Drill Drill Drill?

Here's a thought experiment for you...

Let's say there is this natural resource called "shmoil". There is only a limited amount of shmoil in the entire world, and one day it will dry up. Nevertheless, shmoil is critical to the basic function of our economy and our nation would fall back into the dark ages without access to shmoil.

If you were President of this country, would you:

a) Elect to use the shmoil of other nations while shmoil prices were relatively low, in the mean time working hard to identify replacements for shmoil and thus guaranteeing you have shmoil reserves through the very end?

OR

b) Open up full exploitation of domestic shmoil early on, resulting in your nation being the first to run out of shmoil and thus being at the mercy of other nations at a time when shmoil prices are sky high due to the great lack of supply?

I vote for a).

Here's the cold reality. The USA has 3% of the world's known oil. It has 25% of the world appetite for oil. We need to be prepared to drill all 3% if it comes to it, but we don't want to open everything up  and end up having no oil reserves when the real oil crunch hits.

Ideally, we develop alternate energy resources and don't ever need to fully deplete the Earth of its oil. But we can't plan for the best and ignore the possibility of the worst. We need to manage access to our natural resources so we are guaranteed to be the last nation on Earth with oil.

We need the oil companies to drill using the oil leases they have available today and stop whining about getting access to ones they don't need access to right now.

The Alternatives to Diplomacy

Barak Obama suggests we should engage our enemies in diplomacy; John McCain suggests that to engage our enemies in diplomacy is only to embolden them.

But what is our real objective?

The real objectively, ostensibly, is a peace that supports American interests and carries moral authority.

It turns out that there are two paths to peace: diplomacy and genocide. Perhaps, along the way to genocide, you will bomb your enemy into complete submission allowing for diplomacy entirely on your terms. But when was the last time the USA was engaged in a war in which that happened? World War II? What would it look like for us to bomb Iraq into submission?

But the real issue here is what is going to happen with Iran. And Hezbollah. And Hamas.

Iran is a corrupt government run by bad people. However, most Americans don't realize that Iran has the moral high ground (as low as it is) in its confrontation with the USA. The USA helped overthrow Iran's democratically elected government and installed a pro-Western dictator much worse than many of the dictators we refuse to speak with today. Iran engaged in illegal acts against the USA (the hostage crisis, funding terrorists), but for good reason: Iran has no reason to trust the USA and has every reason the USA has illegitimate intentions towards it.

The Iranian people are also one of the most pro-American cultures in the middle-east. It is the closest thing to a functioning democracy in the Middle East outside of Israel and the people tend to think more positively of the USA than any other nation.

So why won't we talk to the Iranians? Because we don't like the megalomaniac Ahmadenijad?

He's a pretty scary individual. He denies the Holocaust. He would pursue a campaign of genocide against Israel if he had the power. In short, there just is nothing good about him.

But that's not relevant. He is, in fact, the "legitimately elected" leader of Iran. And even if you don't like Iran's style of "legitimately elected", he is the leader of Iran.

So, we have three choices:

1. Ignore him and hope he does not develop nuclear weapons while we cover our eyes and ears and say "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...
2. Launch a pre-emptive war against Iran and hope we can bomb them into submission.
3. Engage Iran in diplomacy and follow Ronald Reagan's sage advice: Trust, but verify.

It's hard to tell which approach McCain really supports. It is either #1 or #2. #1 is the naive approach. It suggests that if we don't talk to our enemies, they cannot grow stronger. On the contrary, we have seen Iran and North Korea grow stronger and stronger when we ignore them. And #2 is, of course, war not peace.

There simply is no alternative to diplomacy.