Don’t worry Jeff and Wes – Russia is not invading your Georgia.
Did Bismarck just die? Geopolitically the world looks like it did in in the first years of the 20th century. Everything that is old is new again. We have one military super power and a rise of nationalism throughout the world. Hell ,we even have people trotting out that tired old nag of collectivism here in the US of A. They are so unimaginative they are calling it “Progressivism” again. Teddy and Woody would be so proud.
Make no mistake these are dangerous times my friends. The pieces on the board are moving. Russia can sense a weaker America and it is acting. Maybe the world is just finding her balance. After all Russians and Georgians have been fighting as long as there have been Russians and Georgians.
Please know that a great deal of our problems now are due to the emasculation of our president by his party’s opposition for their own self interest. His own State Department, along with a pernicious and incompetent CIA has also helped. Ask your self when did the price of oil start to shoot up? Was it coincidence that it started to sky rocket after that poison pill of an NIE came out? It has come down some thanks in part to the American people becoming open to drilling domestically. Watch it rise again due to this conflict at the foot of the Caucasus.
(Did anyone catch Obama’s first response to Russia’s aggression? It was a stumbling and rambling Rodney King “can’t we all just get along” moment. You get this guy under pressure and away from a teleprompter and he makes Bush look eloquent. This conflict resolution stuff is getting real old – real fast!)
gurusteve
DFV the Scribe
Andre the Defiant
Wes
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
thompaine
Drowning Creek
Mo K.
Sting the Away
PG – “Everything that is old is new again. We have one military super power and a rise of nationalism throughout the world.
It is good to see the return of PG in a spot-on analysis. When/If Obama takes office, the American side of his analysis will come to fruition as the great power in the West will retreat home to let the rest of the world settle their little disputes. We can’t police the world after all, right?
E the Wise
August 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Thanks PG for clearing that up. I’ve been sitting in my bunker all day waiting for Russian tanks to come rolling over the hill.
Drowning Creek
August 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The Beast knew PG couldn’t go forever without posting.
hairybeast
August 10, 2008 at 9:55 am
China and Russia and several radical Middle Eastern countries will very quickly push the Obama pushover to see how much of a wussy pushover he really is if he is elected. The world is a restive, dangerous place. We Conservatives realize that, but we aren’t convinced our Democratic friends do. They seem so focused on banning public smoking, oil drilling and wringing their hands over the supposed polar bear crisis that the real issues that affect the world’s balance of power will overwhelm and befuddle them.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
August 10, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Agreed Dave. Obama had best hope Georgia resolves itself quickly.
hairybeast
August 10, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Georgia has behaved foolishly and recklessly in this case. I am a confirmed neo-con, and so I give due diligence to analysis like that of Bill Kristol in today’s NY Times. BTW, he thinks that we should be much more forceful with Russia.
But the Georgian calculation was that with a world stage at the Olympics, that world stage would somehow save them from their folly. It will not happen. We should stand by the Georgians as much as possible diplomatically, but beyond that, the Georgians must show some wisdom.
PG says: Please know that a great deal of our problems now are due to the emasculation of our president by his party’s opposition for their own self interest….
I agree in part, but I can’t blame others for the emasculation of Pres. Bush. He has done that work himself.
DFV the Scribe
August 10, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Didn’t oil drop after Bernanke announced that consumption was down and there was an increase in supply overseas? Wouldn’t the announcement that there MAY be more oil in the system at least 5-10 years down the road be met with a bit of a shrug by the market? I know they deal in futures, but generally not that far in advance.
As for Georgia/Russia, the whole deal is a mess, but I don’t think Russia moved first, did they? Your analogy to WWI is dead on, but I thought the lesson of that was that it was better to be the US than it was to be anyone in Europe. This time, I don’t think we’d escape without war reaching our soil. I thought Obama’s first response was measured. McCain just seems eager to get caught back up in the Cold War or perhaps to take it a step further.
Wes
August 11, 2008 at 12:16 am
No Wes, Bernanke isn’t any more of an expert on oil than you and I are. He is not looked at as having stature when it comes to oil. Oil is international, our Fed chairman has zero pull, and no one gives his views weight. Anyone, with any sense has known there was not a scarcity. In fact there is a FIFTY year window. The buildup to the Olympics is also reducing demand. Commodities deal with as long of a window as possible.
You do not give a measured response to naked aggression Wes; that is the problem. Whether Georgia did anything first is immaterial, they did what they did within their own borders. Russia has invaded.
pg - your humble messenger
August 11, 2008 at 9:36 am
PG said “Please know that a great deal of our problems now are due to the emasculation of our president by his party’s opposition for their own self interest…”
Fairly apt analysis. I might also theorise that the war in Iraq has to a certain extent cooled the relationship between some NATO allies. I’m not bringing this up as a referendum on the war just pointing out that the Soviets … uhhh I mean Russians yeah the Russians are taking advantage.
thompaine
August 11, 2008 at 9:56 am
My perception of oil trading has been that it is generally not something one holds onto. It looks at long-term trends to buy and sell in the short-term. Perhaps Big Steve could drop by and school me (or you might), but from my own limited experience, futures are not generally bought with an eye on long-term investment, you make money on them by betting on expected value. Buying futures over 5 years in advance is risky, because so much can change and knock you out of the money. The amount of oil that could be put into the system by offshore drilling doesn’t even come close to how much demand could keep growing, so I don’t see why anyone would put money down on oil being substantially lower in price.
The real thing I think will eventually drive down the price is the legitimate belief that Americans are going to be buying more and more hybrids. I like the idea in Obama’s plan of a big tax rebate for hybrid cars, because if we put that in place, it makes it more feasible to buy hybrids and puts more of them on the road. Assuming that the US automakers are going to build them, which seems likely given that they just got their asses handed to them this year. Putting hybrids on the road cuts gas mileage in half for every car bought, and that savings grows exponentially. That would save way, way more gas than getting more oil. As would improving public transportation programs or Obama’s much maligned plan to convince everyone to make sure their tires are inflated and get tuneups. Hell, give a tax rebate for getting a tuneup. That pumps money into the service economy AND saves gas mileage.
That said, I like the latest compromise legislation and hope it gets passed. I have nothing against oil drilling morally (except in the Gulf), I just don’t want it to be passed as a solution to the oil crisis without other measures in place that would actually work in shorter time.
Wes
August 11, 2008 at 10:16 am
Sure DFV – I understand you. I just dismiss your opinion because you also believe that the Biden-McCain “surge”, read “surge” as “throw a bunch more troops at it”, of a 100,000 or more troops sitting around in bases waiting for mortars to be lobed at them, and then getting shot and killed during their daily scheduled outings would have accomplished something other than raising our body count.
Scribe – McCain advocated a few things – First he, along with a number of general officers who were slated for voluntary (forced) retirement and who were out of touch with current force capabilities, wanted at least twice the numbers on the ground before invasion. They wanted a Desert Storm type of overwhelming force approach. Two problems with that: One – due to troop reductions we were no longer capable on our own (or with the British) of amassing such a large force. Two – that type of force was no longer needed. Tommy Franks presented a plan of overwhelming fire power without the need for a large conventional force. I think history proved Franks and the men who approved his plan namely Bush and Rumsfeld right.
Second – McCain, along with a number of others called for a larger troop presence after we were victorious over the Iraqi military. Without going into great detail on a timeline on when these troops were advocated and the status on the ground in Iraq suffice it to say that nobody who advocated said troops gave a hint as to what you do with them except they were needed for “security”. This was true before and after the insurgency.
Not having a plan for those additional troops is important. Petraeus had not developed his COIN plan at the time when “McCain’s Troops” were being demanded. The commanders on the ground were not asking for more troops. Sending more in at that time, without a plan for their use, would just have gotten more of them killed. This is in danger of happening in Afghanistan. Obama is advocating more American troops without a plan of what to do with them. For instance the type matters, more National Guard troops are not useful if placed in a COIN situation, and you put them at a much high risk. More American troops in our zones (American Zones) will not get the Germans to fight, and on and on.
I like McCain on balance. I think his stance on the Iraq War is the main reason he is the best choice for president. His stance was to keep our commitment and press on to victory. He recognized, and still does, how vital our interests are in Iraq. He kept faithful to these principles when they were not only unpopular, but when they were (and would have without the recent success) ending his political career.
So it is McCain’s character, his willingness to do what he thinks is right regardless of its personal ramifications is what makes him a good choice for president. This is a trait he shares with Bush. Advocating McCain because he shrewdly knew the way out in Iraq before anyone else did, as Damien’s sometimes catty remarks seem to indicate from time to time, is silly. The record does not bear it out. In fact McCain’s combativeness on an interpersonal basis was very counterproductive and very divisive. From that standpoint Jeff’s view of McCain is more on the mark than the Scribe’s.
Now anyone who thinks that the way the State Department, the CIA and the politicians who have undercut the president for their own self interests did so due to the president’s own actions I would like them to please ‘splain how that works to me. The NIE was a very dangerous and Bush did not do that to himself.
DVF, I would like nothing better than for you to layout specifically the factual foundations for the accusations you tend to bring against Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, as well as your justifications as to why I should look at Capitan McCain as the next Clausewitz. I will be very happy to deconstruct them as best I can. I also would like you to help me out with your justifications for placing the “blame” on Bush, Cheney and the Defense Department for the policies that helped foster and emboldened the insurgency and not on State where it more properly belongs.
pg - your humble messenger
August 11, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Thom, NATO read the EU, is afraid the Russia will shut off their oil if they stand up to her.
pg - your humble messenger
August 11, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Wes, what in the world does oil as a commodity have to do with how it should be part of one’s investment portfolio? You are approaching it wrong. Yes even very short term supply problems due to war or natural disasters can make a great difference. Bottle necks in middle terms can also have an affect. Reserves are long term. What you are saying is nonsensical. Would you guys quit appealing to Steve? Learn for yourself, its not rocket science. Here, it will take you guys a few minutes.
The rest of your comments involve ideas I believe are based on fiction. A sound energy and environmental policy is fine. You do not get there by accepting things. Think Progress is not the be all and end all!
Leaving all your ideas aside except for the “hybrid” idea, please explain how your hybrid argument works when it would not put a dent in the increase in demand? We are not the ones who going to be making up the increase in demand. India, China and the rest of Asia are who is driving demand now.
For a perspectice and a few facts on supply… Oil reserves not running out anytime soon
Josh Brownlow.
pg - your humble messenger
August 11, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I think I am done for awhile now.
pg - your humble messenger
August 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think you’ve filled your quota for the day PG…. go in peace.
thompaine
August 11, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I don’t see the hybrid idea as a means to drive down oil prices globally but instead as a way to get America and Americans less dependent on foriegn oil. Of course that’s not what Wes said I’m just throwing my two cents in.
I believe that I have said before that until and unless we find a viable (and that’s the key word in this sentence) alternative fuel to run our cars on this problem won’t go away. Driving less, geting regular tune ups, inflating your tires properly and even buying a hybrid are great ideas on a personal level to help us regular people save some $$$ on gas but none of it is going to help on a global level.
thompaine
August 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I’m not really thinking on a global level. I’m not sure you’d convince China to use less oil no matter what. But we’re talking about drilling because we want to save OUR supply, right? Not to get more out there to other nations. So finding more ways to conserve should be our very first line of defense, and it is stupid of John McCain to argue against that, particularly using props. Obama should give tire gauges out on his website for $5 or free.
Wes
August 11, 2008 at 8:57 pm