Oil's Well That Ends Well - 2

In the first post of this series Dredd Blog pulled no punches when commenting on the real foreign policy reasons for the "war on terror".

In the post yesterday about Iraqi oil, Dredd Blog shows that the foreign policy is "fair", in the sense that U.S. policy calls for the invasion of any nation (no discrimination) that meets the criteria of having an inadvisably tempting supply of the low-hanging fruit type of oil.

The blindest of the blind, or the ultimate cover up masters, are those in the main stream media who do not realize that the current oil wars are products of consistent U.S. foreign policy going back a century.

Yes, the foreign policy that fundamentally supports oil barons has never been a big secret: "One of our greatest helpers has been the State Department" - John D. Rockefeller (1909).

In the book The Control of Oil (1976), in a discussion of Oil Imperialism (1977), and in an Energy Bulletin article (2008), writers and other observers have pointed out that Iraqi and other mid-east oil has always been a twinkle in the eye of the western oil barons (see also Global Research and Global Policy Forum).

The strategy of control was mapped out in the book The Grand Chessboard (1997), by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."

(ibid, p. 31). The game becomes more difficult when "populism" raises its head:

"Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."

(ibid, p. 35). These problems can appear to be on steroids as pressures mount:

"The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea."

(ibid, p. 125). The status quo will creak, groan, and even break in places, as the pressure continues to mount:

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last."

(ibid, p. 209). Finally, there will have to be some unusual pressures brought to bear to keep the status quo foreign policy in place:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

(ibid, p. 211). Looking back we can see that an event like Pearl Harbor, which was 9/11, was that "external threat" which kicked off the "war on terror", a threat that Dredd Blog calls the oil wars.

We hear that 9/11 made the oil wars all the more palatable to that "multi-cultural society", that is, at least it was more palatable until those policies broke The Bank of Jekyll.