Exit Strategy
 

Today, I've read three articles which have compared -- mostly in passing -- the American excursion in Iraq to the Athenian excursion in Syracuse during the Poleponnesian War. During an interlude in the war against Sparta, Athens decided to conquer Sicily and take control of their wealth in grains. The Athenians sent a massive fleet against Syracuse, but soon became mired in a stalemate. Eventually, the Syracusans (with the help of new-found Spartan friends) trapped the Athenians in the harbor of Syracuse and routed them.

Modern history suggests that our current deadlock in Iraq will continue until we either give up (Vietnam, Boer War), appease the people's demands and supplant the need for the guerillas (Malaya), or finally defeat the guerillas (usually at a price of ten-soldiers-per-guerilla).

I think that existing the plans aren't going to be enough to get us out successfully. It looks like Bush's exit strategy is to give nominal power to an Iraqi government, staffed with American advisors and supported by the American military which would slowly Vietn^H^H^H^H^H^H become the legitimate Iraqi government. Kucinich's plan is to insert the United Nations as a skirmish guard while we withdraw: hand over political control to the UN and apologize. One idea that I've had is to feed power to an Anti-American Iraqi cleric (a la al-Sadr) until they control a substantial portion of Iraq. Hand over nominal power to them and run away, hoping that central power will coalesce under someone.

The Iraqi insurgency isn't going away, and I don't know how we're going to, but we're going to have to sometime. I suspect that my plan is a terrible way to go about it -- anyone have better ideas? UT? tw?

We are not sitting in a stable or comfortable position. Simply a Fatwah from a Grand Ayatollah could bring the cards all crashing down. We are becoming more and more indebted to Ayatollah Sistani - and yet no American has ever even met the man. For example, he ordered no American troops to attack Najaf - where Al Sayd is said to be located. Notice that we will do as he says (at least if smarter military commanders are in charge).

Our position is really that tenuous. Based upon a clear timeline of events, we will have to keep increasing troops in Iraq - by a military already repeatedly extending tours of duty far beyond what anyone intended and what the military can maintain over long term. There are no safe roads in Shi'ite or Sunni Iraq. It has become that bad.

IOW we are slowly getting boxed in by events. No hope now of even reconstituting the Iraqi military and police with people who have now heart and soul of the insurgents. Even the so called Iraqi army defected or ran when confronted by the latest uprisings - just like the S Vietnamese army.

Having so messed things up, by claiming Iraq as if it was some kind of prize, even the UN will not accept offers of help without major George Jr concessions. Concessions must be so great that insurgents will consider it a victory and welcome the UN.

Currently there is no exit strategy just as there was no other acceptable exit strategy in Somolia - other than what Clinton did.

Now for the dangerous part. Summer and the hot tempers associated are coming. We cannot even maintain Saddam's levels of electricity. However 6 (or was it 8) gas turbine generators are being installed. OK. But will there be fuel available to keep these turbines running over the summer. Yes we can protect the turbines. But we cannot even maintain a pipeline from the Kurdish north into Turkey. Pipeline still has not delivered any oil. How then will we maintain fuel to turbines via Sunni controlled lands?

When the electricity goes out, who does the little Iraqi blame? Not the insurgent who takes out the electricity. He blames the electric company - in this case called the United States. It is so easy to recruit when the big, bad US cannot even maintain electricity when most needed - a hot summer. Again, we are exposed in another no win situation with no clear solution and plenty of downside. All that remains to happen is the 5 o'clock follies.

Upside - pray like hell that the Grand Ayatollahs stay friendly. We are down to that few friends of power in country - and a large block of neutrals who could easily be converted into insurgents.

Our best hope is to get out as soon as possible - and that will mean major concessions. George Jr will never make those concessions. In fact, in his last press conference, he could not even admit to a single mistake after standing for a full embarrassing moment without a single idea. Is that arrogence? Maybe. But that means he (and clearly his power brokers Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perl, Wolfowich, Rice, Rove, Armitage, etc) will never make the necessary concessions to get out of Iraq.

Somehow this president acutally thinks the current military situation will resolve itself. Like in VietNam, the president remains naively attached to a military solution.

Bottom line, wean ourselves of our dependency on foreign oil. Sooner or later, we are going to have to do this, anyhow. This is pragmatism, not tree hugging. Oil is a limited commodity. One day, there will be no more of it. No more dinosaurs are currently giving their lives to become fuel for our power plants and automobiles. One of the greatest atrocities the Reagan administration committed was to dismantle our alternative fuels program. If we weren't so dependent on Middle Eastern oil, none of this crap would have happened. The Brits and Palestinians could have duked it out over the creation of Israel and the US could have remained oblivious to the entire Middle East problem.

You called me out so I feel like I should have a response here. But I doubt I have enough good information to figure it out.

The Iraqi bloggers give you a good idea of how their own neighborhoods are, and how they feel, but they don't give a good view of the big picture.

But I do think that, having started this thing, it's totally critical to see it through and to do everything possible to nation-build the country that the majority of Iraqis want it to be, and to not allow it to become a fascist regime again. (Kerry agrees BTW) If it took the deaths of 5,000 troops, that would be too much, but it shouldn't take that.

The UN can't help and anyone who wants to send them in is posturing, including the President. The UN were the first to pack up and leave at the first sign of difficulty. They could have shown resolve and hardened their facilities but instead they packed up and ran. The UN was responsible for the corrupt oil-for-food program and the average Iraqi does not have a good opinion of the UN right now.

And if they choose a theocracy?

The UN left because COW couldn't guarantee they'd be safe. The UN doesn't fight wars; they're a clean up crew...remember Bosnia?

I don't see the Iraqis liking anyone else that comes in...b/c they want to be left alone. But better the UN than the US...the UN isn't hated quite as much as we are.

The UN was responsible for the oil-for-food program, but not responsible for the leader that handled the money. I saw the French bitch about ending it, but no one demanding true accountability of the program, including the fine folks at The United States of America, Inc.

You don't play every hand in poker. When it becomes clear that there will never be a winning hand - when the Iraqi situation will only get worse if dominated by the George Jr administration, then a smart UN got out. The UN entered on the hope that they would take over. But a George Jr administration treated Iraq as some kind of prize. The UN would contribute, but only as told how by George Jr. The final act - the time to fold and leave the table - is when the UN did leave.

The UN (or remotely possible the Pan-Arab League) is America's only hope to get out of Iraq - short of leaving just like in Somolia. At least in Somolia, we did not create the problem; only tried to fix it. But to get the UN in, the US must make concessions so great as to make the Iraqis feel they have achieved a great victory. Clearly a George Jr who fears to admit to a single mistake in his press conference also cannot admit defeat in Iraq. He must appear to be defeated so that Iraqis will welcome UN assistance or a Pan-Arab rebuilding army. Not even the other Arab nations want to touch the mess that George Jr created. Created even against the advise of virtually every nation in this world.

Its just not going to happen. The president is - bottom line - lying again when he made overtures to UN assistance. But then look at his people. They even entered office this thinking in terms of cold war defense systems. His staff is very introverted. They don't even hire from the outside. More than making a mistake, they most fear anyone who would not be loyal. Especially someone who would put American interests before George Jr administration interests. This comment being made by too many retired military people, too many former White House staffers, and even in secret interviews for the current Bob Woodward book.

Same mentality also found in the Richard Nixon administration.

The UN will not come back to a poker table that has been so poisoned by George Jr. And yes, so poisoned that the US has now closed both major supply highways into Baghdad because virtually every convoy was attacked multiple times AND many bridges are now gone. We did not even give the troops enough men to protect the bridges. Baghdad troops are now on MREs and airlifted water.

BTW, did we mention that Afghanistan was never solved because George Jr also starved that venture of resources to get bin Laden. We sent to Afghanistan less troops than there are police in NYC - and would not even deploy them. No wonder bin Ladne runs free. George Jr let him get away.

The original post was about Athens attack on Syracuse. However latest reports from Iraq sound more like early days of the French as they moved out to occupy Diem Bien Phu. Amazing that an army cannot even defend its own convoys in open desert and flat farmland. This is not even jungle. Still so many locals hate Americans as to routinely attack every single convoy. Where is the light at the end of this tunnel? Notice that I choose not to make the mistakes of VietNam. I continue to cite lessons of history - as Torrere also does with some heavy reading in his original citations.

Kudos to Torrere for his URLs. Best accounting of Syracuse I have ever read. Syracuse marked the end of Athens as a world power. Athens then had to surrender to Sparta and other Greek city states. However what followed after that in Athens are milestones to our history.

I agree. The Bush administration is going to have to talk fast in order to get the UN to come aboard. If, for example, France asked for UN help in Algiers when they had a similar mess, and asked again right around election time, would the US really want to commit troops to save someones political ass?

My guess is that the UN is going to hold off on a commitment until after the election. GWB has lost too much international goodwill to be able to get any kind of commitment without making a public deal which would end his political career anyway. Noone would except a secret deal from him since there is a 50/50 chance he will not be president next year, and noone trusts him anyway, no matter how many bibles he swears on.

June 30th or not, I would be stunned if the UN made a major commitment before November. We really have burned many of our bridges diplomatically. The conservative media can let Bush change his story on the reasons for the war, and his most ardent supporters can put their fingers in their ears like their White House hero and tune out any voices of dissent. However, the rest of the world isn't buying any of it and will not do the heavy lifting to shore up Iraq as a monument to GWB and his 'vulcans'.

I'm really curious as to who Kerry will pick as Secretary of State. That person is going to have the hardest and easiest job of anyone around. Hard because their is a lot of damage to fix. Easy because if it becomes clear that Kerry will actually listen to this person and not leave him out in the cold to listen to a bunch of neocon nut jobs, our allies will be rushing all over themselves to help patch things up.

I think Colin Powell is a good man. And I think he had the right experience for the job. But it seems obvious that he is left to try patching up the great gaping holes Bush and friends have left in foreign relations with the diplomatic equivalent of a putty knife. I cannot believe that he has not accurately assessed the fact that noone will ever admit that a mistake has been made, which might be the sole requirement for this administration to get any significant help.

He could probably serve the public best by publically resigning, preferably close to November, and letting the Bush administration sink beneath the waves, in the hope that a Kerry presidency will be an improvement.

Right, riiiiight. You guys are absolutely right. For the UN, it is more important to play international politics than to address the desperate needs of the Iraqi people.

Because for the UN, it doesn't really matter whether they wind up a democracy, a theocracy (which the majority of Iraqis do not want) or under the control of 2 madman sons, as long as we get the diplomacy right.

Does it matter to you?

I think the UN would be happy to go back in if they knew they would be relatively safe.

Which really doesn't mean shit when you have nutjobs like Sadr and Sistani in the mix.

Don't make wild assumptions about Sistani. He is playing this game better than anyone in-country. Right now the US is about to be completely indebted to him. He can turn off or let loose Sadr as he pleases. It is a shame our president is not as smart. But then in the 60 Minutes interview with Bob Woodward, George Jr talks so much like Richard Nixon - about all those smart elitists out there. Makes one sort of forget that George Jr is suppose to be a Yale graduate and has a graduate degree.

Lose Sistani's support and all hell breaks loose against Americans. A situation so bad that the Spanish today ordered an immediate removal of all troops from Iraq. They can do that. Unlike Ukraine, Spain is not there due to political blackmail.

Iraq is that tenuous. The mental midget president has even played right into being completely indebted to Ayatollah Sistani - currently the smartest and most sane man in-country.

Right...nutjob.

The 60 Minutes Woodward interview was interesting. The way Woodward described it, it was almost as if Bush forgot he was talking to a reporter when he was talking to Woodward.

The operative words being "as if"

The operative words being 'Bush forgot".

So you support offshore oil drilling, strip-mining, Alaskan oil drilling, and nuclear power?

Or does this "weaning" involve shivering in the dark?

Offshore drilling? Yes. Alaskan Drilling? Yes. Nuclear power? Yes. Strip mining? No.

There are other options and avenues of research out there. Taken as a whole they can go a long way towards reducing our dependince on fossil fuels.

Hydrogen fuels (both as a combustible as well as fuel cells), underwater turbines, offshore wind farms.

It's not necessary to solve the problem in on fell swoop, but steps do need to be taken.

Strip mining prevents forest fires, you know. :)

I'm not a fan of strip mining which is just further destruction of finite resources. We can look to the French for an example of nuclear power plants which are safe and operated by highly trained professionals, rather than Homer Simpsons. Off shore and Alaskan drilling are possible, again if carried out in a careful, well-trained manner.

There is also the possibility of oil shale, solar energy, geothermal energy and technologies yet undreamed of. Americans are still a clever and innovative people. Let a few of our bright young engineering grads loose in the labs at MIT and some of other major universities, along with a NSF grant or two.

We needn't shiver in the dark, but we certainly could improve our sytems of mass transit, and it might not be a bad idea to encourage folks to set their themostats to 65 and put on a sweator. ;)

a la Carter?

Weaning ourselves of our dependence upon (foriegn) oil is probably the best long-term solution (and it would also mean that we stop funding the region and it's wacky governments).

tw - if you say that the UN will not come back to Iraq, how are we going to rotate them into Iraq (while rotating ourselves out)? Furthermore, how will giving control to the UN help? The fighting might decline, but I don't think that the UN is a panacea and I think that the US will remain a strong force in Iraq even if we give control to the UN. And I do not see the connection between brigands hitting supply convoys and Dien Bien Phu.

Undertoad: We are fighting a scattered group of guerrilla fighters. Defeating guerillas who are fighting for a Cause, with the support of the civilians, is something that has only been done once in the past century (as far as I know of); and that was done by undermining public support for the guerrillas by addresssing the people's grievances and giving them an alternative method of getting what they wanted. Supposedly, standard military forces are able to defeat guerrillas at a cost of ten soldiers to a guerilla, but I haven't been able to find the source for that.

In a guerrilla war against standard military forces, the result is almost always a long-standing deadlock until the standard military withdraws. We will not be able to pacify the resistance with soldiers. I do not have confidence in our government's capability to undermine public Iraqi support for the guerrillas. To the contrary, I fear that we will continue to fuel the fires.

No. It does not.

What would an Iraqi democracy be like? Saddam Hussein has already eliminated almost everybody would could claim to be a secular Iraqi authority. If we want to establish an American-style representative democracy, we might have to rely on the Islamic clerics to be (or nominate) the representatives. An Iraqi democracy might not be far removed from a theocracy.

[edit: sm]

Starting on or about yesterday, that is no longer energy saving advice in the DC area.

No need to wait for tomorrow. The answers are here today.

For example, a company called "Changing World Technologies" has already figured out a process for turning industrial waste, agricultural waste, and municipal waste into light crude oil. It does it at 85% energy efficiency. They started with a small test plant in NY, which worked. So they built a $20 Million dollar plant next to a ConAgra poultry plant in Carthage MO. The plant works perfectly, and is producing light crude oil from poultry guts, feathers, etc. They process 200 tons of chicken guts a day there and turn it into oil. There are no toxic byproducts. Just water, and carbon, and oil. The carbon dosn't add to global warming, because it was already part of the biosphere. It wasn't pumped out of the ground.

Don't beleive me? Discover Magazine wrote a huge article about the process and the company back in May 2003. Discover claims that the potential is there to convert the entire US solid waste stream of 600 million tons into about 4 billion barrels of light crude annually.

The US used about 7 billion barrels of oil annually in 2000, so this technology would, when fully implemented, cover most of the US energy needs. Our dependence on foreign oil would be completely eliminated.

The big cost is implementing the technology. Retooling. Once the system is in place, it will free us.

But the answer is here today.

The following are links that directly back up my seemingly wild claims. Unfortunately, the Discover Magazine article is archived, and you need a membership to read the whole thing. The two links after the Discover article summarize that article.

Edit: Oops. Here are the links:

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ualize0603.asp

http://butchhoward.com/weblog/2003/index.html#39

The company's web page:

http://www.changingworldtech.com/techfr.htm

U.S. government sites that talk about how much trash we generate, and how much oil we use:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesa...91.shtml?print

OK. I'll take your "skepticism" and match it with this long, detailed, gushing article that came out a year later.

If we can get rid of our landfills, our mad cow disease, our dependence on Mideast oil, and make money at the same time, I'll be excited.

Since these two plants are up and running now, and showing results, I'm more inclined to trust the hype.

We need only return to the Super Collider as an example of how energy problems should be solved - and why they are not. Weaning off oil does not mean less oil. It means even more energy. It means smarter use of oil. It means more comfortable buildings. It means higher standards of living. It means using the one thing that the US dominates the world in - *innovation*. However what does a mental midget president advocate? More consumption and stifled innovation. When a business does not innovate, the mental midget president even rewards that business!

Aren't examples glaring enough as even to be known to those educated by Rush Limbaugh? USX (US Steel) and Bethlehem Steel. Both protected in violation of International law and international treaties (Does not matter to George Jr since the rest of the world and a treaty signed by Clinton is always wrong). American automobile companies who even stifled hybrid technology - only to be rewarded by George Jr with $millions of free government money.

Are you an electric supply company that stifles maintenance, electrically shocks its customers, and would even expose the nation to a far more serious Three Mile Island event? Don't worry. This administration will not punish you - especially if you contribute $450,000 to his legalized bribery fund. Are you an energy trading company that would even take power plants off line to create a CA energy crisis? Don't worry. You will not be prosecuted.

There is no shortage of energy. The US - a top producer of oil must now import more than 50% of its oil. The US - the top producer of natural gas - must now import natural gas. The US consumes 42% of the world's energy because Americans are encouraged by mental midget president to burn more - and don't innovate.

UT also forgets these basic facts when he proclaims agreement with this dangerous American president. We have a shortage of innovation in the energy industry. No wonder a wasted $80billion on a totally useless International Space Station (ISS) and yet could not find $8billion for basic research called the Super Collider (necessary to future energy innovation).

Amazing how extremist conservatives promote consumption and oppose innovation.

Don't beat up on just the conservatives. The liberals aren't real happy about their view of the sound being disrupted.

http://www.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/

Edit: misspelling correction

Carthage used to be known for marble...

Oil shale is fine, but it doesn't make sense until we've gotten all the cheap oil out -- using it now is just shooting ourself in the foot economically. Solar is expensive in terms of building the panels, both in cost and energy. Geothermal is extremely limited, and tapping it sends environmentalists into a frenzy. None of these technologies make sense to replace any significant portion of foreign oil use today or in the near future.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source; it takes at least as much energy to make at as is released by burning it.

Mass transit, setting the thermostat to 65, and other such suggestions come under the category of shivering in the dark.

And as for the oil from chicken waste -- that's oil of snake until proven otherwise, IMO.

Solar cells at current efficiency levels (and they haven't gone anywhere fast) take more energy in their manufacture than they collect in their useful lifetime.

Wind farms are interesting but don't scale sadly. An associate of mine is in a very high position inside Shell and we've discussed what he calls their 'supposedly renewable energy' division. Supposedly because it's more part of a greenwashing campaign than a real research division. It does hoever haev over $1B funding. Shell is fairly big in hydrogen, while BP has significant investments in solar. It is worth noting one of two sources of hydrogen is....Oil.
The most telling sign about Shell's renewable energy division is it's location. While mainstream R&D, chemicals, exploration and extraction are based in the Hague, renewable is in London with PR and trading.

The ISS is a fucking waste of money from start to finish. Putting people in space at the moment full stop is a waste of money and any attempt to do so by anyone that has before at the present time is a PR stunt. There is shit all R&D being done on the ISS and shit all that couldn't be done cheaper by remote.

My early training was as a scientist and I agree with Jag and everyone else who made comments about the difficulties of the widespread implementation of alternative energy sources given the current technology. Two points, however:

When are economists going to start factoring in the costs of incidents like 9/11 and the ongoing war in the Middle East in the economics of a petroleum based energy supply? If anyone knows of such a study, can you give me a link to it? I'd be fascinated to see the results of such a study if there is one.

Two: As a young science student, one of the first things we were taught to ask about any scientific study was who funded it. It is amazing how a scientific experiment can be designed to come up with the results that match the objectives of its sponsor. In the case Jag cited, Shell Oil. Does Shell OIL want alternative energy to look like a feasible option? Let's face it, at this point Shell can still rake in the big bucks with petroleum, so any comments their people might make regarding other energy sources is suspect.

One of my favorate courses in graduate school was one I fondly nick-named "How to tell lies by use of the scientific method." This required course (actually called "Biometry 503") was an introduction to various statistical methods and sampling techniques used by biological scientists. The professor was trying to point out to us how scrupulous we needed to be in constructing an experimental design, otherwise we would come up with false results. It amused me no end to sit in the last row of the lecture hall and come up with the right sampling technique and method of statistical analysis to prove that everything I had been taught so far was dead wrong.

I know damn well that the scientists at Shell Oil (and every place else) had to sit through the equivalent of that course, and that at least some of them, far from being alerted to the importance of good experimental design, seized the chance to learn how to lie with statistics in order to please the boss or the funding source.

If the chicken guts solution can produce crude oil at $10/barrel, including the cost of getting the guts to the processor, it will be successful no matter who writes magazine articles about it. If it can produce it at $50/barrel, it's of little use. All we have to do is wait, because economic incentives will force it to be used if it really does work well.

AMEN.

But you have to factor in things like 9/11 and the $150 Billion spent in Iraq so far when you talk about energy economics. The US involvement over the years ($$$) in the Persian Gulf is all about keeping the oil flowing.

Oil is a hell of a lot more expensive to the US taxpayer than it appears at the pump.

As long as the government is meddling in things, why shouldn't it meddle in favor of alternative energy instead of in favor of Mid East oil? The chicken guts just appears to me to be the most promising at this point.

Five objectives of the current Iraq invasion:
1) To clean up a mess left by the George Sr administration in 1991 when we failed to impose a political solution on Iraq after the military handed over a spectacular military solution.

2) Improve Israel's strategic position by eliminating a large and hostile military in that region.

3) Create a model Arab democracy to demonstrate to other threatened democracies and regional nations (ie Egypt and Saudia Arabia) how it can be accomplished.

4) Withdrawl US military after 12 years of occupation in Saudia Arabia.

5) Create another friendly source of oil so that instability in Saudia Arabia would not cause oil dependency problems and so that consumption can increase without international disruptions.

These objectives are attributed to Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld.

The US dumps all sorts of money down the rathole called "alternative energy", and gets little from it. At least money spent on keeping oil flowing actually does something.

In any case, charging the cost of 9/11 to oil is something only an anti-car, anti-techology, neo-Luddite greenie would do.

The "all sorts of money" spent on alternative energy in this country is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what the government spends to keep Arab oil flowing.

In any case, opposing US self-sufficiency is something only an anti-American, anti-free trade, neo-conservative fascist would do.

Lets talk pragmatic, real world, cost of doing business. If anyone thinks the US is beloved in the Middle East, I've got somegreat ocean front property in Arizona for them. We are extracting a highly valuable commodity which our economy depends upon from an area of the world that hates us. There is going to be a price for this, Pilgrim, and only a fool wouldn't factor it in.

I love it when someone who knows nothing of science starts throwing around accusations of "anti-technology" or "neo-Luddite." I adore the freedom my car gives me, I think technology can be a terrific thing, I love green plants because without them, none of the rest of us would be here; and I studied as a scientist.

Petroleum is a finite resource. God is not pulling off another creation in a neighborhood near you where you will be able to get more oil. You may be impatient that research into alternative energy has not produced overnight results, but your desire for instant gratification will offer no solace to your children or grandchildren if you stop all research because the results didn't arrive yesterday.

The earth is finite, its agricultural land, its water, its air are all finite. Act as if they are endless and there will be a stiff price to pay. Since you are so pro-modern, I assume you are familiar with the work of Huffaker, Eugene Odum, Edward O. Wilson, and Robert H. MacArthur to name a few. Or do only us "Luddites" make a study of the research of some of the most honored scientists of the 20th century?

Can you even name the third law of thermodynamics without resorting to google?

Of course the US is hated in the Middle East. Who isn't? And where isn't the US hated? Unfortunately, the US is strictly constrained in where it can obtain energy sources from within its borders, by environmental concerns -- if Kuwait were to be part of the US, there'd probably be little oil drilling there because of protests about ruining the desert environment.

"Alternative Energy" research has been going on for decades with no real positive result. Well, except for ADM raking in some profits on ethanol subsidies. The subsidies that the US government is putting into "alternative energy" are probably diverting researchers from research that might actually produce something useful.

Shell spends more on advertising how Green it is than it does funding renewable energy. Shell is interested in alternative energy developments for sure, the Oil is going to stop flowing sooner or later, or get too expensive to be used as such a major source of fuel and everyone who's in the game wants in on what's next, Shell, like every other big company with a long term plan is happy to sink a few Bil into research that may not show fruit for 20 or 30 years.

A shitload of development has happened in 'alternative energy' in the last few decades, just because it didn't make your fox news headlines don't think there isn't progress, it just takes a long, long time, hundreds of scientific advancements on the shoulders of hundreds more to get something capable of replacing hydrocarbons. Hell even hydrogen is often produced from Oil at the moment. But it will get there, sooner or later and I feel it's getting a lot closer of late, there are all sorts of forces and factors at play the the public doesn't really see. As always. Keep one thing in mind, Oil won't run out, it'll just get far too expansive.

We're not talking a small field here, we're talking geothermal to fusion to hydrogen to solar to wind to ethanol - hell, I've still only listed a small sample. Glatt is indeed correct, if all that money was fired into often starved programs the boost would be incredible.

To write off alternative energy sources research as a waste of time is frankly, naive, shortsighted and narrow minded.

Oh and tw, it's Saudi Arabia, no a on there end there.

Although the desert environment is supposedly more fragile than frozen ANWR. I don't know what that means but it bothers me that nobody cares about that point...

That's not necessary if you didn't have 3.5 people living in an 8,000 sq ft house. Way too much heated/air conditioned, UNUSED most of the time, house. :(

I don't follow that??:confused:

What, is that some sort of statistical average of the typical American's living arrangements? What does the half person do? Are they homeless 6 months of the year and allowed back in the other 6 months? Or maybe they live in one 8,000 sq ft house with 3 people for part of the year and then go find new roommates? Now I'M confused!:3eye:

One couple with an average of 1.5 kidlets.;)