[gandalf]

At this point, I’m in favor of an orderly and phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning immediately, followed by a redeployment of US resources and military to areas in the ME that are a more immediate and substantive threat. My view is that Iraq, even if it implodes, is a minor player in the scheme of things. I think Al Qaeda is threat #1 and their center of gravity is in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Africa, supported by Saudi money (US petrol dollars, energy is another issue).

Here are my questions:

In your view, how much of our troop presence in Iraq is a strategic move which provides the capability to respond to a disruption in tanker traffic through the Straights of Hormuz, possibly initiated by Iran? If so, what does this say about the energy issue and our dependence on ME petrol supplies?

Also, what is your view re: the downsizing of US presence in Iraq leading to a regional alliance between Iraq and Iran (and a subsequent strengthening of both states) that might evolve into the major US threat in the region? If so, what does this say about the time frame of our commitment and the resources required to sustain it?

Just curious if you had any opinion on these questions. I’d be interested in your views.

[gandalf]

At this point, I’m in favor of an orderly and phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning immediately, followed by a redeployment of US resources and military to areas in the ME that are a more immediate and substantive threat. My view is that Iraq, even if it implodes, is a minor player in the scheme of things. I think Al Qaeda is threat #1 and their center of gravity is in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Africa, supported by Saudi money (US petrol dollars, energy is another issue).

Here are my questions:

In your view, how much of our troop presence in Iraq is a strategic move which provides the capability to respond to a disruption in tanker traffic through the Straights of Hormuz, possibly initiated by Iran? If so, what does this say about the energy issue and our dependence on ME petrol supplies?

Also, what is your view re: the downsizing of US presence in Iraq leading to a regional alliance between Iraq and Iran (and a subsequent strengthening of both states) that might evolve into the major US threat in the region? If so, what does this say about the time frame of our commitment and the resources required to sustain it?

Just curious if you had any opinion on these questions. I’d be interested in your views.

[gandalf]

At this point, I’m in favor of an orderly and phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning immediately, followed by a redeployment of US resources and military to areas in the ME that are a more immediate and substantive threat. My view is that Iraq, even if it implodes, is a minor player in the scheme of things. I think Al Qaeda is threat #1 and their center of gravity is in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Africa, supported by Saudi money (US petrol dollars, energy is another issue).

Here are my questions:

In your view, how much of our troop presence in Iraq is a strategic move which provides the capability to respond to a disruption in tanker traffic through the Straights of Hormuz, possibly initiated by Iran? If so, what does this say about the energy issue and our dependence on ME petrol supplies?

Also, what is your view re: the downsizing of US presence in Iraq leading to a regional alliance between Iraq and Iran (and a subsequent strengthening of both states) that might evolve into the major US threat in the region? If so, what does this say about the time frame of our commitment and the resources required to sustain it?

Just curious if you had any opinion on these questions. I’d be interested in your views.

[gandalf]

At this point, I’m in favor of an orderly and phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning immediately, followed by a redeployment of US resources and military to areas in the ME that are a more immediate and substantive threat. My view is that Iraq, even if it implodes, is a minor player in the scheme of things. I think Al Qaeda is threat #1 and their center of gravity is in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Africa, supported by Saudi money (US petrol dollars, energy is another issue).

Here are my questions:

In your view, how much of our troop presence in Iraq is a strategic move which provides the capability to respond to a disruption in tanker traffic through the Straights of Hormuz, possibly initiated by Iran? If so, what does this say about the energy issue and our dependence on ME petrol supplies?

Also, what is your view re: the downsizing of US presence in Iraq leading to a regional alliance between Iraq and Iran (and a subsequent strengthening of both states) that might evolve into the major US threat in the region? If so, what does this say about the time frame of our commitment and the resources required to sustain it?

Just curious if you had any opinion on these questions. I’d be interested in your views.

[gandalf]

At this point, I’m in favor of an orderly and phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning immediately, followed by a redeployment of US resources and military to areas in the ME that are a more immediate and substantive threat. My view is that Iraq, even if it implodes, is a minor player in the scheme of things. I think Al Qaeda is threat #1 and their center of gravity is in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Africa, supported by Saudi money (US petrol dollars, energy is another issue).

Here are my questions:

In your view, how much of our troop presence in Iraq is a strategic move which provides the capability to respond to a disruption in tanker traffic through the Straights of Hormuz, possibly initiated by Iran? If so, what does this say about the energy issue and our dependence on ME petrol supplies?

Also, what is your view re: the downsizing of US presence in Iraq leading to a regional alliance between Iraq and Iran (and a subsequent strengthening of both states) that might evolve into the major US threat in the region? If so, what does this say about the time frame of our commitment and the resources required to sustain it?

Just curious if you had any opinion on these questions. I’d be interested in your views.

[gandalf]

Ash, thanks again for that link re: the “Oil Endgame”.

Some insight, in case you’re interested. My family’s involved in the oil industry in a fairly significant way, two generations. I’m not nearly as knowledgable as my father, as I work in a different field altogether. My Dad’s something of a ‘Big Deal’ on the exploration side.

In any case, I passed this along and he had very positive things to say about the Rocky Mountain Institute and the report, knows the people involved and speaks well of them.

My Dad’s been concerned about supplies and the pace of research, exploration and development in O&G. His view, should we fail to develop next generation energy resources and technologies, the impact on the economy would be grave and would lead to WWIII.

Up until about a year ago, we weren’t doing the things we needed to be doing. Investment at the major companies fell off a cliff about ten years ago, with very little new in the way of research, exploration and development. He sees things starting to move forward again.

An aside, he thinks an Obama presidency will have a greater impact on advances in the energy industry and on our country’s ability to ‘power’ our future. Thought you might care for an “Insider’s Perspective”.

[gandalf]

Ash, thanks again for that link re: the “Oil Endgame”.

Some insight, in case you’re interested. My family’s involved in the oil industry in a fairly significant way, two generations. I’m not nearly as knowledgable as my father, as I work in a different field altogether. My Dad’s something of a ‘Big Deal’ on the exploration side.

In any case, I passed this along and he had very positive things to say about the Rocky Mountain Institute and the report, knows the people involved and speaks well of them.

My Dad’s been concerned about supplies and the pace of research, exploration and development in O&G. His view, should we fail to develop next generation energy resources and technologies, the impact on the economy would be grave and would lead to WWIII.

Up until about a year ago, we weren’t doing the things we needed to be doing. Investment at the major companies fell off a cliff about ten years ago, with very little new in the way of research, exploration and development. He sees things starting to move forward again.

An aside, he thinks an Obama presidency will have a greater impact on advances in the energy industry and on our country’s ability to ‘power’ our future. Thought you might care for an “Insider’s Perspective”.

[gandalf]

Ash, thanks again for that link re: the “Oil Endgame”.

Some insight, in case you’re interested. My family’s involved in the oil industry in a fairly significant way, two generations. I’m not nearly as knowledgable as my father, as I work in a different field altogether. My Dad’s something of a ‘Big Deal’ on the exploration side.

In any case, I passed this along and he had very positive things to say about the Rocky Mountain Institute and the report, knows the people involved and speaks well of them.

My Dad’s been concerned about supplies and the pace of research, exploration and development in O&G. His view, should we fail to develop next generation energy resources and technologies, the impact on the economy would be grave and would lead to WWIII.

Up until about a year ago, we weren’t doing the things we needed to be doing. Investment at the major companies fell off a cliff about ten years ago, with very little new in the way of research, exploration and development. He sees things starting to move forward again.

An aside, he thinks an Obama presidency will have a greater impact on advances in the energy industry and on our country’s ability to ‘power’ our future. Thought you might care for an “Insider’s Perspective”.

[gandalf]

Ash, thanks again for that link re: the “Oil Endgame”.

Some insight, in case you’re interested. My family’s involved in the oil industry in a fairly significant way, two generations. I’m not nearly as knowledgable as my father, as I work in a different field altogether. My Dad’s something of a ‘Big Deal’ on the exploration side.

In any case, I passed this along and he had very positive things to say about the Rocky Mountain Institute and the report, knows the people involved and speaks well of them.

My Dad’s been concerned about supplies and the pace of research, exploration and development in O&G. His view, should we fail to develop next generation energy resources and technologies, the impact on the economy would be grave and would lead to WWIII.

Up until about a year ago, we weren’t doing the things we needed to be doing. Investment at the major companies fell off a cliff about ten years ago, with very little new in the way of research, exploration and development. He sees things starting to move forward again.

An aside, he thinks an Obama presidency will have a greater impact on advances in the energy industry and on our country’s ability to ‘power’ our future. Thought you might care for an “Insider’s Perspective”.

[gandalf]

Ash, thanks again for that link re: the “Oil Endgame”.

Some insight, in case you’re interested. My family’s involved in the oil industry in a fairly significant way, two generations. I’m not nearly as knowledgable as my father, as I work in a different field altogether. My Dad’s something of a ‘Big Deal’ on the exploration side.

In any case, I passed this along and he had very positive things to say about the Rocky Mountain Institute and the report, knows the people involved and speaks well of them.

My Dad’s been concerned about supplies and the pace of research, exploration and development in O&G. His view, should we fail to develop next generation energy resources and technologies, the impact on the economy would be grave and would lead to WWIII.

Up until about a year ago, we weren’t doing the things we needed to be doing. Investment at the major companies fell off a cliff about ten years ago, with very little new in the way of research, exploration and development. He sees things starting to move forward again.

An aside, he thinks an Obama presidency will have a greater impact on advances in the energy industry and on our country’s ability to ‘power’ our future. Thought you might care for an “Insider’s Perspective”.

[gandalf]

surveyor, you’re ready at the mark to criticize Obama but I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. What is Obama’s foreign policy position towards Iran? Maybe you could start there? What is his position, exactly?

(None of this specious “Democrats are soft” crap either. Specific criticisms, please.)

What I see with Obama is someone who understands the target better and would probably hit it if presented with the opportunity. Bush has been talking tough and swinging and missing here for several years. Where is Bin Laden?

Second, I believe military force is more effective when COMBINED with other tactics of engagement. Obama’s position is therefore MORE forceful, and applies more PRESSURE, than Bush has done.

I would point out as well, Obama’s willingness to put US forces in Pakistan tribal areas is not only more muscular and militaritic, but is MORE ON TARGET, in terms of engaging the ACTUAL enemy (AQ).

[gandalf]

surveyor, you’re ready at the mark to criticize Obama but I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. What is Obama’s foreign policy position towards Iran? Maybe you could start there? What is his position, exactly?

(None of this specious “Democrats are soft” crap either. Specific criticisms, please.)

What I see with Obama is someone who understands the target better and would probably hit it if presented with the opportunity. Bush has been talking tough and swinging and missing here for several years. Where is Bin Laden?

Second, I believe military force is more effective when COMBINED with other tactics of engagement. Obama’s position is therefore MORE forceful, and applies more PRESSURE, than Bush has done.

I would point out as well, Obama’s willingness to put US forces in Pakistan tribal areas is not only more muscular and militaritic, but is MORE ON TARGET, in terms of engaging the ACTUAL enemy (AQ).

[gandalf]

surveyor, you’re ready at the mark to criticize Obama but I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. What is Obama’s foreign policy position towards Iran? Maybe you could start there? What is his position, exactly?

(None of this specious “Democrats are soft” crap either. Specific criticisms, please.)

What I see with Obama is someone who understands the target better and would probably hit it if presented with the opportunity. Bush has been talking tough and swinging and missing here for several years. Where is Bin Laden?

Second, I believe military force is more effective when COMBINED with other tactics of engagement. Obama’s position is therefore MORE forceful, and applies more PRESSURE, than Bush has done.

I would point out as well, Obama’s willingness to put US forces in Pakistan tribal areas is not only more muscular and militaritic, but is MORE ON TARGET, in terms of engaging the ACTUAL enemy (AQ).

[gandalf]

surveyor, you’re ready at the mark to criticize Obama but I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. What is Obama’s foreign policy position towards Iran? Maybe you could start there? What is his position, exactly?

(None of this specious “Democrats are soft” crap either. Specific criticisms, please.)

What I see with Obama is someone who understands the target better and would probably hit it if presented with the opportunity. Bush has been talking tough and swinging and missing here for several years. Where is Bin Laden?

Second, I believe military force is more effective when COMBINED with other tactics of engagement. Obama’s position is therefore MORE forceful, and applies more PRESSURE, than Bush has done.

I would point out as well, Obama’s willingness to put US forces in Pakistan tribal areas is not only more muscular and militaritic, but is MORE ON TARGET, in terms of engaging the ACTUAL enemy (AQ).

[gandalf]

surveyor, you’re ready at the mark to criticize Obama but I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. What is Obama’s foreign policy position towards Iran? Maybe you could start there? What is his position, exactly?

(None of this specious “Democrats are soft” crap either. Specific criticisms, please.)

What I see with Obama is someone who understands the target better and would probably hit it if presented with the opportunity. Bush has been talking tough and swinging and missing here for several years. Where is Bin Laden?

Second, I believe military force is more effective when COMBINED with other tactics of engagement. Obama’s position is therefore MORE forceful, and applies more PRESSURE, than Bush has done.

I would point out as well, Obama’s willingness to put US forces in Pakistan tribal areas is not only more muscular and militaritic, but is MORE ON TARGET, in terms of engaging the ACTUAL enemy (AQ).

[Author]

Posts