Energy policy is very much a foreign affairs subject.
Very much so... But WITHOUT your obvious partisanship..
Politicians always promise the world.. It's what they deliver that matters.
Thus, since none of these individuals, other than Bush, are in a position to impact US energy policy, they are irrelevant.
And yes.. I think all sides see the vulnerability of the US to energy blackmail. After all, an illegal international monopoly has been dictating the market prices of oil for decades now, impacting every economy in the world.
IMO, those regimes (Saudis..etc) who, through enablement by the US and Britain have managed the oil resources of the Middle East, have proven to be poor stewards of those resources. They have treated those resources as if they belong to themselves and their illegitimate regimes, and not to the people of the country. They have permitted their people to remain in squalor while they fly around in jets and live in fabulous mansions.
And now the pidgeons are coming home to roost for the West.. And it's incumbent upon us to alter their destiny...
Weaning the US off of Middle East oil is one thing.. But it will not remove the problem of militant Islamo-Fascism. There is the onerous demographic trend that will have to be dealt with as well (50% of Saudi Arabia is under the age of 18). We cannot reduce the economic revenues in the region without exacerbating the societal strife mounting there (which leads to more militantcy and violence).
So what is important, imo, is diversifying the economy of the middle east, educating the people, and providing an alternative to militant behavior (jobs).. Thus, oil will remain a vital part of their economic base. But western nations will have more control over how those revenues are distributed and utilized.
Hawk |
