You're welcome, Baddboy...

You are right, of course.

I think you and I have very similar views on this topic. In the early 1800’s, a man named Thomas Malthus stated that populations increase until limited by a lack of resources… historically this has meant food or water, but in this modern age, it could very well be resources like oil.

I am convinced that the “Malthusian” theory is closer to the mark than anything Clausewitz or Liddle-Hart might have proposed as the true cause of war. With no effort whatsoever, we can see this truth proven through out the last century… Imperial Japan went to war in China in 1933 to gain resource-rich territory (or the political control of same), and there is a good argument that they attacked the US for the simple fact that we controlled the steel supply to the Pacific rim… a resource vital to their military aims. Hitler even labeled his drive to expand the Reich beyond the limits of Germanic culture “Lebensraum” to show just what it was that he wanted… fresh, new habitat and resources. Italy’s expansion into Ethiopia and Libya… Stalin’s drive to maintain control of Eastern Europe after 1945… North Korea’s drive south in 1950… none of these were PURELY political efforts to spread one particular ideology into new territory. ALL were, to some degree, drives to gain and secure new or larger resource bases.

While this is a perfectly acceptable EXPLANATION of the cause of war, it is a poor JUSTIFICATION for war. I do not deny its necessity at times, but it does not change the fact that if an acceptable or achievable alternative can be found, we must (as a nation) follow or pursue it. I dare anyone to give me an historical example of a morally justifiable case in which an aggressor nation waged war to gain resources when an alternative course could have been followed.

If, God forbid, the US would find itself cut off from its supply of foreign oil, I do think the country would BEGIN the process of developing alternative energy sources, but as you have said… would that be enough? Would we be able to sustain our economy, or even our society, while the process got itself off the ground? This question leads to another touched on by Jambo… whose responsibility is it to begin (and follow through) this process, private industry of the Federal government? If this is a question of a resource as vital to our country as oil, I’m not at all sure I want the responsibility to rest solely with private industry. They are not obligated to be answerable to the people the way the government is… they answer to a shareholder about profits, nothing more.

Besides, what is the alternative? To invade and seize Mexico as sovereign US territory to supplement our own national reserves? A portion of Siberia? The greater part of the Canadian Shield? To do the same thing Saddam did to Kuwait in '90? Were this an acceptable course of action in the US... then why even bring up issues like "terror" or "WMDs" or "tyrannical despot" when discussing WHY we should invade Iraq? Isn't control of the third largest crude oil reserves on the face of the planet enough?

Anyway... we seem to agree on the big picture.