Reed: Drilling to Economic Salvation? It Just Won't Work.

Imagine this scenario if you can. It's a Friday afternoon in Tallahassee, and six hundred miles away a town is bracing for a dangerous hurricane. You've decided to take off work early because, after all, it's Friday, and there's a football game tomorrow. You need to get home and get ready for the big weekend, but first you have to stop for gas. You reach one station, and the line at the pumps is reaching back into the road. You ease by that one, only to be greeted by a repeat of the same at the next station. Two miles up the road, a clerk is changing the price on the sign from $3.79 to $5.49 per gallon. The last station between work and home has strung yellow police tape around its pumps - no gas.

Actually, you don't have to imagine it. It's exactly what happened Friday, September 12, 2008. And it is a telling reminder that, in spite of what self-serving politicians and oil company executives may be preaching, America cannot drill her way to energy independence.

Hurricane Ike was a telling reminder that Tallahassee, and indeed our entire nation, is, as President Bush said in his 2006 State of the Union message, "addicted to oil." The President went on to say that the addiction could only be broken by pledging to invest in alternative fuel sources and reducing oil imports by 70% by the year 2025.

President Bush was right then. He is wrong today when he suggests, as does Senator John McCain and other politicos on both sides of the aisle, that we must boost production through more drilling for oil at home.

According to Randy Bly, spokesperson for AAA Auto Club South, Tallahassee could see gas prices at $6.00 a gallon and spotty availability later this month, if Ike-related damage to refineries in Houston were severe. "We're in for a bumpy ride, quite frankly, over the next couple of weeks," Bly told Nic Corbett of the Tallahassee Democrat (Sunday, September 14.)

And that, my friends, is the number one issue. Let's for a moment ignore the environmental impact that offshore drilling, and drilling in sensitive areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, might produce. Let's set aside the notion that our "addiction to oil" is fueling a climate crisis of unimaginable consequences. Let's even skip over the recent revelation that employees of the agency in charge of collecting the money for the oil leases owned by the United States government were engaged in a "sex, drugs and light sweet crude" debauchery with representatives of the very industry they are supposed to be regulating.

Let's instead concentrate on the means through which we turn the oil we purchase on the world market into the gasoline we so desperately demand - refining. According to news reports, one Houston refinery that shut down in anticipation of Ike refines almost one in every four gallons of gasoline sold in the United States. Think about it - in less than a week, our ability to produce gasoline was reduced by almost 25%.

Why? Because we are refining all the oil we can possibly refine right now. Currently America has 151 operating oil refineries, at least twenty-five in Texas alone, and each one has been operating at peak or near-peak capacity. Regardless of the fact that it would take many years to produce a single additional barrel of oil if restrictions on drilling were lifted today, increasing our domestic output simply means we would be sitting on that surplus oil for months - because we don't have the ability to refine it. Thus, gas prices, the raison d'etre for the "drill here, drill now, pay less" crowd, cannot and will not be affected by increasing crude supplies from domestic sources.

And the refining capability of our nation is not likely to change, in the short or long-term. An issue of "Alexander's Gas and Oil Connection", an industry publication, said in July of 2001 that the U.S. "appears to have built its last refinery" (volume 6, issue #13, July 17 2001). The article noted that no new refinery had been constructed in the U.S. since the mid-seventies, and "petroleum industry experts say anyone would be crazy to launch such an effort." Several reasons were given for this outlook:

• Refineries are not particularly profitable.
• Environmentalists fight the process from beginning to end.
• Government red tape makes the process all but impossible.

Let's just skip over the last two and concentrate on reason number one - "not particularly profitable." We must remember that all the oil produced today in the United States doesn't just appear in American refineries and wind up in American's tanks. Because the oil is "owned" by the oil companies, it goes on the world market and is snapped up by the highest bidder. Our refineries are not profitable because they are simply seen as a "cost of doing business" by the oil companies. This will not change until and unless America nationalizes its oil reserves.

And this will not happen. Capitalism, or consumerism as we practice in America, relies not on nations but on markets. And today's market does not reflect a short supply of available crude oil. OPEC's recent decision to reduce output by over 500,000 barrels a day (see www.sltrib.com/business) to maintain the price of oil at or above $100.00 per barrel indicates that countries such as Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia can easily dictate the price of oil regardless of supply surpluses or deficits.

If America were to allow more lands such as ANWR to be open to more drilling, best case scenarios say we could be pumping oil in five to ten years, according to the Spero Forum, a pro-drilling publication (http://www.speroforum.com/). OPEC at that point would merely reduce output further, thus continuing to control prices in spite of our efforts to control supply.

So it is clear - America cannot drill her way to energy independence, because America is but one of many players on the world market. China and India will be a much larger force as their demand grows. So, as President Bush said, we must defeat our "addiction to oil" by increasing our use of biofuels, harnessing solar and wind power to heat and cool our homes and light our streets, and allow American ingenuity to trump the power of the oil companies and their political cronies to control our destiny. This will take dedication, perseverance, money and hard work. But I believe we are up to the challenge.

We must be. The future of our nation and, indeed, our planet, demands no less.

Reed: We Cannot Afford to Wait for Russia to Leave Georgia

The coin has been tossed - but more importantly, the gauntlet has been thrown down, and America must respond.

Boris Yeltsin, the first democratically-elected leader of Russia in its long and storied history, had a close relationship with President Bill Clinton, and the two leaders worked together to strengthen ties and overcome the mistrust and fear that resulted from the Cold War. Unfortunately, for Russia, the U.S. and the rest of the free world, Yeltsin handpicked Vladimir Putin as his successor.

Putin, a high-ranking KGB officer under Soviet Premiers Andropov and Gorbachev, served as director of the Russian Federal Security Service. It has been suggested, both in Russia and the West, that Yeltsin chose Putin to follow him as President simply because his support, among the people of Russia and within his own Cabinet, had totally disintegrated, and Putin remained loyal.

Alas, it has become apparent that Putin's loyalty was self-serving. In spite of President Bush's assertion that he "was able to get a glimpse of (Putin's) soul", he obviously was unable to foresee that Putin's motives were to reestablish Russia's dominance of the Balkans, Caucuses and the rest of eastern Europe in Soviet fashion.

The invasion of the Republic of Georgia is the latest example of Putin's expansionist policies, even though he is no longer the president of Russia. His successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is little more than a front man, and the world knows that, in his new role as Prime Minister, Putin calls the shots. And while many might argue that oil is the overriding factor in Russia's decision to invade, and the most important "talking point" among nations such as France, who would seek to mediate the dispute, it is clear to me that Russia's motives are much more sinister and have to be addressed forcefully, and now.

Senator John McCain, Republican presidential nominee and staunch ally of the Georgian people, is not now, due to political expediency, calling for an American military response. But in 2005, McCain, responding to Russia's stated desire to enter Georgia to "protect" loyalists in the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, said,"Sooner or later [Putin] has got to realize that the the path he is on will eventually bring down his government."

McCain, in an interview with CNN's Jill Dougherty, pointed out a variety of issues that indicated Putin's lack of desire to work with western allies (see: www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/24/summit.russia.dougherty). These included arresting the head of Russia's only privately-held oil company and nationalizing the oil fields, and controlling the mass media in Soviet fashion.

Politics notwithstanding, our national interest and our loyalty to democratic allies demands that we step up forcefully and, if need be, militarily. Diplomacy, conducted by French President Sarkozy, has obviously failed, since the "cease-fire" agreement Russia signed on August 12 was followed by Russian tanks entering the Georgian city of Gori early on August 13. And even while foreign correspondents reported conversations with Russian soldiers in the convoy (Associated Press - see: Christopher Torchia and Misha Dzindzhikhashvili), Russia denied its troops were even in the area.

This is not a call for ground troops, nor is it a task the U.S. should take on unilaterally. Indeed, based on NATO's previous acceptance of Georgia as an ally, and Georgia's desire to join the treaty organization, NATO should be the force that presents itself as a deterrent to further Russian expansionist policies. NATO's own website refers to Georgia's strong cooperation in maintaining Euro-Atlantic security (see: nato.int/issues/nato-georgia/index.html), and Georgia ranks behind only the United States and Great Britain in the number of ground troops sent to fight the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Yes, NATO should take the lead, but the U.S. military is a vital part of the NATO alliance, and just as President Clinton utilized the airspace above Iraq to protect the Kurds in the southern part of that nation, so can President Bush protect our democratic allies in Georgia. Russian tanks are no match for American air power, and just as Russia has demonstrated her ability to dominate a weaker Georgia, an ally of America and western Europe, so must NATO and America demonstrate their ability to respond to aggression from what is now a weaker Russia.

If we wait, Russia will continue to consolidate her military might to Cold War levels, and our ability to protect our allies and, indeed, ourselves, will be greatly compromised.

Dano: No Military Involvement in Georgia-Russia Conflict

After the coin flip, I argue this week against U.S. military involvement in the Georgia-Russia clashes.

President Bush and other world leaders have demanded that Russia cease military operations within the sovereign borders of Georgia, which declared its independence from the Soviet bloc in 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Georgia is now a democratic state, and is a strong U.S. ally. Despite strong condemnations by the Bush Administration, the presidential candidates, European nations, and others, however, the U.S. cannot and should not consider direct military assistance to Georgia. The reasons are many.

First, from a strictly "moral high-ground" point of view, the fact is that Georgian President Saakashvili sparked the conflict himself by initiating attacks in Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region of South Ossetia. The Georgian Government has long tried to bring South Ossetia and the other breakaway region, Abkhazia, back into Georgia, while the Russians have been seeking to annex South Ossetia and to support the independence of Abkhazia. Toward these goals, Russia has maintained a military presence in South Ossetia, and has granted its citizens Russian passports. Most analysts agree that Saakashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia was ill-advised (see http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Georgia had nowhere near the odds of victory that David had against Goliath. Moreover, Georgia did not consult with its allies in advance of the incursion, nor did it seek backing from other countries to supplement its military effectiveness. It would not have garnered such support in any case. Despite this, President Bush stopped short of scolding Saakashvili. Bush also declined to defend the Georgian action, choosing instead to condemn Russia's response as "disproportionate." The president's characterization of the response as disproportionate tacitly implies that some more limited Russian military response would have been appropriate. At the risk of making us sound arrogant (and hypocritical), status as a U.S. ally carries with it a responsibility to conduct internal and external affairs in such a way as to garner our approval. Put quite simply, "We've got your back, but only if you're right." The hypocrisy here, obviously, is that we've dug our moral high-ground down to a nearly bottomless crevasse with our actions in Iraq (invading and occupying a sovereign nation under false pretenses); torture of war prisoners and terror suspects in violation of the Geneva Convention and our own laws; brazen political corruption; and even the Administration's deliberate constrictions on Constitutional freedoms for our own citizens. But two wrongs don't make a right, so the adage, "do as I say, and not as I do," seems particularly apropos.


Second, engaging Russia with force is a no-win prospect--not just for the U.S., but for the European Union as well. Russia supplies much of Europe with oil and other resources. For instance, Germany gets 42% of its natural gas from Russia (see , http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-11-voa63.cfm). Any military action against the superpower would most assuredly be met with very damaging economic sanctions against our allies, and, by extension if not directly, against us. You think energy prices are high, now? Clearly, the United States has a vested interest in NOT poking the bear.


Finally, the U.S. simply doesn't have the military assets to engage Russia, or any other superpower. According to the Department of Defense, out of just over a million active duty military personnel, only about 122,000 are not currently deployed--either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or at other posts from which we cannot afford to redeploy them (e.g., Germany, Korea, Bosnia, and NATO attachments). For more on this, see http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/index.html. Moreover, out of the 122,000, only 36,000 are ground forces (the other 86,000 are Naval personnel). Even if we had all our military might available, we would be fighting against the second most powerful military on Earth, and, arguably, a formidable foe whose technology and training are not far behind our own. In a ground war, Russia has nearly twice as many armored vehicles, and almost six times as much artillery assets as the U.S. (see http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp). Obviously, with all assets free, we could not manage a unilateral military engagement, so these numbers do not represent the balance--inclusive of allied coalition support--of military power that would be in theater if we got involved. But we and our allies would very likely suffer catastrophic losses, even in a conventional war with Russia. We cannot afford to put more of our soldiers' lives on the line for this cause.


Diplomatic measures are required in this conflict. Between the U.S. and European nations, much can be done to pressure Russia into scaling back their military operations. Russia has been seeking admission to the World Trade Organization, and is a sitting member of the G8, an informal group of leaders from eight of the world's most powerful industrialized nations that meets annually to discuss issues of global import. Russia's actions are violations of international law, and Russia risks expulsion from the G8 and exclusion from WTO membership if it does not ratchet down it's operations. This is where the power of the U.S. and our allies rests.

Timeline for Troop Withdrawal is Negotiated

Wow. The AP writes today that the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government are in negotiations to have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by October 2010. Interesting reversal of position, if true. Certainly, now that McCain and Obama have both suggested that 16 months was a "reasonable time frame" subject to conditions on the ground, the Bush Administration might just be getting the message that the American people want us out as soon as possible. The AP article can be seen here.