I generally agree with Mr. Ochenski's March 10 points on "Foreign Fallacy".
But as we consider our options going forward,  I think it is worth looking
at some evidence that Saudi Arabia is not really our "oil daddy" (I do
appreciate the phrase) in any important sense.

I collected some recent statistics on oil imports, consumption, reserves,
and human population here, which you are free to repost/reprint
as you like; no attribution to me is needed:

Crude oil Statistics

And here is a nice DOE diagram that summarizes our energy usage by sector
and source:

U.S. Energy consumption by sector and source

It is accepted wisdom the United States has a strong interest in what we
call the Middle East and Central Asia, because of the large petro/gas energy
reserves in that part of the world.   While there is a bit of truth in this
idea, the overall concept is deeply flawed, in my opinion.

First, it is important to know that the United States actually gets the
majority of its imported oil *not* from Saudi Arabia, but from the Americas.  
Specifically, from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.  See Table A for our current 
oil import sources by country.  We get a significant amount (12.5%) from Nigeria,
as well, which is African, a member of OPEC, and about 50% Muslim, but is not 
Middle Eastern.

The most important statistic is this one:

   Only 5.41% of our current oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, which is the
   largest Middle Eastern or Asian source of current U.S. oil imports.

Now, of course Saudi Arabia does sit on the largest proven national reserves
in the world, but as shown in Table D, Venezuela and Canada are a
respectable second and third.

Next consider Table C, showing that we still have less than a billion
people in the Americas, while there are close to 6 billion on the other
side of the Earth (longitudinally speaking).

Therefore I think our people have legitimate grounds to conclude that
we really do have our fare share of the world's oil on this side of
the planet.  Furthermore, imagine that we work with reasonable dilligence
over the next 10,20,30 years to restructure our energy use and production.
Then there is probably enough oil on this side of the world to avoid a
major energy crisis, if we can simply get along with our neighbors.

Not really so scary, when we look at it that way.  But we usually don't
look at it, or talk about it, in that way.   Instead, we are told over and
over that the Saudia Arabian oil reserve is just the most gosh-darned important
thing on the planet ... to us, in the United States.  Saudi Arabian oil is what
we have to kill and die for, and moreover it's the reason why we must have
double standards about human rights, freedom, and self-determination.

Mr. Ochenski is right to challenge these double standards.  And when we
see that we are really being deceived about our alleged dependence on
Middle Eastern oil, then the hypocrisy becomes even more odious.

My assessment is that our foreign policy remains focused on the Persian
Gulf region, not because of the real energy security issues faced by our
people, but as part of an entrenched establishment mindset regarding our
country's role in the world.  The majority of the think tankers paid to
write on these subjects (regardless of whether they are paid by Coke or Pepsi)
agree that America can, should, and must permanently stand at the nexxus of
global industrial economic power and global military supremacy.  The fact
that most of the people on this globe live on the other side of it is a
mere trifling fact to be brushed away.   Any trend or group which could
potentially undermine our globally dominant position (including, of course,
any rival bid to control an energy resource or a warm water port) must be
countered, by force if necessary.   The last 10 years have seen this point of
view expanded, even as it becomes less strategically viable, and as the
economic and human costs mount, unchecked by Pepsi or Coke.

In short:  Our perceived need to control the resource-rich Middle East and
Central Asia is rooted in our perceived need to dominate the planet, more than
our actual need (or entitlement) to control those resources.  The underlying
problem is probably that our paid strategists have just played Risk too many
darned times.

Meanwhile Latin America gets short shrift, except for the glorious "War
on Drugs", which the Mexicans politely thank us for every day.  We ignore
Latin America because we assume that Bananaland is already ours to dominate
forever, and therefore kinda boring.   But imagine the impact of spending
a third or even a tenth of what we spend fighting in Asia on building
solidarity with our southern neighbors.   That would be a worthwhile
investment in our shared future, with an important energy security
component.

"We need Saudi Arabia's oil" is a key message used to sell us a cockeyed
world perspective, allegedly a "hard headed and realistic" one, but it's
no more than a shimmering mirage.

This page last updated 2011-03-19.
All materials Copyright 2011 by Indigulous.com, unless otherwise explicitly noted.
Please notify us if you believe this website violates any U.S. copyright law, or that our copyrights are being violated by others.