Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
one of the main drivers behind american involvement in the region is oil.
this is an extension of the redefinition of american military-strategic priorities of the late 1970s.
until the americans get a saner energy policy/way of life in place, there's little likelihood that this doctrine will change, and unless that doctrine changes, situations like this will recur. this is a baseline strategy for the us.
other countries have parallel strategies, including russia---but with the fading reactionaries in power in the states, it's not hard to see how american energy interests could be understood to be more equal and others. one would hope that if obama gets elected, there might be some modulation of the big dick approach which hasn't worked out so well for the zanies in the bush administration--but i don't anticipate any strategic change unless and until obama were to follow through with his energy proposals. mc-cain promises to continue the neo-con approach. one more reason not to elect mc-cain then.
|
I would agree that the issue of oil is of great importance, especially in that region. Just look at the other players such as Armenia, Azerbajian, et al. Of course the US has a stake there but my point was the US is not the only player and that Russia certainly plays an important role. In other words, instead of strictly looking at this situation through anti-US lens as is often perpetuated here, to take a step back and look at the whole picture. Not everything is the US' fault.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."
"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"
- My recruiter
|