...26th ranked exporter has any role in this. Transport through the chokepoint yes [approx. 3 million bbl/d], Yemeni production, no.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Oil is about money; its always important to remember that because you start judging importance by ranking countries as exporters; that is a mistake and over simplification. Think of it as, Yemen have enough oil to create plenty of wealth. Also think of them strategically, lots of pipelines cross their country or "potentially" cross that country. Its the same reason why Afghanistan is so strategic, sitting where it is between the gas producers and the gas consumers. You really think anyone cares about terrorists? Both Afghanistan and potentially Yemen are about wealth and getting energy from producers to markets.

...network on the Arabian peninsula? If not, it's worth the time (as would be a detailed read of Rashid).

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

There are a number of proposed pipelines one of which, now under construction, goes to Oman. You think a country that could affectively close down traffic to the Suez Canal is not strategic for oil? A country that will connect Oman and the UAE to tanker traffic going through the Suez is not important to Europe?

I mean people, the terrorists are a shill, making intervention possible where profits are at stake. Its about the money.

...believing that Yemen's position astride the chokepoint into the Red Sea is strategically significant. I do, however, have difficulty believing that the scale of production in Yemen is at all significant strategically, nor do I believe that Yemeni pipelines, real or putative, play much of a role.

As to your theory concerning Oman and the UAE - both nations are already connected to tanker traffic going through Suez. If they wished to avoid going through the Bab al-Mandab strait, a pipeline through Oman wouldn't help them much - Sana`a isn't much further on and they've already been having problems with folks blowing pipelines in Yemen. They'd be far better off re-routing through the existing East-West pipeline and coming out in Yanbu which is a lot closer to Suez and a lot better defended. In any case, it's far from clear how important shipping northbound through Suez is - the most recent [2007] figures I could find show much more southbound traffic than northbound.

As I understand it the pipelines that are being constructed in Oman and UAE are mainly about two things - getting Omani production to its refining and transshipment points and getting stuff from inside the Gulf out without having to go through the straits of Hormuz. There's a proposal for an Yemen-Saudi pipeline, but it's been knocking around for about 20 years - haven't seen anything about it actually going ahead.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Europe would invade Yemen over terrorists? If Yemen is not important why would they care because frankly, the don't give a flying F about terrorists and neither does the USA.

ye godzu, even barney frank voted for the spending bill...
...i feel so, so used... [*sniff*]

"The Responsible Left:" Funding Obama's Expanding Wars $100 Billion a Vote
Published on Thursday, June 18, 2009
by Jeremy Scahill

This spending bill is likely to sail through the Senate where there is no group even vaguely resembling the ever-shrinking anti-war crowd in the House. Once again, here are the Democrats who turned their backs on their pledges to vote against this war funding:

Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner.

...mass casualty attacks since 9/11, have had a number of squibs (unsuccessful attacks) and have stopped a much larger number - all having operational ties back to "safe havens" outside Europe? That experience of blotting folks off buildings might have something to do with why they "give a flying fuck" about the notion of terrorist safe havens, even if you don't.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

within the context of european terrorist events, in the majority it seems england in particular had irish troubles.

worldwide, europe fared comparatively well.

it was interesting to look.

oddly tho, the graphic map doesn't seem to reflect quite i got from the list. chalk it up to pilot error.

I used to think like you but unfortunately the reality of 60 years has taught me differently. It took me until my 40's to come around to this. They do not care; they do not invade countries to prevent unfairness, mass slaughter, human suffering of any kind, and no they do not care about terrorists either. If they did care, they would do something about them instead of declaring war on terrorism. That's like declaring war on hitting people on the head. The European Union and the American's have no intention of winning the war on terrorism because they know they cannot. It does not even make sense; war on tactic? Yes all of this stuff going on in the Middle East; its about terrorism; not oil no never oil.

i suspect it's at least as much about pipelines and all aspects of them (sea ports too, etc) as much as oil.

but in the end its about not just the money, but who exactly gets the money.

...of a world inhabited by "them" - particularly a "them" motivated only by the pursuit of profit from hydrocarbons. Here's a little thought from a practitioner - effective strategic thought (which you encouraged upthread) just about never embraces a single cause; unicausal explication is of necessity limited and as a basis of strategy extremely risky.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon, Haliburton ,Chevron etc. They pretty much run the US government and the EU. There is no justice where these murderous organizations are involved.

... before I put all the effort into witting this comment.

There is much more money concentrated in the EU in other non hydro-carbon based sectors. The business interest of the financial and manufacturing sector for instance is certainly not perfectly aligned with the oil companies. So even if you subscribe to the cyncical (and still over-simplified) view that all EU politician are bought off by various business interests the numbers just don't pan out.

You can make a strong case for the unduly influence that this sector held over the Bush administration. To think this influence can be just equally assumed for the EU and all its numerous member states is a fallacy.

If you subscribe to this your thinking has the same level of correctness and subtlety as that of a red state dude thinking the trade unions control Obama and made him bail out the car manufactures (just had the unpleasantness to do business with one of those).

Garbage in garbage out.

But they still have the same problem that they are dependent on oil and that dependence give the Petroleum companies power. Its not like these companies are extorting but the situation is such that a cut off of energy would cause a major economic dislocation that could lead to social unrest and worse. Therefore, the European governments have no choice but to support these companies in their exploitation of resources outside of Europe. This support requires security of infrastructure and sea lanes.

... oil. The single most powerful energy supplier that does not shy away from pretty open extortion is Russia. They cut of energy supply to the Ukraine several times (during winter!). This is where our Natural Gas comes from and Russia has a huge reserve that potentially can supply Europe for well into the immediate future. Of course Russia treats their prime customers in Europe a bit more conciliatory because we pay our bills on time but it is not a good situation to be in as long as Russia remains on its authoritarian trajectory. It is only logical that Russian companies such as Gazprom invest in European infrastructure that drive additional NG demand.

Last time I visited back home I noticed that you already don't have any problem to find a gas station that allows you to fill up your NG vehicle. The fact that attractive mass market NG vehicles are now coming out will further erode the demand for oil and push Europe and especially Germany into an even closer dependence on Russia.

While France mostly counts on nuclear energy to break this dependence the political climate does not allow this venue for Germany - hence the massive investments in alternative energy technologies. A German newsapaper recently reported that 20 large German companies founded a consortium to raise 400 billion Euros to actually turn the Desertec vision into a reality. Now this certainly smacks a bit of neo-colonialism as well but the affected North African nations would be in a very strong position and also secure their own energy independence. It'll be a typical EU soft power play. The only power play the EU is actually good at.

At any rate the companies that you list in your post have not the kind of power over EU policy that you seem to assign to them. The energy supply mix in Europe simply does not support this.

Somehow missed that.

and yes, that is an invasion; they are in Kosovo and they are in Africa. The Kosovo invasion was not approved by the UN security council. Europe and the US invaded these countries because they tell us it is Muslim terrorists or saving Muslims from Ethnic cleansing although I'm not sure what France has to say about its activities in Africa. It is all a lie; they could care less about Ethnic cleansing or they would have done a thousand interventions before Kosovo, another shill. Kosovo, and all of these "interventions" are part of a chess game to enlarge NATO and ultimately control the energy spigot in the Caucasus. My friend is a Geophysicist, well was, he had to quit because the only work for geophysicists is in the area of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. If you look at a map, you can see the latest additions to NATO, their strategic positions to the Caucasus and the strategic location of the former Yugoslavia relative to the new NATO members. Breaking up Milosevic's attempt to create a powerful Serbia was a strategic necessity. Its no wonder Russia intervened as it did.

... Kosovo conflict played out. Germany has a very generous asylum seeking laws. In consequence we had quite an influx of Kosovo Albanian refugees at the time. (BTW Germany also hosts many more Iraqi refugees these days than the US despite not having any part in that particular invasion).

Genocide happened on the Balkan at one point under the noses of Dutch UN military that was outnumbered in Sebrenica.

This genocidal madness had to be stopped and only military force was able to accomplish that.

No insult intended but the fact that you pick this as an example for an ill conceived invasion demonstrates to me that you are creating your own reality. Very much like the neocons did - just on the other side of the fence.

Also I regard going into Afghanistan as a no brainer unless you prescribe to some outlandish theory that Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. NATO treaty obligation requires all members to consider any military attack on one of the members as they would one on their own territory. 9/11 triggered this condition. NATO got off the bus though with regards to Iraq because there was of course no shred of evidence that linked Iraq to 9/11. If the US had tried to force the issue it would have been the end of NATO.

And what exactly do you mean by the "The EU is in Afghanistan". EU countries that are also in NATO are involved but this is outside of the EU structures. The EU to my chagrin does not have any military component worth its salt.

This summarizes what the EU does in regards to Afghanistan. Heck of an invasion.

As for France their post colonial adventures seem to be pretty ugly but since I am not French I am not particularly qualified to comment on them. EU policy they are not.

nor do I deny that there wasn't a good reason to go in militarily and stop the genocide; but, genocide is not why NATO invaded, genocide made it possible politically for NATO to go into Kosovo and bomb Serbia. Without the strategic needs NATO would not have invaded; without the genocide NATO could not have invaded. If genocide were the reason then why doesn't NATO intervene in so many other genocides? There are so many far worse than what the Albanians experienced.

The proximity of Kosovo meant the refugees made it to Germany. The ugly truth is that the vast majority of African refugees are too poor to get to Germany and thus they don't have an economic and political impact.

which 'outlandish theory' are you referring to? i don't know of any theory that disputes bin laden's involvement in 9/11. the way i understand it, we were flying bin laden family members out that day when no other aircraft were flying at all and that the 9/11 truthers make great hay of that. perhaps i should look around more, i could be wrong. i didn't think the 9/11 truthers had any schisms or obscure outlandish theories vying in competition. i don't think they do, am i wrong?

in any case, simply invading afghanistan or pakistan or any foreign country we want to to 'go after him' (or anybody) is not the way we used to work, or should ever. we may [as] well conjure up info he's hiding in canada and invade it next. (NAU & all, y'know.)

meanwhile nothing here at home is addressed as obama continues on with bush's galling license... as if a perfect storm of blowback was purposely being pursued. insanity.

"If you don't create your reality, your reality will create you." -Lizzie West

... that 9/11 was an "inside job".

Afghanistan at the time did not have a recognized government nor effective interior policing. You would think that Canada for instance would be more than happy to help apprehend a suspected terrorist within its borders. The Taliban not so much.

thanks. even so, the truthers don't exclude bin laden's involvement as far as i know. more, i appreciate getting your thinking behind your view as far as a country's sovereignty goes. er, or doesn't go. either way, thanks.

"If you don't create your reality, your reality will create you." -Lizzie West

...but many believe that the WTC and Pentagon were not destroyed by aircraft flown by al-Qa`eda operatives. The alternative suggestions offered for the destruction of the WTC and the damage to the Pentagon range from the implausible to the frankly impossible and bizarre. Other factions do believe that al-Qa`eda was responsible for the day's attacks, but that they were permitted to act by dark powers within the USG.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...even articles on homegrown terrorism is no respite from this conceptual debate, i just found...

debating a central concept

Okay, the irony here is rich
[Report this comment]
Posted by: abstractedaway on Jun 20, 2009 12:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a good one for these conservative radicals. If some Palestinians lob half a dozen rockets into Sderot, Gaza is guilty collectively and Israel is defending itself to cluster-bomb the hell out of the place, right? But if people call out a conservative terrorist movement, nooo, it's just a few bad apples?

Here's a good one for the rest of us. What about the inverse: so there are radicals and malcontents in Gaza who choose to fire some rockets independently of cease-fire conditions or whatever, but everyone on the right is partly guilty for the shootings.

Do these concepts work? They imperfect at least. If you know fundamentalists, you probably know people who'd never hurt anybody but still believe an almighty God literally ordered the brutal genocide of Canaanites in the Old Testament at the hands of the Hebrews and was right to do it, as a matter of course. The key here is cognitive dissonance between real world living and articles of belief that can just as easily stick because of the social group they feel they belong to. We'll get further challenging that than criticizing a group of people. The goal is to open eyes and hearts - right?

"If you don't create your reality, your reality will create you." -Lizzie West