Should we keep an on-going military presence in Iraq and/or the Middle East?
I believe we should get our troops off the streets and out of the line-of-fire ASAP. Our current deployment strategy is foolhardy.
But should we re-deploy a significant military presence somewhere in the region, ongoing, in addition to Afghanistan?
When I strip-away the facades of, you know, spreading democracy, patriotism, fighting "evil", doing the "right thing" etc. - it all comes down to the ugly truth, oil. Plain and simple. End of story!
Our country and civilization (you and me) simply cannot survive, in any way close to how we've come to know it, unless we take rational and responsible steps now, starting in 2008 to insure that - in the foreseable future (20-50 years, at least) - we can guarantee our fair share of (hence) "reasonably priced" oil from the world's diminishing supply.
World oil peak-production is already on permanent decline. Simply stated, there isn't enough left to meet the world's future demand.
Alternative fuel sources, hybrids etc. will play an important yet relatively small part along the way to help, but not enough to head-off the nose-dive towards our "Energy Armageddon".
Yes, conservation efforts will be essential, right along with all the common sense approaches. But the outcome will not be changed.
If you think that $3.00 +/- for gasoline is okay now ... what do you think the cost will be in, say, five to twelve years, when there is even less oil and higher (worldwide) demand for it?
Now... visualize the potential for a take-over or invasion [or Iraq] by Iran and a pretty-quick bump to $6.00+ per gallon. This could wreak havoc with most Americans. No?
Yes, it's the ultimate bitter pill. But we must start confronting the reality of the energy crisis now.
What do you think, your comments, please..?
UPDATE April 23, 2007: A timely and tiny glimpse of our "oil-future reality":
New York Times Article
My 4-minute YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/...