[JohnDenver]

Going back to the early days of peak oil and this forum, the doomers have consistently pushed the idea that nations will go to war for oil.

This hasn't always gone well. In fact, some of the earliest predictions to go down the toilet were those by Michael Ruppert and Matt Savinar that the draft would soon be reinstated:

Here's how I think the draft will go down:

1. Michael Moore's film helps stir up anti-Saudi sentiment among the general population.

2. House of Saud continues to destabilize.

3. Increased terrorist activity, relating to number two.

4. Need a president to call for a draft? Who better to ask than a Democrat ex-war hero? Just like you needed a Dem to get welfare reform through, you need a Dem to get the draft.

John Kerry has said he will fight the war on terror "better" than Bush!Source

As you can see, the peak oil wonderboy shot himself in the face on that one.

Going forward, though, it's interesting question. Numerous people here and elsewhere have told me, over the last few years, that the American people will not tolerate any decline in their lifestyle and will vote in a little Hitler to GET THAT OIL, by whatever means necessary.

Events don't seem to be bearing that out:

1) The SUV industry rolled over and died without so much as a whimper.

2) When the SHTF with the recent credit crisis, there was no rush to arms or nationalism. In fact, the exact opposite was the case. There was an amazing and totally unprecedented act of global cooperation.

3) Most importantly: If the U.S. is going to wage war for oil, why are they going to select a highly reasonable, nice guy like Barack Obama as the president? Obama seems like a pretty unlikely choice if you're looking for a warmonger to fight over oil.

[copious.abundance]

I've got a sneaking suspicion Obama will actually be friendly for oil prices (and world oil supply flows, too). Being more of a pacifist than most Republicans, he is less likely to stir international trouble than his opponent. Less international turmoil = fewer potential oil price spikes caused by aforementioned trouble.

[gandolf]

Going back to the early days of peak oil and this forum, the doomers have consistently pushed the idea that nations will go to war for oil.


Most importantly: If the U.S. is going to wage war for oil, why are they going to select a highly reasonable, nice guy like Barack Obama as the president? Obama seems like a pretty unlikely choice if you're looking for a warmonger to fight over oil.

I am not sure if you have been reading the papers latley but America is already involved in oil wars..... It's called Iraq

And the only reason that Bush didnt invade Iran was that the dumb sh#t has finnaly worked out that america is bankrupt and cant afford it.

[3aidlillahi]

Going back to the early days of peak oil and this forum, the doomers have consistently pushed the idea that nations will go to war for oil.


Most importantly: If the U.S. is going to wage war for oil, why are they going to select a highly reasonable, nice guy like Barack Obama as the president? Obama seems like a pretty unlikely choice if you're looking for a warmonger to fight over oil.

I am not sure if you have been reading the papers latley but America is already involved in oil wars..... It's called Iraq

And the only reason that Bush didnt invade Iran was that the dumb sh#t has finnaly worked out that america is bankrupt and cant afford it.

Yes but a lot of people (maybe even myself in the past) had been calling for even more wars to break out over oil. Look at Savinar's post - it was from '04, which was after Iraq had gotten underway. Many people had though that we'd be occupying KSA or other Gulf states by now, diverting resources to the US when oil hit $150. Never seemed to come close. Most people realized how awful of a President that Bush is and rejected him, taking away even more authority and ability from his willingness to conduct such military operations by voting Democratic in 2006, buying smaller cars, etc.

Further, we see that America is likely voting for Obama for President. He's talked about the need to get out of Iraq - which is an oil war as you say. If it's an oil war and he wants us out and the American public want him in office, then it must say that the American people want us out of oil wars, which goes against the previous logical stand of many people here that economic distress and high oil prices would lead to more intervention of oil-producing nations, not less.

[Carlhole]

I'm also in the camp that thinks that Iraq is largely about oil. I'll be very, very surprised if Obama withdraws all American troops and leaves all those "enduring" bases for someone else to occupy.

[JohnDenver]

I'm also in the camp that thinks that Iraq is largely about oil.

That may be, but if so, it just goes to show how stupid oil war is as a strategy. According to the EIA, the US has received about 1.2 billion barrels of oil from Iraq since the war began, and paid for all of it. In addition, the final cost of the war has been estimated at $3 trillion plus. That comes out to >$2500/barrel. How dumb is that? And I'm not even figuring in the oil being burnt to prosecute the war. Talk about a lousy EROEI.

[JohnDenver]

Another data point...

Note that all the major "oil wars" of recent history have been futile. Japan fought for oil, and lost. Germany fought for oil, and lost. Sadam invaded Kuwait for oil, and lost. The U.S. invaded Iraq, and got financially bled to death. Fighting for oil doesn't seem to pay.

[yesplease]

At least for countries. It's been pretty positive for others. The majors are in one of the most oil rich areas of the globe for the first time in a few decades. I bet they're pretty happy about the investment in Dubbya.

[Carlhole]

Another data point...

Note that all the major "oil wars" of recent history have been futile. Japan fought for oil, and lost. Germany fought for oil, and lost. Sadam invaded Kuwait for oil, and lost. The U.S. invaded Iraq, and got financially bled to death. Fighting for oil doesn't seem to pay.

It appears to have been a cripplingly expensive strategic blunder. One can only wonder how it might have gone down had Ike Eisenhower been Defense Secretary.

Back in 2003, it seemed reasonable to forecast a draft - as Ruppert and others had siad there would be. After all, if you are are going to invade a country and seize control of it, you had better overwhelm its people before they can organize resistance. How else are you going to subdue a large country like Iraq and force it to sue for peace quickly?

The US did not do militarily necessary things. In fact, it seemed to make a series of amateurish mistakes that ensured a festering quagmire. In some respects, America attempted to do everything on the cheap; in other respects it threw money at the war as if it were deliberately committing financial hari-kari.

I still don't believe all that nonsense about WMD - the weapons inspectors were pooh-poohing that whole bogus line of sh*t for months before the invasion. I still don't believe that people in the White House and Pentagon thought that a hated foreign invader could actually tame a piece of the Middle East and institute Democracy through force, converting it into a friendly client-state virtually overnight.

The whole thing has always been very puzzling. However, control over oil remains the best hypothesis for the war. If peak oil were foreseen by the Anglo-American powers-that-be, then their assuming control of the last immense cheap-oil province left on the planet can be understood as a way to assure American economic and strategic dominance well into the 21st century.

Yet, the war seems to be ending in a long, slow whimper. As hard as it is to believe, could it be that the war was just a colossal waste of money and lives? An adventure of pure stupidity?

How do YOU explain the Iraq War? How do you think future historians will explain it?

[coyote]

In addition to Iraq, I think one could make the case that there was something of a resource war in Nigeria this year - and probably that little conflict in the Caucasus as well, competing gas pipeline to Europe and all. But nothing big, as some were predicting. I doubt the U.S. would ever go into Saudi Arabia, unless say the House of Saud were toppled and the country became unable to export anything at all. That might do it. And Venezuela's possible someday - again, if the country becomes incapable of exporting their product (which just might happen if Chavez keeps running the place the way he is). After all, those folks will probably greet us as liberators, right?

However, water wars - mostly small but perhaps some of significant impact, such as those involving the Indus and the Jordan rivers - are in my opinion far more likely as the century progresses and desertification commences in earnest. That's not about lifestyle - that's about desperate survival. Asia, Africa and the Middle East. We're not there yet, but by all accounts I've read, we're getting there.

[mos6507]

Note that all the major "oil wars" of recent history have been futile. Japan fought for oil, and lost. Germany fought for oil, and lost. Sadam invaded Kuwait for oil, and lost. The U.S. invaded Iraq, and got financially bled to death. Fighting for oil doesn't seem to pay.

Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

[mos6507]

The public has been placated by the illusion that "drill baby drill" may somehow alleviate the problems so we can bring back the good old days. After the oil companies are unrestrained from poking holes in every last spot of US land, and they fail to provide relief when we fall off the global production plateau, then I would expect a good chunk of the US to radicalize out of panick. Hopefully we will do the right thing and get rolling on some kind of mitigation strategy before then so that the pulic will feel like they have a Plan B rather than feeling like their survival rests solely on fighting the rest of the world for access to foreign oil.

Just listen to the euphoria in the crowd. They just don't get it!

[flash width=425 height=344]http://www.youtube.com/v/xhvRQyRdVEI&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

[JohnDenver]

How do YOU explain the Iraq War? How do you think future historians will explain it?

You can make a good case that oil was part of it, but it clearly wasn't a straight "war for oil" because the US hasn't taken any oil. It's not a pirate raid if you don't take booty, and pay 40 times more than the ordinary market value for what "booty" you do get.

I think a better case could be made that it was a war to remove Saddam Hussein -- essentially Bush II continued Gulf War I, and finished up the job his father started. It eliminated an unpredictable enemy in a very sensitive area, and improved the safety of two key allies: the Saudis and the Israelis. The potential for new oil was just icing on the cake.

[ypct_george]

If the U.S. is going to wage war for oil, why are they going to select a highly reasonable, nice guy like Barack Obama as the president?

Because the whole government is just a puppet show? Because it now literally costs nothing to switch the country into emergency mode martial law at any time, using a false flag terrorist operation, or series thereof?

How do YOU explain the Iraq War?

1. destroy: war machine suppliers profit (raytheon, lockeed, ..)
2. rebuild: contractor profit (halliburton, ..)
3. take resources: oil will be taken when it's worth more than gold (big oil)
4. take position: Iran is next (repeat - empires need wars to survive)

How do you think future historians will explain it?

"History is a pack of lies agreed upon."
Depends on many factors.
Stop water, power and oil grids for a week, and explain to people it's because of lack of oil. Watch them demand an open resource war immediatelly. Watch them send their children to that war. Watch them be proud fighting that war.

[seahorse]

Countries may not make money off war, but companies do, whether wars are won or lost, the "defense industry" turns a pretty profit during otherwise unprofitable wars, at least these "brush fires" we seem to be fighting.

In my opinion, the latest Georgia brush fire had energy at the heart of its causes, as did Iraq if for no other reason than the Middle East has been declared a "strategic interest" of the US due to its oil. So, we sit in Iraq and not N. Korea. But remember, Wolfowitze specifically said Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the war and Greenspan's book says oil was at the heart of the Iraq invasion too.

As for the draft, the military has done everything it can not to draft. Guys like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz remember the lesson of Viet Nam well - don't have a draft army! A draft army means people get politically involved, so the military has done many things to avoid a draft to keep the armies in the field:

(1) Reduced standards to allow more people in;
(2) Used guard forces like they are active and tinkered with the rules to do so;
(3) uses of massive numbers and also undisclosed numbers of contractors.

But for the above, the US would have to be drafting right now. In particularly, the use of mercenaries, which was completely unanticipated and unknown in US military history. In my opinion, we have not seen yet the "blow back" caused by using mercenaries. All the prison scandal stuff is only scratching the surface.

As for oil wars, US foreign policy still revolves around its outside energy interest as the best explanation for otherwise unexplicable actions. How can the US argue it promotes democracy in the ME when it supports dictatorships in SA, Egypt, Jordan. The US just started its new African Command, not to deliver aids treatments either. The US just started its new 4th Fleet I believe its called in South America, just months before Russia sends its first warships to Venezuela and starts arming Venezuela. Energy is the occam's razor explaining this otherwise erratic foreign policy.

[wisconsin_cur]

Note that all the major "oil wars" of recent history have been futile. Japan fought for oil, and lost. Germany fought for oil, and lost. Sadam invaded Kuwait for oil, and lost. The U.S. invaded Iraq, and got financially bled to death. Fighting for oil doesn't seem to pay.

Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

There is also the question of options. Given the historical situation for the first two of three, what other option did they have? Germany and Japan faced the possibility of slowly bleeding to death in another fashion.

Nations (and people) often choose what seems like the least bad idea. People, in all times, have suffered from being overly optimistic. My classic example is Shakesperre's Brutus, who allows Marc Antony to speak at Caesar's funeral and, thus, sets into motion the events that leads to his own death.

Have wars for natural resources ever been successful? As long as there are examples of successful wars the power of positive thinking will unite with the "least bad" option and lead nations to act.

None of us can know what the future holds. We can only hope to know the kind of creature men are, the situation in which we find ourselves and make judgments.

[VMarcHart]

Going back to the early days of peak oil and this forum, the doomers have consistently pushed the idea that...

Interesting point, John.

Despite being a newbie to this site, I've noticed predictions here --mine included-- are as reliable as throwing darts. I think the general consensus is right, that things will not get any easier going forward, but the small details, ie, war, famine, crisis, zombies, etc, is throwing darts. Take with a grain of salt.

My 2 cents.

[TheDude]

Another data point...

Note that all the major "oil wars" of recent history have been futile. Japan fought for oil, and lost. Germany fought for oil, and lost. Sadam invaded Kuwait for oil, and lost. The U.S. invaded Iraq, and got financially bled to death. Fighting for oil doesn't seem to pay.

So you lead off ridiculing those who suggest the possibility of oil wars, then cite a series of historical examples of same? Duh...OK.

If you're counting on modern leaders to have learned the lessons of history, all I have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHA.

[dorlomin]

Another data point...

Note that all the major "oil wars" of recent history have been futile. Japan fought for oil, and lost. Germany fought for oil, and lost. Sadam invaded Kuwait for oil, and lost. The U.S. invaded Iraq, and got financially bled to death. Fighting for oil doesn't seem to pay.

What utter bull. Germany invaded East for lebensraum, land. Not oil, oil was a minor strategic objective. If they had oil as a major strategic objective for WWII, why invade Iraq via Libya? The Southern Caucuses were given far far too low a strategic priority do describe Barbarosa as an oil war. Army Group South only really became the most important part of the campaing in mid 42.

The British invasion of Mesopotamia in 1914, while initialy unsucessful set the scene for anglophonic domination of that nations oil wealth for the best part of a centuary. The possibiblity of an oil wealthy Ottaman Empire was also nipped in the bud relagating Turkey to being a third tier power during the following 94 years.

The US counterinvasion of Kuwait was spectacularly successful.

The American efforts post 2003 are yet to run there course. Dont be too cock sure about the result yet.

[mos6507]

There is also the question of options. Given the historical situation for the first two of three, what other option did they have?

Given how successful Japan has become since losing WWII, despite their paucity of natural resources, I'd say they had options.