[mojo2]

And just think, it was here right in front of our eyes all along. And Jimmeh said nothing to tip us off! Even HE's in on the 'CONSPIRACY' to keep Cindy in the dark!

Carter Doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its interests in the Persian Gulf region.

The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." (full speech)

A 1980 pledge by Secretary of State Edmund Muskie went even further, putting the gulf states on notice that the United States would not allow anyone to interfere with oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. At the time, Carter's statement was widely considered to encompass the use of nuclear weapons in response to a Soviet advance into Iran. In February 1980, details of a Pentagon report emerged indicating that the United States might have to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to any Soviet military advance toward the Gulf.

When the Carter Doctrine was announced, the United States did not have significant military capabilities in the region, and so the Carter administration began to build up the Rapid Deployment Force, which would eventually become CENTCOM. Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in 1981 with the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine, which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War.

William Perry, Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration, said in 1995 to the Council on Foreign Relations: "Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to declare that the United States has vital interests in the region."[1]

The strategic principles of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary were reflected in the 1990 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.
[edit]

References

Phew! I'm glad I caught the Wikipedia info before one of the liberal revisionists here got a chance to go and edit the listing to make it "POLITICALLY CORRECT!"

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Read it and weep, liberals!

[Wiskedjak]

Three things you don't understand:
1) Liberals don't define their views based on their leaders. A liberal leader doing something 20 years ago similar to what a conservative leader did recently does not mean suddenly all liberals must agree with it

2) The fact that a "liberal revisionist" changed the Wikipedia post only means that your quoted post could have been written by a "conservative revisionist"

3) Without screen-shots, you have no evidence that your quoted post even existed in the first place (you have a history of fabricating information for the purposes of social experimentation)

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Three things you don't understand:
1) Liberals don't define their views based on their leaders. A liberal leader doing something 20 years ago similar to what a conservative leader did recently does not mean suddenly all liberals must agree with it

2) The fact that a "liberal revisionist" changed the Wikipedia post only means that your quoted post could have been written by a "conservative revisionist"

3) Without screen-shots, you have no evidence that your quoted post even existed in the first place (you have a history of fabricating information for the purposes of social experimentation)

What are you smoking?

[Spliffdaddy]

I dunno - but I'd damn sure smoke a bowl of that.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

2) The fact that a "liberal revisionist" changed the Wikipedia post only means that your quoted post could have been written by a "conservative revisionist"

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that you have access to the complete edit history of all the articles. This makes it possible to verify whether or not it actually happened.

From the look of things, the version which mojo2 posted seems to have actually been toned down somewhat in terms of conservative-centric language. If indeed mojo2 feared that the post would be altered by liberals, he got there too late; it had already been altered.

3) Without screen-shots, you have no evidence that your quoted post even existed in the first place (you have a history of fabricating information for the purposes of social experimentation)

Here's the link. According to the edit history, this article has not been changed in almost two months. Although editing the content of Wikipedia articles is easy, altering the edit history is not.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Millennium

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that you have access to the complete edit history of all the articles. This makes it possible to verify whether or not it actually happened.

From the look of things, the version which mojo2 posted seems to have actually been toned down somewhat in terms of conservative-centric language. If indeed mojo2 feared that the post would be altered by liberals, he got there too late; it had already been altered.

Here's the link. According to the edit history, this article has not been changed in almost two months. Although editing the content of Wikipedia articles is easy, altering the edit history is not.

Interesting. obviously I don't use Wikipedia enough.

never-the-less, my opinions of what is going on in Iraq remain unchanged even after learning what body proposed a quarter of a century ago

[Uncle Skeleton]

the quote from Carter's speach doesn't even jive with what we did in Iraq. Hussein was already in control of Iraq, and had been since Carter made the speach even, so he couldn't really have been "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region"

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

the quote from Carter's speach doesn't even jive with what we did in Iraq. Hussein was already in control of Iraq, and had been since Carter made the speach even, so he couldn't really have been "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region"

I'm sorry to inform you of this Unc, but there are things that evaded your eagle-like scrutiny.

During the Clinton Administration Osama bin Laden said he wanted to drive the price of oil up to $200/bbl. He felt (accurately) that when oil reached that price western economies would crumble. He would destroy America by using oil, or more accurately, using the DENIAL or DISRUPTION of oil, as a weapon.

What we have come to know about OBL is that he doesn't make idle threats.

So, put the two facts together. Obl wants to raise the price of oil to $200/bbl in order to bring America to it's knees. Everything he has said he wants to do or said he would do, he HAS DONE or is trying to do.

Now.

How would he go about driving up the price of crude oil?

How would YOU go about driving up the price of crude oil?

I'd take a plane and fly it into oil supply depots, pipelines, distribution points and storage facilities.

I'd have terrorists go on suicide attacks at the oil facilities.

I'd align my cause and join forces with an existing government of an oil supplying country for the purpose of destroying a common enemy or I'd take over a country that is a significant oil supplier and turn off the tap for the Great and Junior Satans.

How could the USA prevent his doing that?

Maintain a significant military defense such that airline hijackings in the area would be prevented and/or creating a missile defense in the region with the capability of shooting down any aircraft aimed at any oil facilities.

Maintain a significant system and sufficiently large and well trained defensive force in that region to protect against terrorist attacks against vital resources.

Remove the possibility of OBL joining forces with a sympathetic ruler then wage a spirited and aggressive offensive and defensive campaign to prevent OBL's forces from taking over the country in question and using oil as a weapon.

How could the USA do so legally?

The Carter Doctrine.

When you deal in real life situations you have to be a step or two ahead of your adversary. You have to understand how they think, where they would go, what they would do. You must know their strengths and weaknesses you must know what their options are.

When you deal with armchair quarterbacking you use one person's arguable conclusion as your absolute fact without applying the real life strategies and tactics.

The Carter Doctrine establishes the principle. Everything since the invasion falls into place and makes sense when you view those actions as carrying out the principle set forth in the Carter Doctrine.

[demograph68]

I'm reluctant to accept the idea that the mere speculation of an attack led by OBL by using oil against us, nonetheless however plausible it may be, is a justification for the use of the Carter Doctrine to secure our "interests" in that area. I agree that his motives for doing so are there but I don't see how Iraq is stopping him from causing damage in that way. Perhaps it is to suggest that by securing Iraq in order to gain control of oil, we would have an advantage from such a weakness, though by that admission could one clearly see through claims of American foreign policy trying to "spread democracy."

[OreoCookie]

I find it absurd that you compare the situation 25 years ago when Hussein was still one of the `good guys' (the infamous handshake with Rumsfeld was in 1983) with the situation today. The Carter Doctrine is a product of the Cold War and is also linked to the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

I'm not sure how you can come up with the idea of linking the outdated Carter Doctrine with something very recent.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mojo2

How could the USA do so legally?

The Carter Doctrine.
...
The Carter Doctrine establishes the principle. Everything since the invasion falls into place and makes sense when you view those actions as carrying out the principle set forth in the Carter Doctrine.

I don't see how any doctrine can legitimize the breach of international laws and treaties.

I also think you should stop abusing a 25-year old document by removing it from any historical context and take things as they are without feeling the need to excuse the current administration's points of views on how to deal with the ME. You don't have to.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I find it absurd that you compare the situation 25 years ago when Hussein was still one of the `good guys' (the infamous handshake with Rumsfeld was in 1983) with the situation today. The Carter Doctrine is a product of the Cold War and is also linked to the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

I'm not sure how you can come up with the idea of linking the outdated Carter Doctrine with something very recent.

The "link" as you put it isn't terribly difficult. The Carter Doctrine was at the core of the first Bush Administration's reasons for responding to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It was obvious at the time and it is well established in the literature on that war if you care to research it (I realize you aren't really old enough to remember the events themselves). If you do look it up, you will generally find the discussions about the Carter Doctrine linked to Ambassador Glaspie's bumbling comments to Saddam, where she completely failed to relate longstanding US policy on the Gulf to the dictator.

Anyway, that's the background. What followed with respect to Iraq is largely an outgrowth of the first gulf war, which wouldn't have happened but for the Carter Doctrine. So the link is direct, even if the events seem remote to a 24 year old.

A couple of asides:

It's true, of course, that the threat Carter had in mind was primarily the Soviet Union, which had receded in 1990, but the US policy, and the strategic concern didn't change just because one strategic threat was replaced with another. So the Carter Doctrine was still there and has never receded.

Remember also that presidential "doctrines" aren't actual legal documents (mojo2, you might also want to pay attention to this, you are misstating what a doctrine is - doctrines are not independent legal grounds). They are just statements of foreign policy that occasionally seem more important than the routine ones. They are usually dubbed "doctines" by the media. The Carter Doctrine in reality was US policy both before and after the Carter Administration. It just became a major issue after the Soviets edged closer to the Gulf region when they invaded Afghanistan. Carter's speech simply crystallized what was already there.

Second, Saddam was never considered one of the "good guys." That's revisionism. The saying around the State Department when the US decided to tilt toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war (which Iraq was losing) was "pity they can't both lose." There was no more love in that handshake than there was in the handshakes American leaders had with all kinds of nasty dictators. Remember the kiss between Leonid Brezhnev and Jimmy Carter? No, probably not. Whippersnapper.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The "link" as you put it isn't terribly difficult. The Carter Doctrine was at the core of the first Bush Administration's reasons for responding to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It was obvious at the time and it is well established in the literature on that war if you care to research it (I realize you aren't really old enough to remember the events themselves). If you do look it up, you will generally find the discussions about the Carter Doctrine linked to Ambassador Glaspie's bumbling comments to Saddam, where she completely failed to relate longstanding US policy on the Gulf to the dictator.

Anyway, that's the background. What followed with respect to Iraq is largely an outgrowth of the first gulf war, which wouldn't have happened but for the Carter Doctrine. So the link is direct, even if the events seem remote to a 24 year old.

The Carter Doctrine (as you admit yourself) has its roots in the Cold War and the first war in Iraq was basically the aftermath of a Cold War problem. Also the first war in Iraq was a reaction of an Iraqi aggression against Kuwait which is very different from Bush 2's pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

As far as I understand, most of this was shaped by the then-recent events in Iran and Afghanistan (invasion in 1979). The interests were `more global' and in a sense, strongly related to Containment (of communism).

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

A couple of asides:

It's true, of course, that the threat Carter had in mind was primarily the Soviet Union, which had receded in 1990, but the US policy, and the strategic concern didn't change just because one strategic threat was replaced with another. So the Carter Doctrine was still there and has never receded.

The interests are still the same, yes, but you cannot transplant a document that was written in a very different time and use it as a justification for current events.

Yes and no. The Carter Doctrine seems to be a spelling out of the policy of Containment for the ME, taking the strategical interests into account. With the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, Containment and with that, the roots of the Carter Doctrine became obsolete.

What did not become obsolete, obviously, was America's strategic interest in the region.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Remember also that presidential "doctrines" aren't actual legal documents (mojo2, you migh talso want to pay attention to this, you are misstating what a doctrine is). They are just statements of foreign policy that occasionally seem more important than the routine ones. They are usually dubbed "doctines" by the media. The Carter Doctrine in reality was US policy both before and after the Carter Administration. It just became a major issue after the Soviets edged closer to the Gulf region when they invaded Afghanistan. Carter's speech simply crystallized what was already there.

Yes, agreed.
I merely think the Carter Doctrine is not suitable as reference, because the motivation, the Cold War, is over. I don't see a reason to resort to it anyway. Politics works with temporary alliances, it depends on circumstances and on current events.

History has outgrown the Carter Doctrine and using it as a `justification' for the US involvement in Iraq is IMHO neither necessary nor very smart. The US doesn't have to. There were so many `doctrines' in between (also quite a few military doctrines, whatever they are worth, Powell Doctrine, Rumsfeld Doctrine, you name it), the predecessor's doctrines were taken and adapted to the new situation and convictions of the next administration. I find it misleading if someone tries to pinpoint the invasion of Iraq to a policy Carter's administration was in favor of (what I think mojo is trying to do).

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Second, Saddam was never considered one of the "good guys." That's revisionism. The saying around the State Department when the US decided to tilt toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war (which Iraq was losing) was "pity they can't both lose." There was no more love in that handshake than there was in the handshakes American leaders had with all kinds of nasty dictators. Remember the kiss between Leonid Brezhnev and Jimmy Carter? No, probably not. Whippersnapper.

`Good guys' didn't end up in quotation by accident, Simey

Jokes aside, obviously I'm aware politicians of all couleur shake hands with people I wouldn't touch wearing gloves and using prongs, I was merely referring to the idea that at that time (say, early 80s), Hussein was considered one of the lesser evils (compared to the Soviets involvement in Afghanistan and the Islamic Revolution in Iran).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

How could the USA prevent his doing that?

I would start working harder to eliminate my heavy dependance on oil ... but that's just me

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I would start working harder to eliminate my heavy dependance on oil ... but that's just me

But, but, it's our God-given right to use all the world's resources, without concern for others! Because we can, that makes it right.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The Carter Doctrine (as you admit yourself) has its roots in the Cold War and the first war in Iraq was basically the aftermath of a Cold War problem. Also the first war in Iraq was a reaction of an Iraqi aggression against Kuwait which is very different from Bush 2's pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

As far as I understand, most of this was shaped by the then-recent events in Iran and Afghanistan (invasion in 1979). The interests were `more global' and in a sense, strongly related to Containment (of communism).


The interests are still the same, yes, but you cannot transplant a document that was written in a very different time and use it as a justification for current events.

Of course you can apply geopolitical doctrines accross different periods of time. We do it all the time. To take just one example, your country and my country are pledged in a mutual defense pact that came directly out of the threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe that was perceived 60 years ago. The North Atlantic Treaty was a direct outgrowth of the Truman Doctrine. But the Soviet Union no longer exists, so are you suggesting that the US wouldn't have to live up to its NATO obligations if Germany was attacked by someone else? You will recall (I hope) that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked by NATO after 9/11, so apparently your government would disagree with you.

A perhaps more directly relevant analogy is the Monroe Doctrine, which I assure you is alive and well as a central tenet of US foreign policy, notwithstanding the fact that the world that President Monroe inhabited has long since passed. The Monroe Doctrine has been invoked by the US as recently as 1961 (Cuban Missile Crisis) and 1983 (Grenada).

This is a recognition that Realpolitik (which is really what we are talking about) has influences upon it which transend certain fleeting concerns. To take one, highly relevant, example, Russia has been trying to push its way into the Gulf region for over 200 years now. That was very much part of Brezhnev's push into Afghanistan, and it was also a significant part of why the US considered that to be a direct threat. It wasn't narrowly connected to the ideological struggle with Communism. It was something that also can be analyzed in traditional geopolitical power terms. The same concerns were equally applicable if any other power acted in the region.

Now, of course, it is never as simple as all that. When the US formed a coalition to free Kuwait, it was in large measure responding to the threat to its power interests. But it was also implementing a vision of international law (through the UN Charter) that has roots that resonate in other eras too. The UN Charter is a product primarily of the WW-II alliance against Nazism, but also in the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson's 14 Points coming out of World War 1, and before that, the idea of state sovereignty is one that has been around since at least the Treaty of Westphalia.

All of which underscores the fact that you can't just pretend that political events dissappear just because you would like to draw a neat historical box around it. Life isn't like the chapters of a history book. It's not all discreet categories that can be separated from one another. There is no neat line to draw around the cold war such that you can pretend that everything that happened in the years 1947 to 1990 are utterly separable from the rest of history. And in any case, you yourself admit that the Carter Doctrine wasn't just about the threat of Soviet imperialism. It was also about Islamic militancy (i.e. Iran). Those are still live issues. In fact, probably bigger issues than they seeme to the haplass Mr. Carter.

In any case to keep it really simple (not to say grossly simplistic) but for the strategic interests that lead to the Carter Doctrine, there would have been no first Gulf War. But for the first Gulf War, there would have been no ceasefire in the Gulf, nor any US troops in the region maintaining it. But for the Ceasefire and post-Gulf War concern with Saddam, there probably wouldn't have been a war in Iraq in 2003. That's your link and it is completely linear.

And again, a reminder, these doctrines are not in any "document." They are statements of policy. You can't go look up and read the original text of the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, or the Bush Doctrine and so on because such a single document doesn't really exist. The term "doctine" is just shorthand used by political scientists, journalists, and historians. In that sense it isn't really a "justification" for anything. It's an explanation.

[dreilly1]

As I read it, there are really two separate concepts in this "doctrine", and they complement each other. The first is that the U.S. would use its military power to defend its "interests" in the Persian Gulf region. I would think that a reasonable assumption is that interests = access to oil. So, the U.S. would consider access to oil to be a strategic priority, and any attempt to cut off the flow of oil by force would be met by U.S. force. In this case, the U.S. couldn't care less who is running the countries in the region, as long as they still supply the oil.

Second is this notion of an outside force gaining "hegemony" in the region. While clearly targeted at the Soviets at the time, I have a different interpretation now. It seems to basically be an affirmation of the status-quo -- that the borders and power structure of the region at the time were agreeable to U.S. interests, and that any attempt to forcefully change that power structure in a manner that might not be agreeable to U.S. interests would be met with force. This is why the first Gulf War could be seen as supporting the Carter Doctrine, even though it initially did not involve any players outside the region. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and threat to Saudi Arabia was upsetting the status quo and giving more power to Saddam at the expense of the other players in the Gulf.

To me, if the current Iraq war makes any statement on the Carter Doctrine, it's that the second part of my analysis is no longer valid, because Saddam, for better or worse, was part of the region's power structure, and we got rid of him by force basically because we felt like it. (I know, WMD, direct threat to the U.S., terrorists, and all that -- I'm convinced none of that was true, and that we basically went in there because Bush wanted to.) I'd argue that we didn't kick Saddam out of Iraq the first time because of the need to keep the power structures in the area back at their pre-war status. Something changed to make us think it was in our best interests to get rid of him.

I think that maybe the second part of the Carter Doctrine (again, as I interpret it -- I'm clearly no expert) has been ripe for retirement for a few years now. After all, we basically got into this whole mess to protect the Saudi government and its cheap oil supply, at their request, so we must have been there legitimately, right? But it seems that the Islamic extremist movement that has been developing is directly opposed to that aid, since they never liked the Saudi government to begin with. Our stated desire to protect the status-quo has inadvertently triggered a reactionary element in Islamic society that threatens to undermine current governments (and access to their oil) from within.

[goMac]

Uhhh... the Carter Doctrine was probably targeted at the Soviet Union.

Does anyone bother to look at context before these things are posted?

[SimeyTheLimey]

I think it is closer to say that the Gulf War II was predicated on the Bush Doctrine, rather than the Carter Doctine. However, that particular application of the Bush Doctrine wouldn't have focussed on Iraq if it wasn't for the fact that the peculiar situation relating to Iraq came about because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and because of the international response to that invasion. That response, in turn, was largely a product of the Carter Doctrine.

So it isn't so much that the Gulf War II is a direct application of the Carter Doctrine, more that the Gulf War II wouldn't have happened but for the Carter Doctrine. So to the extent that liberals like to pretend that the whole Iraq war was made up one morning in Crawford, they have to deal with its real roots, which are much more complex and historically based.

Comparing the two doctines, the Bush Doctrine is a far more nuanced policy than the Carter Doctrine was. That reflects the changes in the world since 1980, but is is also why strict Realists are comfortable with the Carter Doctrine, but less so with the Bush Doctrine. However, the Carter Doctine isn't completely obsoleted by the Bush Doctrine. Foreign policy is never so neat as that, and the concerns and strategic interests that underscored the Carter Doctrine are still there.

goMac: read the thread before posting. We discussed your point.

[Y3a]

Carter seems like such an expert on the gulf region and Iran and all...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by KarlG

But, but, it's our God-given right to use all the world's resources, without concern for others! Because we can, that makes it right.

It was the 11th commandment written on Mt. Sinai by God.

Seriously, I thought Manifest Destiny died years ago. Whatever happened to walking softly but carrying a big stick?

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Comparing the two doctines, the Bush Doctrine is a far more nuanced policy than the Carter Doctrine was. That reflects the changes in the world since 1980, but is is also why strict Realists are comfortable with the Carter Doctrine, but less so with the Bush Doctrine. However, the Carter Doctine isn't completely obsoleted by the Bush Doctrine. Foreign policy is never so neat as that, and the concerns and strategic interests that underscored the Carter Doctrine are still there.

I don't see the nuance in the Bush doctrine, myself. Both doctrines define circumstances in which the U.S. would interfere in foreign affairs to safeguard its domestic interests. But Carter seems to limit that intevention to direct threats to the status-quo in the Middle East. Bush puts no limits on that intervention -- he says that any threat to U.S. interests, from anywhere in the world, can be used as a pretext to intervene in foreign affairs. We also reserve the right to interfere unilaterally if we can't get enough other countries to agree with us. At least Bush has made a point of saying that we have no desire to institute an old-school American Empire, and when we interevene in someone else's backyard we will eventually leave. But it certainly sounds like Bush says the U.S. can do anything it wants, anytime, simply by saying it is really going after the bogeymen with the sarin gas or dirty nukes. That doesn't sound very nuanced to me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

I don't see the nuance in the Bush doctrine, myself.

Nuance in that the Carter Doctrine is essentially pure Realism. The Bush Doctrine is more a mixture of Realism and Wilsonian Internationalism. It's closer to what in the late 90s was often called "Neo-Realism" -- although that term is sometimes used to describe the kind of Realism advocated by people like the late Hans Morgenthau. But using it in the late 90s sense as a fusion of the two main schools in foreign policy theory, that is what it is, and that makes it more nuanced than pure Realism.

Anyway, in practice what this means is that the Realism of the Carter Doctrine only cared about pumping oil out of the Gulf and didn't care about the internal politics of the governments it supported. The Bush doctrine does care about such things, which is why democracy promotion is on the agenda. The reason is because Neo-Realism tends to subscribe rather strongly to Kantian Democratic Peace Theory, whereas Realism doesn't.

This is, of course, a little ironic because in many respects, Carter's administration (along with some aspects of the Reagan foreign policy) is the origin of the modern American tendency to move away from pure Realism and toward a foreign policy that includes a concern with human rights and democracy. The reason for that ironic twist is that the Carter Doctrine is specific to a geographical location that is so strategically important that pure Realism has always predominated. Second, it is because the Carter Doctrine was enunciated at a time when Carter was trying to be tough (after the invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of our ally, the Shah of Iran) and when Realists like Zbigniew Brzezinski had the upper hand in his administration.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm sorry to inform you of this Unc, but there are things that evaded your eagle-like scrutiny.

Don't be sorry, I still love you.

How would YOU go about driving up the price of crude oil?

I'd have terrorists go on suicide attacks at the oil facilities. etc

How could the USA prevent his doing that?

Maintain a significant military defense...
Maintain a significant system and sufficiently large and well trained defensive force in that region to protect against terrorist attacks against vital resources...
Remove the possibility of OBL joining forces with a sympathetic ruler then wage a spirited and aggressive offensive and defensive campaign to prevent OBL's forces from taking over the country in question and using oil as a weapon.

I'm no expert so please explain to me how I confused this point:
I was under the impression that the number of suicide terrorist attacks in Iraq had risen since the US invasion, not fallen. I was also under the impression that Hussein was motivated by greed, not by religious fundamentalism, so the chances of him joining forces with Bin Laden (or even tolerating him) for the purpose of destroying Iraq's oil infrastructure (or preventing its profitable trade with the US) were pretty low. Given that, how has the US's recent course of action served our national interest in any way, let alone in a way that prevents "an outside force from gaining control?" Basically, how is the US's (lackluster) military performance in Iraq supposed to be any more effective against Bin Laden than Hussein's was (or would have been)?

How could the USA do so legally?

The Carter Doctrine.

This just makes me more confused. For one thing, if this were a justification for conquest (whether it is or not has been discussed already by people who know more than I), wouldn't you have to have given it when you were doing the actual invasion? I'm not going to get into the question of whether the administration knew or thought they knew that Bin Laden actually was planning to move against Iraq, but even if they did, having this as an excuse doesn't mean much to me if they don't give any indication that they even know about it. Again, unless I just missed it when they brought it out. Did they?

[christ]

If I understand the Carter Doctrine, as defined by mojo to start the thread (An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.), then the US had damned well better invade Iraq to kick out the outside force that is currently there, attempting to gain control of the Persian Gulf region.

It may be a bit odd that the Carter Doctrine was coined to keep the damn Rooskies out, and not to have good-ole American boys fighting each other, but I agree with mojo, it is equally applicable today, and if that's what it takes to get peace, I'm all for it.

I don't quite follow, mojo, how you are going to explain to all of the casualties (or more pertinently the families of the casualties) that they are a result of some damed 25 year old liberal policy, but I am sure that you will manage: after all it is so much easier than admitting that you shouldn't have been the aggressor in the first place,

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by christ

If I understand the Carter Doctrine, as defined by mojo to start the thread (An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.), then the US had damned well better invade Iraq to kick out the outside force that is currently there, attempting to gain control of the Persian Gulf region.

It may be a bit odd that the Carter Doctrine was coined to keep the damn Rooskies out, and not to have good-ole American boys fighting each other, but I agree with mojo, it is equally applicable today, and if that's what it takes to get peace, I'm all for it.

I don't quite follow, mojo, how you are going to explain to all of the casualties (or more pertinently the families of the casualties) that they are a result of some damed 25 year old liberal policy, but I am sure that you will manage: after all it is so much easier than admitting that you shouldn't have been the aggressor in the first place,

Whenever I introduce the idea that oil was the most important reason for the Iraqi invasion, the usual response is to scold America for being so wasteful or to dismiss the importance of oil or
to demand that we immediately shift to an alternative energy source.

All of which are understandable responses but indicate a lack of understanding of the implications and the options, in short a failure to see the situation realistically.

I suggest you or anyone wanting to better understand exactly why Bush acted on Carter's doctrine, that you visit www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

It's a good place to start.

The casualties weren't suffered for a damned 25 year old liberal policy, as you call it. It wasn't for our ability to drive gas guzzling SUV's.

I'll respect your intelligence and leave it to you to see the larger picture and the implications of what would happen if we didn't maintain our country's supply of oil.

In short, I'll leave it to you to explain why our being the aggressor was the NECESSARY thing to do.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I would start working harder to eliminate my heavy dependance on oil ... but that's just me

After weeks and weeks and thousands of posts, I'll ask you to explain EXACTLY how we would do this.

And please address the important matters of:

How long it will take.

How much it will cost.

What alternative energy source(s) will replace oil in all of our current needs and uses, application for application at our current level of consumption and also provide for our nations' continued growth.

Wiskedjak, I gave you credit for AT LEAST keeping up with the discussion. Was I wrong?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by demograph68

I'm reluctant to accept the idea that the mere speculation of an attack led by OBL by using oil against us, nonetheless however plausible it may be, is a justification for the use of the Carter Doctrine to secure our "interests" in that area. I agree that his motives for doing so are there but I don't see how Iraq is stopping him from causing damage in that way. Perhaps it is to suggest that by securing Iraq in order to gain control of oil, we would have an advantage from such a weakness, though by that admission could one clearly see through claims of American foreign policy trying to "spread democracy."

To apply apples to peaches, please allow this analogy.

Did you date or marry the woman you are with ONLY because she was physically attractive?

Did you move into your present dwelling ONLY because you could afford it?

Why MUST there be ONLY one reason for the government doing things if we, as singular beings aren't so limited?

As for your discounting the possibility of shoring up a potential weakness to prevent it's being exploited by an enemy, you must not play chess.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm sorry to inform you of this Unc, but there are things that evaded your eagle-like scrutiny.

During the Clinton Administration Osama bin Laden said he wanted to drive the price of oil up to $200/bbl. He felt (accurately) that when oil reached that price western economies would crumble. He would destroy America by using oil, or more accurately, using the DENIAL or DISRUPTION of oil, as a weapon.

What we have come to know about OBL is that he doesn't make idle threats.

So, put the two facts together. Obl wants to raise the price of oil to $200/bbl in order to bring America to it's knees. Everything he has said he wants to do or said he would do, he HAS DONE or is trying to do.

Now.

How would he go about driving up the price of crude oil?

How would YOU go about driving up the price of crude oil?


How could the USA prevent his doing that?

Maintain a significant military defense such that airline hijackings in the area would be prevented and/or creating a missile defense in the region with the capability of shooting down any aircraft aimed at any oil facilities.

Maintain a significant system and sufficiently large and well trained defensive force in that region to protect against terrorist attacks against vital resources.

Remove the possibility of OBL joining forces with a sympathetic ruler then wage a spirited and aggressive offensive and defensive campaign to prevent OBL's forces from taking over the country in question and using oil as a weapon.

How could the USA do so legally?

The Carter Doctrine.

When you deal in real life situations you have to be a step or two ahead of your adversary. You have to understand how they think, where they would go, what they would do. You must know their strengths and weaknesses you must know what their options are.

When you deal with armchair quarterbacking you use one person's arguable conclusion as your absolute fact without applying the real life strategies and tactics.

The Carter Doctrine establishes the principle. Everything since the invasion falls into place and makes sense when you view those actions as carrying out the principle set forth in the Carter Doctrine.

But but but, wait a minute!!!!! I thought it was about liberating the Iraqi people and fight the terrorists, certainly not about oil????? Was I lied to?

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

After weeks and weeks and thousands of posts, I'll ask you to explain EXACTLY how we would do this.

And please address the important matters of:

How long it will take.

As long as The War on Drugs? We're still fighting that one, eh?

How much it will cost.

As much as The War on Drugs, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II combined?

What alternative energy source(s) will replace oil in all of our current needs and uses, application for application at our current level of consumption and also provide for our nations' continued growth.

You are the one fixated on replacing ALL of our current oil needs. REDUCING our dependency on oil in any way, shape, or form is a Good Thing™. How? Hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal energy, hydrogen.

You're the only person I know that seems to think we can't reduce our oil consumption. Are we that technologically challenged? We can get to the moon, Mars, out of our local system, but we can't reduce how much oil we use?

The only reason we haven't reduced, is because it's EASIER to just keep on keeping on. Oil is a HUGE business, and those oil folks don't WANT to be unemployed. They also have huge lobby power with the government, and make certain we maintain status quo.

Wiskedjak, I gave you credit for AT LEAST keeping up with the discussion. Was I wrong?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Don't be sorry, I still love you.

I'm no expert so please explain to me how I confused this point:
I was under the impression that the number of suicide terrorist attacks in Iraq had risen since the US invasion, not fallen.

When you apply alcohol to a cut or scrape to dis-INFECT it you are killing the germs that, if left alone, would quietly and painlessly take over the whole body and kill it.

The suicide terrorist attacks are an indication that the dis-INFECTION is taking place. The number of attacks and the strength of the attacks indicate how serious the infection was/is.

The beaches of Normandy were beautifully serene and pleasant I'd imagine, BEFORE D-Day. Yet, Hitler's conquest of Europe was on it's way to being a done deal by June 1944. After the Allies invaded France the fighting just got worse and worse and spread ALL OVER EUROPE where there had been NO WARFARE until then as the Nazis fought to prevent our liberating the continent. Then, gradually, the fighting starting becoming less and less until it stopped and peace and freedom was restored.

I was also under the impression that Hussein was motivated by greed, not by religious fundamentalism, so the chances of him joining forces with Bin Laden (or even tolerating him) for the purpose of destroying Iraq's oil infrastructure (or preventing its profitable trade with the US) were pretty low.

I offer these as true indications of Saddam's view of Islam and the Islamic terrorists.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._04-01-03.html
April 1, 2003, 12:52pm EST
STATEMENT FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN CALLS FOR JIHAD

In a statement read on Iraqi state television, president Saddam Hussein called on the Iraqi people to commit themselves to a holy war against U.S. and British forces seeking his ouster.

Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf delivered the proclamation in a short address at 8 p.m. local time (noon EST).

The statement accused the coalition forces of waging a war against Islam in addition to Saddam's regime.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech...10/10dobbs.htm
"The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers."

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2.../16_paper.html
Official Iraqi Paper Praises Bin Laden
(October 16, 2001)

By Waiel Faleh
Associated Press Writer

Sunday, Oct. 14, 2001; 7:55 p.m. EDTBAGHDAD, Iraq –– A newspaper owned by President Saddam Hussein's son sang the praises of Osama Bin Laden on Sunday, likely signaling a shift in the Iraqi government's attitude to the United States' No. 1 enemy.

While Iraq has been quick to condemn the United States for its airstrikes on Afghanistan, it had previously downplayed their target – bin Laden, the chief suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

Protesters at a mass demonstration last week in Baghdad denounced America but did not carry bin Laden posters or chant his name. Government officials denied media reports of an Iraqi link to bin Laden. They pointed out that Iraq does not recognize the Afghanistan government that harbors him.

However, on Sunday the newspaper Babil published a column that addressed itself to the foreign ministers who took part in the Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting in Qatar on Wednesday. The conference gave quiet support to the U.S. airstrikes. "(President) Bush despises you," the columnist told the ministers. "He did not inform you of the strikes because you have no say. He informed (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair, (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and others while you were sitting ... Shame on you." The columnist was not named, but Babil is owned by Odai Hussein, the son of the president.

"Compare your faces to Osama's beautiful appearance on all televisions of the world, swearing that he will not let America live in peace until Arabs do," the columnist continued, referring to the videotaped speech of bin Laden that was broadcast shortly after the airstrikes began on Oct. 7. "He said it while facing blasphemy's missiles falling ... and the whole world listened," the columnist wrote. On another page, Babil published a poem written in homage to bin Laden. "All America is trying to kill me and I wish to die while fighting," says one line.

The poet portrays bin Laden as lonely figure enduring "the oppression of the enemy."

And, of course we already know all about the $10,000 - $25,000 payments Saddam made to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

I can't see how any serious look at the ties or even the POSSIBLITY of ties between Saddam and OBL can be discounted.

Who would have thought Hitler and Tojo would be friends. The Soviet Union and Cuba. Germany and Mexico. And what in the world could POSSIBLY have united James Carville and Mary Matalin???!!!???

Seriously, though...if you are looking for singularity of motivations, here is where you can say there MIGHT be only ONE reason for Saddam kissing up to OBL and the followers of Islam. What do YOU think that might be? I think I know, but I don't want to pre-suppose your interpretation.

Given that, how has the US's recent course of action served our national interest in any way, let alone in a way that prevents "an outside force from gaining control?"

No planes have been crashed into oil storage facilities. No oil tankers have been blown up. No governments have disrupted our oil flow. You may gripe at the price of oil, but it ISN'T being rationed. There are NO long lines as there were in the 70's. In short, there has been little disruption of your lifestyle. OBL laments this fact and thinks day and night of how he can change this. The ONLY thing that prevented these kinds of catastrophes is our military presence and the actions we're taking to eliminate the forces of OBL in Iraq.

Be thankful that, because of GWB's actions, instead of TWO crazy bastards that want the USA to crumble and all of us dead and who have the means and will to pull off such a feat, there is only one and we are battling HIS soldiers in Iraq, not here.

Basically, how is the US's (lackluster) military performance in Iraq supposed to be any more effective against Bin Laden than Hussein's was (or would have been)?

I hope I've shown you how Saddam WOULDN'T and DIDN'T resist an association with Islam and OBL. If you remain unconvinced of this let me know.

This just makes me more confused. For one thing, if this were a justification for conquest (whether it is or not has been discussed already by people who know more than I), wouldn't you have to have given it when you were doing the actual invasion?

What, like a game of 8-Ball where you have to call your shot?

I'm not going to get into the question of whether the administration knew or thought they knew that Bin Laden actually was planning to move against Iraq, but even if they did, having this as an excuse doesn't mean much to me if they don't give any indication that they even know about it. Again, unless I just missed it when they brought it out. Did they?

It isn't an excuse!

The President's JOB is to look out tfor the best interests of the USA and it's citizens.

After the oil embargo of 1979 Carter realized how hurt we'd be without M.E. oil and put the world on notice that we weren't going to conquer the oil supplies of the M.E. and exclude anyone from having any but US. But he said that the oil was a global resource and the laws of free enterprise should govern who gets the oil and how much and that if anyone threatened the M.E. oil supplies we would do whatever was necessary to prevent it.

The Soviet Union hadn't sent an Army to the M.E. to invade or take over the oil, but Carter recognized the POSSIBILITY that this MIGHT happen so he issued the Carter Doctrine and let everyone know that we will not allow ANYONE to disrupt our flow of oil. And since we've been protecting the oil supplies the has been no disruptions of oil supplies to US nor to ANYONE ELSE.

There are reasons a President does or doesn't do certain things. Many of the decisions a President makes are subject to public scrutiny. Many things aren't.

What many of the people of the world haven't figured out is that there are SOME things that go into decisionmaking at that level, which the public simply MUST NOT KNOW.

Why the President didn't say this or that or why he did this or that we can't yet see in this situation.

But, when he tells us this is a hard job, he isn't a man who complains and in that statement you must know there is the ONLY insight we may get until after he leaves office, to the information he has and the tough decisions he's had to make on our behalf.

Uncle Skeleton, you are driving?

OBL says you shouldn't be and is working to make sure you don't.

President Bush says you should be and is making sure that you do.

I don't know about you, but that's all I need to know.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by villalobos

But but but, wait a minute!!!!! I thought it was about liberating the Iraqi people and fight the terrorists, certainly not about oil????? Was I lied to?

Uh oh, another one who is still wrestling with whether Certs is a candy mint or a breath mint.



Clue: It's TWO mints in ONE!



Yeah, I know. How can that BE???

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

As long as The War on Drugs? We're still fighting that one, eh?

As much as The War on Drugs, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II combined?

You are the one fixated on replacing ALL of our current oil needs. REDUCING our dependency on oil in any way, shape, or form is a Good Thing™. How? Hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal energy, hydrogen.

You're the only person I know that seems to think we can't reduce our oil consumption. Are we that technologically challenged? We can get to the moon, Mars, out of our local system, but we can't reduce how much oil we use?

The only reason we haven't reduced, is because it's EASIER to just keep on keeping on. Oil is a HUGE business, and those oil folks don't WANT to be unemployed. They also have huge lobby power with the government, and make certain we maintain status quo.

Hey crab!

Yes. It WILL take a long time and it WILL cost a lot of money.

And I'll, for the moment, stop looking at the whole solution and will just restrict the view to what it would take to get rid of our reliance on MIDDLE EASTERN OIL.

OK.

How long will THAT take?

How much money will THAT cost?

How prepared is the alternative energy world to JUST (!!?? !!??) replace the oil we get from the M.E.?

It would take 20,000 windmills to power up a city the size of Paris, France.

I have been trying to get people here frightened enough to start taking action locally to let their elected representatives know they want real answers and real solutions to the energy problem and the reliance of overseas oil. But the process is slow. Just witness there are STILL people who aren't as far along in understanding the situation as you and I are, crab.

So, I keep blathering on. But, I do see the light come on regularly enough that I'm encouraged that progress IS being made.

I have NEVER said I don't think we CAN reduce our consumption.

I HAVE said Carter tried to get us to conserve and (childish pouting) WE DIDN'T WANNA!

I HAVE said George W. Bush TOLD US we can't conserve our way to energy independence.

But I do admit it isn't a bad idea, it's just not THE idea. THE ANSWER.

THAT is what gets me erect. The search for THE ANSWER to oil.

Until then I am officially in favor of (almost) anything that can save energy.

Crab, when you cast stones at the oil companies and their employees, also throw one at the big agriculture companies who depend on oil for fertilizers and pesticides, Then throw a stone at our farmers who USE those fertilizers and pesticides to grow our food and livestock.

Then throw a stone at the clothing manufacturers who rely on natural fibers (cotton or wool) that come from raising healthy, cost efficient crops that are made possible with the fertilizers and pesticides. And that's not to mention the clothes that are direct derivatives of oil like nylon and rayon and all the synthetic fabrics.

Then, throw a stone at the trucking companies that get the food and clothing to the stores. And don't you see?

NO ONE IS IMMUNE!

We are ALL as guilty as the oil companies.

THEY ONLY PRODUCE WHAT WE WANT AND NEED!!!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KarlG

But, but, it's our God-given right to use all the world's resources, without concern for others! Because we can, that makes it right.

We haven't PREVENTED anyone from getting oil. Quite the contrary! We have ASSURED that EVERYONE (including ourselves) has access to oil as unimpeded as it ever was.

Because THAT is what's right, and because no one else could or would do this right thing for us or for anyone else then, yes, we did it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Carter seems like such an expert on the gulf region and Iran and all...

He knew enough to know this...without enough oil we all die.

He knew it. OBL knows it. GWB knows it. I know it.

Do you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mojo2

...ties between Saddam and OBL...

Please read my question again with an open mind, specifically:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skelton

for the purpose of destroying Iraq's oil infrastructure (or preventing its profitable trade with the US)

Can you find me some quotes that Hussein had any interest in destroying his own oil infrastructure? How about in letting Bin Laden do so? Besides, Bin Laden isn't an "outside source," he's been there forever. Even if everything you claim turns out to be true, I don't see how it's explained by the Carter Doctrine.

No planes have been crashed into oil storage facilities. No oil tankers have been blown up.

Maybe tankers haven't been blown up, but I thought the "insurgency" was doing a pretty good job at destroying pipelines and/or other installations not so long ago, plane crashes notwithstanding.

I visited your pet website and it made quite a big deal that the energy cost of replacing America's existing cars with more efficient ones would be equal to a year's worth of oil. This seems like the same situation, we've invaded Iraq (presumably) to prevent possible terrorist attacks on oil facilities at the cost of provoking (and facilitating, wrt to political uncertainty) terrorist attacks on oil facilities, meanwhile spending hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US soldiers.

What, like a game of 8-Ball where you have to call your shot?

If that helps you, then yes. If Hussein had had a Hussein Doctrine that allowed him to justify invading Kuwait don't you think we would have wanted him to declare it around the time of his invasion?

What many of the people of the world haven't figured out is that there are SOME things that go into decisionmaking at that level, which the public simply MUST NOT KNOW.

Then, uh, why are you telling us?

Uncle Skeleton, you are driving?

You mean right now? or to work every day? or do I know how to drive? No, no, yes. Yourself, mojo2?

Originally Posted by villalobos

But but but, wait a minute!!!!! I thought it was about liberating the Iraqi people and fight the terrorists, certainly not about oil????? Was I lied to?

Uh oh, another one who is still wrestling with whether Certs is a candy mint or a breath mint.

Clue: It's TWO mints in ONE!

Can I take that as an agreement that we were lied to? As I recall, we weren't simply told the war was about something other than oil, we were told that the war was NOT about oil. That would be a lie (according to you, right?).

It's fair enough for you or the president to say there are things he needs to do and we need not know about, and that one of those things is maintaining our lifeline to oil. In the same vein, it's fair for citizens to say, no, mr bush, sending us to war to conquer oil for our own greedy interests is not one of the things you need to do behind our backs. If enough people say that, he's got a problem (not enough have I think). I'll say it.

mojo2, I'm tired of your ranting, but I would be interested to hear this from you. What are you doing to free yourself from oil dependency? (please tell me it's more than ranting).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Uncle Skeleton, you are driving?

OBL says you shouldn't be and is working to make sure you don't.

President Bush says you should be and is making sure that you do.

I don't know about you, but that's all I need to know.

I would like President Bush to say we should be driving LESS and have him works towards that goal with his domestic policy decisions. The hundreds of billions of $$$ spent in the Iraq war is a nice little sum to greatly expand the mass transit infrastructure in our major urban, and densely populated, suburban areas. I don't want Americans to stop driving. I just want them to drive less so we won't need to invade countries to maintain a steady supply of oil.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

How long it will take.

How much it will cost.

It will take a long time, but if we start now it might happen within our life times.
It will cost a lot, but the cost of oil isn't going anywhere but up.

Originally Posted by mojo2

What alternative energy source(s) will replace oil in all of our current needs and uses, application for application at our current level of consumption and also provide for our nations' continued growth.

I don't know. My area of expertise is making software easier to use, not manufacturing processes or energy resources. You'll note, however, that I said I would work to eliminate my heavy dependance on oil, not replace oil. There are certainly many areas in our society where replacing oil presently would be near impossible, but there are also many areas in our society where it is possible, though expensive and long term, to replace oil with other sources of energy that would eliminate our heavy dependance on oil and reduce it to a light dependance.

Being completely independent of oil in the near future is impossible, but it is possible we could get to the point where disruption of our oil supplies wouldn't cripple Western economies.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Please read my question again with an open mind, specifically:

Can you find me some quotes that Hussein had any interest in destroying his own oil infrastructure? How about in letting Bin Laden do so?

Just as in 1973 when OPEC agreed to use oil as a weapon to punish the West for its support of Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. They enacted an embargo against unfriendly states and cut oil exports.

"Saddamosama" could have done the same thing and very easily sold our share to China.

Besides, Bin Laden isn't an "outside source," he's been there forever. Even if everything you claim turns out to be true, I don't see how it's explained by the Carter Doctrine.

I agree that Osama HAS been in Iraq before and had ties to Iraq and the Saddam's government which, for obvious reasons, both men and their associates have denied or not publicized. However, since we have yet to show inarguable evidence to support this, I'll leave that out of the information which no one can dispute.

From OUR remove it all looks like they are all "over there" in one place. And that's just because nothing has served to draw us into the details of what's going on "over there." A closer look shows that OBL was seen as a Saudi or from Afghanistan by the Iraqis. And, incidentally, Osama's al Qaeda and the Afghan government, the Taliban, are/were two separate groups. They were an odd couple who few would find had much in common. Al Qaeda was aggressively in favor of working to bring an end to any government that was NOT Muslim. The Taliban was pretty conservative, by comparison, content to maintain a strict Islamic rule only within it's own borders.

But, I digress...

For the purpose of the Carter Doctrine, just as in our standards today, Osama's al Qaeda forces are considered outsiders in Iraq.

Maybe tankers haven't been blown up, but I thought the "insurgency" was doing a pretty good job at destroying pipelines and/or other installations not so long ago, plane crashes notwithstanding.

There HAVE been attacks on oil facilities and pipelines by al Qaeda forces in Iraq AND in Saudi Arabia. Just think of what might have happened if we WEREN'T there in force. Would you trust the Iraqi military RIGHT NOW to guarantee the continuance of the Western economies?

Never thought about it like that before? Well, that's what it boils down to.

If the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military can't protect the oil supplies as well as we have, then OBL wins. They will disrupt the oil in any and every way possible. The West will have to find a NEW source of oil (and the USA needs 18,000,000 - 20,000,000 bbls per day) SOMEWHERE and who knows where that might be???

Then the price of oil suddenly spikes and then the al Qaeda forces increase the attacks ALL OVER THE WORLD against US or Allied interests and the radical Islamic orgiastic builds to a climax until it's all over.

The people keeping this nightmare from happening are our military. If we withdraw our troops from Iraq, (as Cindy Sheehan proposes) the only ones who will be standing between our living as we do today and our becoming a panic-stricken, economically crushed nation and a predicament not much different from the images we see on TV from the Gulf states, would be the Iraqi Army.

I visited your pet website and it made quite a big deal that the energy cost of replacing America's existing cars with more efficient ones would be equal to a year's worth of oil. This seems like the same situation, we've invaded Iraq (presumably) to prevent possible terrorist attacks on oil facilities at the cost of provoking (and facilitating, wrt to political uncertainty) terrorist attacks on oil facilities, meanwhile spending hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US soldiers.

The World Trade Center wasn't enough of a warning as to what OBL would do to bring us down? You think we would be sitting here safe and comfortable as we are and do today if we HADN'T secured the oil supplies???

Osama bin Laden has gotten "OFFICIAL" religious permission to use NUCLEAR weapons on the United States. (Google: American Hiroshima)

Osama bin laden's men have made repeated attacks on oil facilities in Iraq and in Saudi Arabia, as you have already acknowledged.

The Oil Ministers caused economic chaos in the US in the 1970's by using oil as a weapon.

And you REALLY think he wouldn't have made a play to kill us by using a Saddam who has paid millions to the families of Islamic suicide bomber's families, a Saddam whose son tortured the national soccer team for losing a game, but who figuratively fellates Osama in print after 9/11, a Saddam who everyone here in this country believes is so anti-Islam, but who calls on the 'faithful' to rise up in holy JIHAD against the US...you REALLY think they wouldn't have joined forces to kill their common enemy???

Yourself, mojo2?

I'm lucky that in San Francisco public transportation is quick, affordable, reliable and not too inconvenient. You can live quite nicely without a car and thousands upon thousand, without regard to income or occupation, do!

But, I only ask because I wanted to use an example you could relate to. Sometimes people can't think outside of their own little reality. Not speaking of you, but you know what I mean.

{QUOTE]Can I take that as an agreement that we were lied to? As I recall, we weren't simply told the war was about something other than oil, we were told that the war was NOT about oil. That would be a lie (according to you, right?).[/QUOTE]

Yes, ok. We may have been lied to. OR, we may have been told the truth to the extent it was known. Or, we may have been told only what we needed to know without letting the forces that want us dead, to know information that might help them kill us. Or, we might have been told several truths, all of them true, but in that there were so many of them it resulted in confusing many who can't entertain more than one motivation for a government doing a thing.

I don't want to be lied to. But, using a different analogy, if I own a business and I hire a manager to run the business and at a business meeting with some outside entities, including the press, my manager answers a question about one of our products, plans or processes with an answer I''ve never before heard or even with a lie, I'm going to wait until we can safely talk about this.

I expect he might tell me he couldn't tell the group the truth because the press reporter would give that information to our competitors or it might have caused a new deal we were thinking of making to be adversely affected.

When I hired him I trusted he would do the job to the best of his ability, despite his faults or flaws, and would love the company as I do.

In the case of GWB, I believe he loves this country as much as I do. I believe there may have been things he has said or not said, done or not done that he can't disclose just yet. And because I trust him I give him the benefit of the doubt and will wait until he's no longer in office and then we'll see if those things can be safely discussed/disclosed.

It's fair enough for you or the president to say there are things he needs to do and we need not know about, and that one of those things is maintaining our lifeline to oil. In the same vein, it's fair for citizens to say, no, mr bush, sending us to war to conquer oil for our own greedy interests is not one of the things you need to do behind our backs. If enough people say that, he's got a problem (not enough have I think). I'll say it.

Is that to say there should be NO classified information about our nation or our national defense? Everything should be made public to anyone of us and by making it open and available to any one of US it would also be known to those who wish us harm and want to bring about our demise???

mojo2, I'm tired of your ranting, but I would be interested to hear this from you. What are you doing to free yourself from oil dependency? (please tell me it's more than ranting).

Weaned from owning a car. I recycle. Thermostat at 68 - 70. Flush using the, "Yellow=Mellow/Brown=Goes Down" rule, weaned from red meat & pork (uses more grain to produce meat than to eat the grain the cow or pig would eat), and yes...I rant.

And, not to break my own arm patting myself on the back, (nor would I diminish the importance of what I do) I believe some of us do and others teach. Some do and some talk. Some do and others think.

While some of you are do, do, do-ing, I am thinking, talking and teaching.

Thanks for asking.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You will recall (I hope) that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked by NATO after 9/11, so apparently your government would disagree with you.

First of all, no need to be patronizing. Then, NATO is a left-over of the Cold War, which has ever since the fall of the Iron Curtain been on the search of a new purpose. However, the Carter Doctrine (which is not something tangible like a law or even NATO, an institution which is still present today) is basically historians' attempt to summarize (Carter's) policies (based on sources). So

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

All of which underscores the fact that you can't just pretend that political events dissappear just because you would like to draw a neat historical box around it. Life isn't like the chapters of a history book. It's not all discreet categories that can be separated from one another. There is no neat line to draw around the cold war such that you can pretend that everything that happened in the years 1947 to 1990 are utterly separable from the rest of history. And in any case, you yourself admit that the Carter Doctrine wasn't just about the threat of Soviet imperialism. It was also about Islamic militancy (i.e. Iran). Those are still live issues. In fact, probably bigger issues than they seeme to the haplass Mr. Carter.

In any case to keep it really simple (not to say grossly simplistic) but for the strategic interests that lead to the Carter Doctrine, there would have been no first Gulf War. But for the first Gulf War, there would have been no ceasefire in the Gulf, nor any US troops in the region maintaining it. But for the Ceasefire and post-Gulf War concern with Saddam, there probably wouldn't have been a war in Iraq in 2003. That's your link and it is completely linear.

No, it's not that simple. And also, it just underscores what I'm trying to say.

To start with the first issue, no, history is in a constant flux. However, the fall of the Soviet Union was clearly a break in history, and the world still tries to deal with the changed balance of powers. Of course it has consequences for the present. But what happend in the states behind the iron curtain in the late 80s, mid 90s is the end of a chapter. Nobody said anything about being self-contained.

We agree that the Carter Doctrine as any preceding and succeeding doctrine (we'll leave out the issue you bring up again below here for once) is just one step. And `Doctrines' (note the quotation marks this time) are changing with time and certainly with each new administration, but they obviously (i) have to pick up where the others left off and (ii) as we say in German, they also cook only with water (aka they have to work with the circumstances and cannot perform miracles).

Your seemingly linear chain is leaving out all the other interdependencies and moments that could have totally altered the outcome. Imagine Bush Jr. in office instead of Bush Sr. in the 90s, what if Hussein were removed from power back then? Why not do it back then than 2003? Both of it were choices of the respective administration at the respective time. Where does it leave the Carter Doctrine? Where it was, in the Carter Administration. The choices aren't made by late Presidents, the choices are made by the current administration. Other than the situation that is left by one President as his term ends and a new President's term begins, the choices are all made by each Administration according to their `Doctrine'.

A linear chain of events is usually used to place blame, to make someone responsible. The invasion of Iraq could have been prevented several times (invading Iraq during Desert Storm for instance or not going to war with it in 2003), but it wasn't. Placing the blame on Carter's policies (what mojo is trying to do) is far-fetched to say the least.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

And again, a reminder, these doctrines are not in any "document." They are statements of policy. You can't go look up and read the original text of the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, or the Bush Doctrine and so on because such a single document doesn't really exist. The term "doctine" is just shorthand used by political scientists, journalists, and historians. In that sense it isn't really a "justification" for anything. It's an explanation.

There's really no need to tell me that. I'm not at a disagreement here, on the contrary, I agreed with that in my reply. I'm not sure why you keep on bringing it up (in a reply to me).


Just to wrap this up, because I have the feeling, we argue over basically nothing, the only thing I in principle do not agree with is the construct that because of Carter's ideas (summed up in his `doctrine') roughly 25 years ago, he would be in favor of the war in Iraq (otherwise he would violate `his own, holy, doctrine') is complete non-sense. Whereas he seems to be against the invasion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

A linear chain of events is usually used to place blame, to make someone responsible. The invasion of Iraq could have been prevented several times (invading Iraq during Desert Storm for instance or not going to war with it in 2003), but it wasn't. Placing the blame on Carter's policies (what mojo is trying to do) is far-fetched to say the least. [/url]

I said earlier that mojo2 basically misunderstood what the Carter docrine is, and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged that criticism in subsequent posts. Whatever he is trying to argue I think we can keep separate from what I am arguing. If I wanted to try to blame Carter, I'd probably rather focus on his weak response to Iranian terrorism and lawlessness when Iran's government encouraged its citizens to flout hundreds of years of civilized behavior and took diplomats hostage. A pattern of western appeasement of terrorism was set there. Had our response (and that of the west generally) been better, perhaps a lot of subsequent events would have been prevented. Of course, that is speculation. We can never know what alternate histories would really have been like.

But anyway, the reason why I think that the Carter Doctrine shouldn't be forgotten and ought not to be dismissed is that it is still relevant to US policy today. It's not like the Reagan Doctrine where the strategic underpinning expired with the fall of Communism. The strategic concerns that caused the Carter Doctrine to be enunciated are still there as live concerns. However, I'm not saying that in and of itself it is US policy today. That is a ridiculously naive idea. The Bush Doctrine is quite different from the Carter Doctrine. It's not "all about oil" or "all about Realpolitik" although those elements are always present to some degree. It is a fact that the world would not be as concerned with the otherwise backward Gulf region if it wasn't for oil. To that extent, and to the extent that it played a central role in the sequence of events is why the Carter Doctrine is historically important.

That's my real concern. It is the tendency among many (usually opponants of the war) to try to discuss current affairs in the Middle East in simplistic terms, and especially the tendency to try to discuss the go-to-war decision in 2003 as if it was a virgin birth unconnected to any policies or events that happened prior to Jan 20, 2000 (when Bush came to office). Of course, people who want to do that do so because they want to blame it all on Bush. In fact, it can't really be discussed without reference to the ceasefire from the first Gulf War, and that in turn leads us back to the Carter Doctrine. That's not "blaming" Carter, it's acknowledging the fact that historical events have complex roots and aren't born whole in one administration. Besides, the Iraq war was the correct decision, I'd hardly be blaming Carter for it. If I were inclined to blame anyone, it would be Bush Sr. for listening to Powell and not finishing the job back in 1990. But that was a reasonable decision at the time, not something to attach blame to.

Therefore, the Carter Doctrine is relevant, and a reminder that Democrat presidents once had responsibility for the real world just as this Republican president does. That's the main reason to remind Democrats and liberals about it. It's important to remind people that they are part of the story, and that they can't just offload the whole thing in a partisan way.

[christ]

Originally Posted by mojo2

<snip a whole bunch of stuff that indicated that Aberdeen didn't read my post before he replied to it>

In short, I'll leave it to you to explain why our being the aggressor was the NECESSARY thing to do.

I can't explain why this was NECESSARY, because it wasn't. (Although i am intrigued that you are so willing, all of a recent, to declare that you think that it was, as you and your ilk fought shy of saying so, and ranted against "liberals" that pointed this out, when the invasion was brewing)

I didn't invoke the Carter doctrine.

I didn't expect you to admit so readily to being the aggressor.

But now you have - the Carter doctrine, if it is,as you contend being followed, means that you should now go to arms to repel the agressor (to whit: you).

To repeat the Carter Doctrine that you thoughtfully provided "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." You are definitely an outside force, and you are definitely trying to gain control of the Persian Gulf region, so you definitely qualify as needing to be repelled.

How do you propose to square this circle?

[Wiskedjak]

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/home.html
Here's a group of Republicans who support same-sex marriage. Now all Republicans must support same-sex marriage (if aberdeen's logic in this thread were to be followed)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I said earlier that mojo2 basically misunderstood what the Carter docrine is, and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged that criticism in subsequent posts. Whatever he is trying to argue I think we can keep separate from what I am arguing. If I wanted to try to blame Carter, I'd probably rather focus on his weak response to Iranian terrorism and lawlessness when Iran's government encouraged its citizens to flout hundreds of years of civilized behavior and took diplomats hostage. A pattern of western appeasement of terrorism was set there. Had our response (and that of the west generally) been better, perhaps a lot of subsequent events would have been prevented. Of course, that is speculation. We can never know what alternate histories would really have been like.

I thought you were arguing in support of mojo, especially in your `linear link' paragraph.

Obviously we can argue about Carter's decisions during his administration but this is different from what mojo is trying to do (he answers neither one of us, unfortunately )

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But anyway, the reason why I think that the Carter Doctrine shouldn't be forgotten and ought not to be dismissed is that it is still relevant to US policy today. It's not like the Reagan Doctrine where the strategic underpinning expired with the fall of Communism. The strategic concerns that caused the Carter Doctrine to be enunciated are still there as live concerns. However, I'm not saying that in and of itself it is US policy today. That is a ridiculously naive idea. The Bush Doctrine is quite different from the Carter Doctrine. It's not "all about oil" or "all about Realpolitik" although those elements are always present to some degree. It is a fact that the world would not be as concerned with the otherwise backward Gulf region if it wasn't for oil. To that extent, and to the extent that it played a central role in the sequence of events is why the Carter Doctrine is historically important.

Well, I would say that each Doctrine is the attempt to solve the same/similar problems in a different way.

I also agree with you about the difference on the Bush (Jr, obviously) Doctrine and the Carter Doctrine. And that current politics are based on Bush's (administration's) ideas.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's my real concern. It is the tendency among many (usually opponants of the war) to try to discuss current affairs in the Middle East in simplistic terms, and especially the tendency to try to discuss the go-to-war decision in 2003 as if it was a virgin birth unconnected to any policies or events that happened prior to Jan 20, 2000 (when Bush came to office). Of course, people who want to do that do so because they want to blame it all on Bush. In fact, it can't really be discussed without reference to the ceasefire from the first Gulf War, and that in turn leads us back to the Carter Doctrine. That's not "blaming" Carter, it's acknowledging the fact that historical events have complex roots and aren't born whole in one administration. Besides, the Iraq war was the correct decision, I'd hardly be blaming Carter for it. If I were inclined to blame anyone, it would be Bush Sr. for listening to Powell and not finishing the job back in 1990. But that was a reasonable decision at the time, not something to attach blame to.

True, but I still maintain if Bush Jr. weren't President now, probably there were no invasion. If as you say, if Bush Sr. hadn't listened to his military advisors (who I guess wanted to avoid a costly occupation), there were no need for a second war in Iraq. Obviously all this is highly speculative and some questions can only be answered in retrospect.

Again, I don't mind to argue to what extent Carter contributed to this, but I was just opposing the simplistic approach mojo took here. Also, tracing back something that took place some 20, 25 years ago to current events is obviously trickier … 

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Therefore, the Carter Doctrine is relevant, and a reminder that Democrat presidents once had responsibility for the real world just as this Republican president does. That's the main reason to remind Democrats and liberals about it. It's important to remind people that they are part of the story, and that they can't just offload the whole thing in a partisan way.

Yes, obviously. That's what I meant when I say `they all cook with water'. However, every administration should take the responsibility for decisions they have made. Anyway, I think this debate would go far beyond this thread

I wouldn't really remind just one side of it, it's both. Both have tabloid explanations, because the real thing is beyond most of us anyway.

[mojo2]

Oops

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

It will take a long time, but if we start now it might happen within our life times.
It will cost a lot, but the cost of oil isn't going anywhere but up.

I don't know. My area of expertise is making software easier to use, not manufacturing processes or energy resources. You'll note, however, that I said I would work to eliminate my heavy dependance on oil, not replace oil. There are certainly many areas in our society where replacing oil presently would be near impossible, but there are also many areas in our society where it is possible, though expensive and long term, to replace oil with other sources of energy that would eliminate our heavy dependance on oil and reduce it to a light dependance.

Being completely independent of oil in the near future is impossible, but it is possible we could get to the point where disruption of our oil supplies wouldn't cripple Western economies.

Thank you, Wiskedjak. That was a thoughtful response.

I would be very interested in quantifying the amount of driving we would have to eliminate or the vehicles or average number of trips or the mpg we'd have to achieve to equal the amount we get from foreign sources.

The President has said we can't conserve our way to energy independence and I've posted that quote here many times but no one seems to read it or believe it. Maybe if someone did some research or crunched some numbers to make clear what our objective should be in concrete terms maybe we all would have something we could work towards.

It would be GREAT if we didn't need foreign sources of oil.

But, what about if WE weaned ourselves from oil to the point where we didn't need the M.E. and so we withdrew and then another power came into the area, like China.

What would we do then?

How would you feel?

Threatened?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I said earlier that mojo2 basically misunderstood what the Carter docrine is, and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged that criticism in subsequent posts. Whatever he is trying to argue I think we can keep separate from what I am arguing. If I wanted to try to blame Carter, I'd probably rather focus on his weak response to Iranian terrorism and lawlessness when Iran's government encouraged its citizens to flout hundreds of years of civilized behavior and took diplomats hostage. A pattern of western appeasement of terrorism was set there. Had our response (and that of the west generally) been better, perhaps a lot of subsequent events would have been prevented. Of course, that is speculation. We can never know what alternate histories would really have been like.

But anyway, the reason why I think that the Carter Doctrine shouldn't be forgotten and ought not to be dismissed is that it is still relevant to US policy today. It's not like the Reagan Doctrine where the strategic underpinning expired with the fall of Communism. The strategic concerns that caused the Carter Doctrine to be enunciated are still there as live concerns. However, I'm not saying that in and of itself it is US policy today. That is a ridiculously naive idea. The Bush Doctrine is quite different from the Carter Doctrine. It's not "all about oil" or "all about Realpolitik" although those elements are always present to some degree. It is a fact that the world would not be as concerned with the otherwise backward Gulf region if it wasn't for oil. To that extent, and to the extent that it played a central role in the sequence of events is why the Carter Doctrine is historically important.

That's my real concern. It is the tendency among many (usually opponants of the war) to try to discuss current affairs in the Middle East in simplistic terms, and especially the tendency to try to discuss the go-to-war decision in 2003 as if it was a virgin birth unconnected to any policies or events that happened prior to Jan 20, 2000 (when Bush came to office). Of course, people who want to do that do so because they want to blame it all on Bush. In fact, it can't really be discussed without reference to the ceasefire from the first Gulf War, and that in turn leads us back to the Carter Doctrine. That's not "blaming" Carter, it's acknowledging the fact that historical events have complex roots and aren't born whole in one administration. Besides, the Iraq war was the correct decision, I'd hardly be blaming Carter for it. If I were inclined to blame anyone, it would be Bush Sr. for listening to Powell and not finishing the job back in 1990. But that was a reasonable decision at the time, not something to attach blame to.

Therefore, the Carter Doctrine is relevant, and a reminder that Democrat presidents once had responsibility for the real world just as this Republican president does. That's the main reason to remind Democrats and liberals about it. It's important to remind people that they are part of the story, and that they can't just offload the whole thing in a partisan way.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses and have waited until this evening to sit down and read your enlightened posts. I feel that my commenting or becoming involved directly in your discourse with others here would only hinder said discourse. I have learned from what you've said and invite you to continue this line of thought without expectation of my joining in. I fear it would do no one much good.

However, I shall continue on with the other posters.

Thanks, Simey. Cheers.