http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/10742Sentiment is growing in both political parties for extending the U.S. military presence in Iraq in order "to ensure the safe flow of petroleum," according to the Nov. 12th issue of The Nation magazine.
Not only is President Bush protracting U.S. engagement in Iraq but the two leading Democratic contenders for his job, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, seek to keep a U.S. military presence in the region.
Clinton told The New York Times Iraq is "right in the heart of the oil region" and thus "it is directly in opposition to our interests" for it to become a pawn of Iran or failed state. Obama has also spoken of the need to maintain a robust US military presence in Iraq and the surrounding area, writes Michael Klare, the magazine's defense correspondent and professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College.
Senior officials in both parties, he notes, "are calling for a reinvigorated U.S. military role in the protection of foreign energy deliveries."
Klare writes no dramatic change in U.S. policy in the Gulf region should be expected from the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic. "If anything," he says, "we should expect an increase in the use of military force to protect the overseas flow of oil, as the threat level rises along with the need for new investment to avert even further reductions in global supplies."
The likelihood of a continuing U.S. presence in the Middle East is framed against a backdrop of growing demand for oil. The global output of "liquids," the U.S. Energy Department says, using its new term for oil, is expected to rise from 84 million barrels of oil equivalent(mboe) per day in 2005 to about 117.6 mboe in 2030. And that's virtually the same as anticipated demand, Klare reports.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
