Blood and Oil

Victor Davis Hanson:

With the gruesome killing of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, Vladimir Putin's Russia stands accused of poisoning yet another critic.

Meanwhile, Syria continues to mastermind the murders of Lebanese democrats. Israeli-free Gaza is as violent as ever. Hezbollah is busy replenishing its stock of Iranian missiles. The theocracy in Iran keeps promising an end to Israel. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is slowly strangling democracy in Latin America in a manner that an impoverished Fidel Castro never could.

And then, of course, there's Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's easy to think that all of this violent instability across the globe is unconnected. But, in fact, in one way or another, oil and its huge profits are at the bottom of a lot of it.

Islamic jihadists, fed from petrodollar wealth of the Middle East, have the cash to arm and plan operations from Baghdad and Kabul to Madrid and London. Thanks to oil, unhinged leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Chavez in Venezuela can stay in power (and demand the world's attention) despite policies that ultimately harm their people, ruin their economies and imperil their neighbors.

Russia, meanwhile, is essentially threatening Eastern Europe with energy cutbacks and reviving the old Soviet nuclear and arms industries. It's stirring up an already volatile Middle East by selling radical Islamists everything from nuclear reactors to high-tech anti-tank guns. President Bush may have seen, as he attests, something reassuring in the heart of President Putin. But Russia's new oil riches offer a fast track back to superpower status -- which we're already seeing them use to silence critics at home and abroad.

Furthermore, the global thirst for oil distorts interstate relations. Take the case of China. Its amoral foreign policy is aimed mostly at securing petroleum. Because Beijing is involved in long-term oil deals with Sudan, it's reluctant to join the West in pressuring the corrupt Sudanese government to cease the genocide in Darfur. (Of course, the West, beholden to China for economic reasons, is in turn reluctant to pressure China.) Similarly, China worries far more about getting its hands on Iran's oil than stopping its nuclear proliferation.

The U.S. is often subject to the same blackmail. Take away its need for imported oil and American officials long ago would have ceased visiting Saudi Arabia -- a monarchy based on sharia law and the cash nexus for Islamist madrassas and Wahhabi terrorism. Rather than appeasing a few hundred sheiks in the Gulf, American presidents -- both Democratic and Republican -- might have instead worried more about the poor millions slaughtered in Chad, Darfur, Ethiopia and Rwanda.

...

Hanson goes with the traditional solutions of lower dependence and diversifying energy sources. What he does not discuss is why these obvious solutions are not working. The answer is that the environmental movement is running a determined campaign to starve this country of all forms of energy under the guise of "saving" the environment.

Want alternative energy, try building a nuclear plant or a wind farm on the east coast. Want to increase production of oil try getting a drilling permit off the coast of Florida or California or in the Alaska wilderness.

The recent decline in the price of oil followed the announcement of a huge find in the Gulf of Mexico by Chevron. Imagine what would happen if the rest of the Gulf was explored as well as the other areas mentioned above.

It is reasonable to think with that kind of find in these other areas that the US could be energy independent withing five to ten years, but it want happen because the Democrats have sold out to the environmentalist lobby who want to starve this country of energy. Behind all the goo-goo, look at the pretty scenery arrogance of this group, is a control freak agenda. They think that the environment is their ticket for getting state control of industry now that communism has been discredited.