems to be to take on the Muslim world, which is more ripe for domination, and in so doing, control much of the world's oil supply-- on which China is dependent for its growth. In other words, by taking on the Muslim world, they hope to kill two birds with one stone.
Whether the US elites and neocons can actually succeed in this or not is another question. Iran will be key for them-- especially in light of newly developing relations between Iran and China. Clearly, however, we are looking at a future with large-scale global tensions, perhaps played out slowly over the next decade rather than in the next four years.
posted by spooked at 10:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home