The Latin American Capitalists obviously have Valentin Ivanov down there, hitting them with red cards...

It just doesn't seem that maximizing production and revenues is primary for Chavez et al. Autonomy in disposing of oil resources seems to be. The nationalists may well find alternative extractors more easily than the multinationals develop alternative sources.

Watching China trying to lock up rights to production, I wonder if there won't be a period when bilateral agreements between nations or their petro-instrumentalities function well enough as big, clumsy forward contracts. Private parties lock up production all the time. If state players are willing to sacrifice at the margin in exchange for assured autonomy in production or consumption, they may do well enough until their voters/consumers want more government spending or lower fuel prices.

1) It is Venezula's oil. Since the time of Monroe the power in the relationship between the US and everyone south of the US border has been held by the US. That may well change in the next 20 years. Which will no doubt annoy and anger the US to no end, but seems inevitable to me.

2) Signing a long-term deal with, say, China would also be a good way to help forstall a US invasion of one's country, doncha think?

3) If an oil-producing nation's analysts believe that peak oil is actually approaching, it seems to me that the best course of action for that nation would be to pump less, not more, oil. It can only get more valuable as there is less of it. I thought $3/gal gasoline would get the US to start conserving, but I was wrong. So why not wait until the price is $200/bbl before turning on the taps? USians will pay whatever it takes, we know that now.

Cranky

"...energy has become a key facet of US national security." - Financial Times
No shi*, Sherlock.

“It is incumbent upon the [military] to contemplate beyond strictly military matters,” -- FT
And yet Americans still don't feel that the U.S. military is becoming pervasive in increasing aspects of everyday life.

Latin America supplies the U.S. with 30% of its energy needs and they, too, are going anti-U.S. So it looks like the U.S. can only comfortably count on whatever oil comes out of the North Sea and the oil sands of Canada; and everything else is more or less at risk. Trinidad's oil reserves are plummeting, but liquid natural gas exports are indeed on the rise. But T&T has a left-wing government....

One thing is apparent: U.S. foreign policy needs to spend far more time pondering all things Latin. A shame all time and resources are focused on Iraq. And Iran.

I dunno. Given Venezuela's proximity to the US and China's quite limited power projection, a Sino-exclusive might be the best way to get oneself invaded, or something close to it.

The SOCOM study focuses, rightly, on the dangers of production loss from careless nationalization, not politcally-motivated embargos. Still, it'd be nice to worry less about buying oil from nuts.

Ah... back to the oldies but goodies. Smedley Butler, War is a Racket, gunboat diplomacy. This is stuff we can do well.

BTW you'd think Dr. Drezner, with his research interests on institutional incentives, would at least broach the possibility that this is a ploy by the Southern Command to call attention to 'security threats' in its operating area, thus providing justification for increased appropriations. Why let Central Command hog the spotlight?

The comments are unworthy of Prof Drezner´s note. Southern Command is a very serious organization but this situation does not call for its capabilites. I hope the old hands from the Alianza del Progreso times can be pressed back into service.

“It is incumbent upon the [military] to contemplate beyond strictly military matters,” -- FT
And yet Americans still don't feel that the U.S. military is becoming pervasive in increasing aspects of everyday life."

Uh no, because the pattern has been that these become military matters in due time. And since the military cannot trust the civilians (diplomats, corpotratioons, etc.) to have the competence or capacity sort these matters out on their own, as evidenced by the resulting Cabinet-level bitch fights Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz used to have, or trust the civilians to have the foresight to deal with their failures to deal with these matters, it falls to the military to anticipate the missions they will inevitably get.

"would at least broach the possibility that this is a ploy by the Southern Command to call attention to 'security threats' in its operating area...."

Very good point, Mitch. That probably explains it exactly.

Jim, Do you really like the idea that the U.S. military needs to go in and kick someone's ass fairly often, because civilians can't get it right?

The civilians may indeed screw up often, but the automatic solution isn't Let's Get Ready to Bomb Someone.

I prefer Mitchell's idea of attempting to get greater appropriations, but either way the military is getting an increasing amount of say in US life.

Jim, Do you really like the idea that the U.S. military needs to go in and kick someone's ass fairly often, because civilians can't get it right?

Like it? No. But when your form of government tends to result in people who think with a 8-year (max) timeframe being in charge, well, it can happen. Call it the down side of the 22nd Amendment (and keep in mind that that was a fix for an even more serious design flaw).

As far as 'Let's Get Ready to Bomb Someone' is concerned... historically, nations have frequently resorted to force to protect their interests. This is not new, nor is it exclusive to the US... anyway, the idea that the military is getting an increasing amount of say in US life is laughable. If you want to be taken seriously, please, give some examples to support the assertion.

Military spending was 3.2% of US GDP as recently as 1999; it was 4.1% in 2005. (If you throw in Homeland Security it exceeds 9%.) That is military influence and it affects Americans' pockets very directly. And will for a long time.

Polls now show that the military is increasingly convinced of its moral superiority over civilians. This is a destabilizing factor from the vision of our founding fathers.

There is a tendency among recent US presidents (not just W) to align themselves with the military. Historically, generals such as Washington, Grant and Eisenhower went out of their way to set aside their military pasts once in elected office.

The rate at which we invade countries is increasing since WWII.

There is talk of a return of the draft. This may or may not happen, but the fact is the military is stretched thin, weekend warriors now find themselves in Iraq for more than one tour, and you better believe someone's looking for new solutions. Why don't we give all those illegals US citizenship in exchange for doing our dirty work overseas?

And then there's the deaths of young men: the number of American soldiers dying "on behalf of freedom" is on the rise, to put it mildly.

All of the above show different aspects of how the military is increasingly affecting citizens' lives. You may well disagree, rosignol, but I wish you didn't think that a bunch of kids dying is "laughable".

Military spending was 3.2% of US GDP as recently as 1999; it was 4.1% in 2005. (If you throw in Homeland Security it exceeds 9%.) That is military influence and it affects Americans' pockets very directly. And will for a long time.

Heh.

This is the kind of assertion that takes all of your hard-earned credibility and flushes it down the toilet.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#gdp-graph

Yeah, in 1999, military expenditures were around 3% of GDP. Of course, that year (along with 2000 and 2001, which were also 3%) was when military expenditures were at their lowest point in about six decades.

Just looking at historic levels, we were spending 6.2% of GDP on the military as recently as 1986- and military spending was between 5% and 6% through most of the 1980s. Do you want to argue that the military's influence in American society has increased since then?

Or does it make more sense to take the position that the US's military spending varies depending on what is going on in the world, and that with the passing of the Soviet Union, the need to spend 5% of GDP on the military also passed, and now that we're dealing with militant muslims who have killed several thousand people in the US (something the old Soviets never did), the Clinton-era peacetime military budget is inadequate?

Polls now show that the military is increasingly convinced of its moral superiority over civilians. This is a destabilizing factor from the vision of our founding fathers.

1) please point to a reputable poll showing this.

2) I was under the impression you were Argentine. Would you mind clarifying this?

There is a tendency among recent US presidents (not just W) to align themselves with the military.

...and this is what is known as a non-sequitur.

The President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the US military. He does not align with the military, the military is aligned with him because he is their commander in chief.

Historically, generals such as Washington, Grant and Eisenhower went out of their way to set aside their military pasts once in elected office.

A precedent I am grateful that Washington set. However, if you want to argue that a former Lt. Bush of the Texas Air National Guard is not doing so, please have the integrity to do so explicitly, not implicitly.

The rate at which we invade countries is increasing since WWII.

What is this supposed to show?

There is talk of a return of the draft..

Have you noticed who is talking about it?

Anti-war democrats (such as Charles Rangel D-NY, sponsor of the House bill to reinstate the draft) who are trying to scare the draft-age population into voting for them.

This is not a serious move to reinstate the draft, it's a very cynical political ploy on the part of people who have no intention of enacting it if they come to power.

This may or may not happen, but the fact is the military is stretched thin, weekend warriors now find themselves in Iraq for more than one tour, and you better believe someone's looking for new solutions. Why don't we give all those illegals US citizenship in exchange for doing our dirty work overseas?

You know, enlisting in the military and serving a tour of duty is a path to US citizenship that I have no problem with.

As a matter of fact, I have an uncle-in-law who did exactly that- his sponsor for US citizenship was the USMC.

And then there's the deaths of young men: the number of American soldiers dying "on behalf of freedom" is on the rise, to put it mildly.

Compared to what, the rate at which American soldiers die 'on behalf of freedom' during peacetime?

Well, duh. Try comparing apples to apples sometime.

For example, during the Vietnam war (the war so many people like to compare the current war in Iraq to), US casualties are 211,529, 58,226 of which were dead- averaging about 21,000 casualties and a little under 6,000 dead per year (1964-1973).

The total US dead in Iraq from 2003 to now is 2,525, according to wikipedia, with 18,572 wounded- in three years of fighting, we have yet to reach one year's average KIA or casualties in the Vietnam war.

All of the above show different aspects of how the military is increasingly affecting citizens' lives. You may well disagree, rosignol, but I wish you didn't think that a bunch of kids dying is "laughable".

I don't think it's laughable- some of them are my friends.

Your arguments, on the other hand...

Cranky,

The problem with holding on to oil waiting on higher prices are.

1. There is no guarantee the prices will go higher

2. It ignores the time value of money

3. It ignores the fact that there are a lot of poor people living in shanty towns around caracas that could use that money right now

That is the critical fact that lots of "progressives" miss about hugo's actions. He is stealing from the poor of his country in order to make political points.