NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been mulling this complex idea around for awhile and im leaning toward supporting a phased withdrawl of all US military used for the purposes of securing oil shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz and of all military in the Middle East. The US would inform the world that it would begin withdrawing from the area in 3-5 years or whatever and our new Middle East energy policy would be that we would pay for all oil on delivery when it reached US shores and pumped into our holding tanks.

Now to analize the possible impact of such a policy. Yes in the short term, the economy would go crazy. Oil may shoot up to $500 a barrel, things might get crazy for a short while. But i suspect it would be the pain of a bandaid being ripped off. The M.E. doesnt have the entire worlds supply of oil so eventually market forces and order would restore prices to much nearer to normal levels. The ME countries would eventually have to build thier own shipping boats and negotiate free passage with thier neighbors. The thing is, the ME needs US money just as badly as the US needs ME oil so it will be in everyones best interest to eventually negotiate peaceful trade routes. If ME countries want to declare war on each other the US position should be hey guys knock yourselves out we will sit here waiting to pay for boats that arrive filled with oil regardless where it comes from. Even if the eventual oil prices end up being doubled, the US can subsidize the oil prices by the savings from not spending hundreds of billions a year extending the Army and Navy to the ME. The US could also save hundreds of billions more in antiterror savings because there wont be any reason for brown people to be angry at the US anymore. No more US soldiers die. And people can once again board planes w/o being strip searched and have Constitutional protections restored from a no longer panicking Congress.

The negatives of this policy are that the US loses what they consider an important forward position of the US military and it sort of reduces US Naval influences but other than ego how really important is this? Im not suggesting we are abandoning Israel or anything this is a purely oil/energy based decision.

I realize in the short term this policy would create a massive shakeup. The question i ask is 20 years from now , once people got used to the idea would it be better in the long run?

Oil may shoot up to $500 a barrel...$500? I dont think so.
We pay-on-delivery for articles from other countries.. and the price differential is not X5.

How many products do you know that have doubled in price in the last 2 years? The price of oil seems to jump several percent by just having Turks mess with Kurds and get in the NYTimes about it way out of proportion with its percent of the world inventory of oil. Having an imperial armed force in a region upsets local people and ultimatley is counterproductive to regional stability.

How many products do you know that have doubled in price in the last 2 years? The price of oil seems to jump several percent by just having Turks mess with Kurds and get in the NYTimes about it way out of proportion with its percent of the world inventory of oil. Having an imperial armed force in a region upsets local people and ultimatley is counterproductive to regional stability.

When has the Middle East ever been stable?

When has the Middle East ever been stable?

last time i checked, never.

Having an imperial armed force in a region upsets local people and ultimatley is counterproductive to regional stability.of course it upsets people, of course its counterproductive in the long term..

what I am questioning is the estimate of $500 .. an automatic X5 surcharge is not realistic.. The tankers have still to be built/leased, the sailors still have to be paid, the harbor/canal fees have still to be paid.. the -long term- operational costs are more or less the same..

last time i checked, never.

Actually, it was quite stable - when it was occupied by the Turks. Even the Brits and French were able to keep a lid on things.

Argument in favour of imperialism..?

When has the Middle East ever been stable?
From about the 1850s back through most of recorded history?

Keep in mind that history runs back before 1776 and you might get a slightly different impression to your current one.



Oh, and the consequence would be that energy prices would rise a bit. Nowadays, suppliers buy a 6-month package of oil, which is why petrol (gasoline) isn't as expensive as it ought to be. Yet.

Actually, it was quite stable - when it was occupied by the Turks. Even the Brits and French were able to keep a lid on things.

Argument in favour of imperialism..?

Actually...in truth, it was not as stable as history tries to portray it to be. There was strife even under the Ottoman Empire and under the British.

When has the Middle East ever been stable?

Before the 1920s... basically before the British munged it up.

Actually...in truth, it was not as stable as history tries to portray it to be. There was strife even under the Ottoman Empire and under the British.

Yes, there was, but not on the kind of scale we see today. Plus, a lot of the strife was between the Ottomans and Iran - which was never occupied.

From about the 1850s back through most of recorded history?

Keep in mind that history runs back before 1776 and you might get a slightly different impression to your current one.

You already know that not everybody here is American. I happen to be English, and the history that I've read about goes back a looong way before 1776...

Before 1850? Eeven excluding earlier bits of European intervention, like Napoleon's? Let's see _
Sporadic occurrences of Arab, Druze & Kurdish unrest, whether 'rebellion' or just poorly-suppressed banditry, in the areas whose cities were under Ottoman rule.
The struggle between Mehmet Ali (the 'Khedive' of Egypt, nominally the Ottomans' governor there) and the Ottomans' central government over control of the Palestine/Syria area.
The first wave of Wahabbi atacks on the surrounding peoples, and the Ottoman campaigns (one led by Mehmet Ali) against them.
The Ottomans' conquest of Syria/Palestine (and Egypt) from the Mamelukes.
The Ottomans' unification of Anataolia.
(Invasion by Tamurlaine.)
Fighting between various new states in the Iraq/Iran/Anatolia area after the collapse of Mongol rule.
(Invasion by the Mongols.)
Ayoubid & Mameluke conquest of the 'Crusader' states.
(The Crusades)
Struggles between the various Turkish warlords (e.g. Zangi of Mosul) who tried carving out kingdoms for themselves after the main Seljuk sultanate collapsed.
Invasion by the Seljuq Turks. (That takes us back to about 1000AD)
Struggles between various local dynasties that had broken free from the Caliph's effective control, such as the Buhwayids and Samanids...
Suppression of the 'Quarmatians', a religious/political movement in Arabia that had led the locals into war against the Caliphate.
The revolt of the 'Zanj' (African slaves, used as labour on sugarcane plantations) in what's now southern Iraq.
Struggles between various dynasties for the role of Caliph. (Okay, I'll admit that there were some periods when a series of successful rulers within a single dynasty kept at least part of the overall region reasonably stable... but that tended to depend as much on their personalities as on the development of institutions, so it never lasted...)
The expansion of Islam.
Persian and Abyssinian campaigns in Arabia.
Numerous wars between Romans/Byzantines, Persians, and various nomadic peoples out of central Asia. (Including the establishment & destruction of a short-lived 'empire' centred on the Syrian city of Palmyra).
Sassanid Persian overthrow of the Parthians.
Wars between the Romans and the Parthians.
Jewish revolts against Rome.
(That's back to about 01AD: Shall we stop there?)

Yes, there was, but not on the kind of scale we see today. Plus, a lot of the strife was between the Ottomans and Iran - which was never occupied.
Actually, the assertation that Iran "was never occupied" is only partly correct, because both Britain and Russia had troops controlling parts of that country at various times during the 19th & 20th centuries...

Yes, there was, but not on the kind of scale we see today. Plus, a lot of the strife was between the Ottomans and Iran - which was never occupied.

Well that's true.

Actually, the assertation that Iran "was never occupied" is only partly correct, because both Britain and Russia had troops controlling parts of that country at various times during the 19th & 20th centuries...

I view those as more border disputes. While I have no doubt whatsoever that both Imperial Britain and Imperial Russia would have liked to control Iran, neither seemed willing to commit the kind of forces that would have actually allowed them to do so.