Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Perhaps.

To this day what was done in Libya dismays me. Far more than what the USA did in Iraq.
Gaddafi was feted by the leaders of Europe. Relations broke down after Swiss authorities arrested his son for allegedly beating up personal servants. But that hardly seems justification to bomb the country into chaos.

i think the theory was that getting rid of qaddafi in the context of the arab spring would promote the appearance of a libyan thomas jefferson, and everyone would live happily ever after. just like in iraq.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

During the election campaign many pundits claimed Trump would be a "dangerous, warmonger" President. My view was Trump was an isolationist, and would try to gravitate the USA back to its natural inclinations in that respect. Certainly that is what came through in his campaign speeches, if one listened.

I'm not sure how this will play out, but he seems to finally be shaking things up on that policy front. Tillerson is gone. So is McMaster. This is probably one of the major reasons why. And, of course the response from the "old guard" in the swamp is predictable...

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/30/...-remove-speech

Trump is reportedly telling aides he wants US troops out of Syria
Updated Mar 30, 2018, 3:45pm EDT

It looks like President Donald Trump is actually serious about wanting to remove US troops from Syria.

On Thursday, Trump made a seemingly off-the-cuff remark to that effect during a big infrastructure speech. “We’ll be coming out of Syria very soon,” Trump told the crowd. “Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon. Very soon, we’re coming out.”

That was quite a surprise to US officials, given that then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced just two months ago that the 2,000 or so US troops currently in Syria could be there “indefinitely” because of the threat ISIS still poses despite its massive territorial losses over the last year. And just two hours before Trump’s remarks, the Pentagon had saidUS troops needed to stay in Syria to “guarantee the lasting defeat” of ISIS...



https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/01/graham-trump-syria-isis-mideast-493008

Graham: Pulling out of Syria ‘the single worst decision’ Trump could make

04/01/2018 10:03 AM EDT




https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/31/politics/trump-syria-funds/index.html

Trump puts hold on more than $200 million in Syria recovery funds
Updated 4:25 PM ET, Sat March 31, 2018

(CNN)President Donald Trump placed a hold on more than $200 million in recovery funds for Syria this week, demanding more information on how the money is being used, senior State Department officials have confirmed to CNN.

The confirmation comes just days after Trump announced he wants the United States to withdraw from the war-torn country soon.

The funding was to be used for basic infrastructure projects, such as restoring power and water and rebuilding roads. Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the funding last month at an aid conference in Kuwait...

[Chris Coles]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

During the election campaign many pundits claimed Trump would be a "dangerous, warmonger" President. My view was Trump was an isolationist, and would try to gravitate the USA back to its natural inclinations in that respect. Certainly that is what came through in his campaign speeches, if one listened.

I'm not sure how this will play out, but he seems to finally be shaking things up on that policy front. Tillerson is gone. So is McMaster. This is probably one of the major reasons why. And, of course the response from the "old guard" in the swamp is predictable...

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/30/...-remove-speech

Trump is reportedly telling aides he wants US troops out of Syria
Updated Mar 30, 2018, 3:45pm EDT

It looks like President Donald Trump is actually serious about wanting to remove US troops from Syria.

On Thursday, Trump made a seemingly off-the-cuff remark to that effect during a big infrastructure speech. “We’ll be coming out of Syria very soon,” Trump told the crowd. “Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon. Very soon, we’re coming out.”

That was quite a surprise to US officials, given that then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced just two months ago that the 2,000 or so US troops currently in Syria could be there “indefinitely” because of the threat ISIS still poses despite its massive territorial losses over the last year. And just two hours before Trump’s remarks, the Pentagon had saidUS troops needed to stay in Syria to “guarantee the lasting defeat” of ISIS...



https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/01/graham-trump-syria-isis-mideast-493008

Graham: Pulling out of Syria ‘the single worst decision’ Trump could make

04/01/2018 10:03 AM EDT




https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/31/politics/trump-syria-funds/index.html

Trump puts hold on more than $200 million in Syria recovery funds
Updated 4:25 PM ET, Sat March 31, 2018

(CNN)President Donald Trump placed a hold on more than $200 million in recovery funds for Syria this week, demanding more information on how the money is being used, senior State Department officials have confirmed to CNN.

The confirmation comes just days after Trump announced he wants the United States to withdraw from the war-torn country soon.

The funding was to be used for basic infrastructure projects, such as restoring power and water and rebuilding roads. Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the funding last month at an aid conference in Kuwait...

It is certainly true that the US has not been bombing the city populations like, for example the Russians have; thus, surly, it makes sense to place that particular responsibility into the hands of the Russians?

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

grg, any thoughts on the future of the kurds?

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

grg, any thoughts on the future of the kurds?

I would think rather difficult now that US military support is waning. The US never provided any security assistance to the Syrian Kurds west of Manbij, so they were always on their own in Afrin. The Turks will show no mercy. The Russians are now in a delicate situation aligned with both the Turks and the Syrian Assad regime. The Iranians will try to find some accommodation with the Iraqi Kurds, as they have more important things they wish to accomplish in the region first. France is making noises about assisting the Syrian Kurds or mediating between them and Turkey, but I don't seriously think Macron has the support to put any significant troops into that fray. And Turkey has so little regard for France it has not hesitated to issue overt threats, in return.

I regard the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, assuming it actually goes ahead, as another small indicator of the emergence of what EJ termed "Fortress America".

What we are seeing from Russia (Georgia, Ukraine), Turkey (Syria), China (South China Sea) and others is perhaps an indication of the world that is emerging as American hegemony erodes. One that is likely to be less stable, less prosperous and less free than we have enjoyed since the end of WWII.

[touchring]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I would think rather difficult now that US military support is waning. The US never provided any security assistance to the Syrian Kurds west of Manbij, so they were always on their own in Afrin. The Turks will show no mercy. The Russians are now in a delicate situation aligned with both the Turks and the Syrian Assad regime. The Iranians will try to find some accommodation with the Iraqi Kurds, as they have more important things they wish to accomplish in the region first. France is making noises about assisting the Syrian Kurds or mediating between them and Turkey, but I don't seriously think Macron has the support to put any significant troops into that fray. And Turkey has so little regard for France it has not hesitated to issue overt threats, in return.

I regard the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, assuming it actually goes ahead, as another small indicator of the emergence of what EJ termed "Fortress America".

It's time that the US pulls out of the Middle East. Why should the US pay trillions just to ensure China gets cheap oil for shipping?

[touchring]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It's time that the US pulls out of the Middle East. Why should the US pay trillions just to ensure China gets cheap oil for shipping?

hmm... Oil price to rise??

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It's time that the US pulls out of the Middle East. Why should the US pay trillions just to ensure China gets cheap oil for shipping?

The USA used its economic might, its diplomacy and its military to project power in the Middle East, and elsewhere, in the years since WWII for a variety of reasons. Security of oil supply for itself, and the rest of the world, was just one of those reasons.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

hmm... Oil price to rise??

For now that will depend more on USDX than anything else.

[touchring]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

The USA used its economic might, its diplomacy and its military to project power in the Middle East, and elsewhere, in the years since WWII for a variety of reasons. Security of oil supply for itself, and the rest of the world, was just one of those reasons.

Since there's so much oil in the USA and Canada, why is there a need to spend so much resources in the Middle East?

I would have thought that the main reason for US involvement in the Middle East is to protect Israel?

In 10 years, the US won't even need Middle East oil. Probably way before that if you factor in Canadian oil sand. So who will ensure oil security in the Middle EAst? Surely not Russia as Putin benefits from high oil price.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-energy-agency

[Chris Coles]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Since there's so much oil in the USA and Canada, why is there a need to spend so much resources in the Middle East?

I would have thought that the main reason for US involvement in the Middle East is to protect Israel?

In 10 years, the US won't even need Middle East oil. Probably way before that if you factor in Canadian oil sand. So who will ensure oil security in the Middle EAst? Surely not Russia as Putin benefits from high oil price.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-energy-agency

My instincts tell me that we need to remember that fracked wells have a much shorter productive life span than what one might describe as conventional wells drilled into a major oil field. Surely, in which case, these new forecasts must relate to a continuing drilling program; where wells have to be replaced by new wells; drilled and fracked into new shale deposits. So, within these new forecasts; how many new wells will be drilled, before the US runs out of new shale to drill?

[touchring]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

My instincts tell me that we need to remember that fracked wells have a much shorter productive life span than what one might describe as conventional wells drilled into a major oil field. Surely, in which case, these new forecasts must relate to a continuing drilling program; where wells have to be replaced by new wells; drilled and fracked into new shale deposits. So, within these new forecasts; how many new wells will be drilled, before the US runs out of new shale to drill?

This might be true, but oil usage will be gradually reduced along the way with better battery technology and adoption of EVs and hybrids. Total worldwide oil consumption may still rise as more people in China and India buy cars. China alone could add another half a billion cars over the next 15 years, almost as many cars as there are now in the US and EU combined. We haven't even considered India.

China will need to conquer Siberia to fuel the additional half a billion motor vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...les_per_capita

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

russia is already selling a lot of oil to china and if i'm not mistaken recently completed another pipeline for that purpose. further, they don't deal in dollars but in yuan and rubles only. i'm sure this is cheaper for china than starting a war with russia. meanwhile russian-chinese military visits are happening with the chinese announcing this is a "signal" to the u.s.

the saudi royals visited russia this past fall- a first - and presumably are thinking opec 2.0 re: global oil supplies. and the saudis are purchasing the russian s-400 air defense system.

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

EJ warned about the risk of higher interest rates for the finances of fracking oil. If the wells have shorter lives and they cost more to finance with higher risks to the lender then you might see a pullback in drilling.

I expect China and India will be leaders in converting to self driving automobiles and keep the number of cars owned low. They can't afford the pollution, energy use, and congestion a billion automobiles will bring. Buying a high priced item that has ongoing insurance and maintenance cost and is utilized less than 5% to 10% of the time makes no economic or societal sense.

I don't know how India will handle this, but China has the tools in place for absolute control.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Since there's so much oil in the USA and Canada, why is there a need to spend so much resources in the Middle East?

I would have thought that the main reason for US involvement in the Middle East is to protect Israel?

In 10 years, the US won't even need Middle East oil. Probably way before that if you factor in Canadian oil sand. So who will ensure oil security in the Middle EAst? Surely not Russia as Putin benefits from high oil price.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-energy-agency

Why do you think there is a discussion in the USA about finally getting out?

For most of the past 70 years it has served both USA and global interests for the US military (with some help from the UK and France) to be the police force in the Middle East, particularly the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Oil supply security, ensuring open trade routes, projection of political influence, furthering of business interests. All of that was more important to the USA than Israel in the larger scheme of things.

Forget about 10 years from now. The USA doesn't need Middle East oil today. And if the rest of the world does, let them figure out how to secure it. The political and military establishment in the USA hasn't caught up with either the voters or the President. But they will, kicking and screaming all the way. As I have posted before, President Trump is an isolationist. He is openly contemptuous of international institutions (like the UN). His popularity continues to be greater than his detractors wish to acknowledge (believe?). Just another step down the path to EJ's Fortress America.

EJ warned about the risk of higher interest rates for the finances of fracking oil. If the wells have shorter lives and they cost more to finance with higher risks to the lender then you might see a pullback in drilling...

The economics are a lot more robust than you imagine. If you think either the technology or the economics of drilling tight oil in the Lower 48 is the same as it was even three years ago then you continue to underestimate just how innovative and technically driven this sector of the US economy really is.

I expect China and India will be leaders in converting to self driving automobiles and keep the number of cars owned low. They can't afford the pollution, energy use, and congestion a billion automobiles will bring...

If you've ever tried to get an outboard motor fixed in a third world country or city-state (like Dubai) you'll understand why I have absolutely no expectation that India or most of China will have self driving cars. Ever. Perhaps in select, showcase urban centers of China (Shanghai is not China) where the wealthy and politically influential reside; can't have the hoi polloi clogging the streets and impairing the movement of the limousines after all.

Buying a high priced item that has ongoing insurance and maintenance cost and is utilized less than 5% to 10% of the time makes no economic or societal sense...

I believe the Chinese applied exactly the same logic to second children.

Seriously, do you live in a perfectly efficient shoe box? Is your larder and refrigerator filled purely with nutritious, healthy foods? Do you own any sporting goods, like a pair of skis or ice skates, and if so how much of your 24 hour day is devoted to using them? To make the statement you did is to be superficially rational...and utterly dismissive of human motivations and behavior. But then I am an engineer, so what would I know about such things.