I considered his statements (Americans being down there to guarantee oil flow heigthen anti-americanism in more than fringe parts) that even Joe sixpack would not argue them. There might be an arguement whether it is in the best of US interests in the long run, but that US presence would antagonize at least 20% of the population (and precisely the more "off-world" groups over there) should be evident to anybody. And as long as there is no real "war effort" in the american public consciousness making changes possible such musings are inconsequential. The Bush effort to run a war without "bothering" the public has such consequences.

>Not if you take into consideration that the goal of the article (note the title was "Rising Oil Prices, Declining National Security") was to point out the effect of oil prices and oil dependency on our national security. The subject was not the ecnomic effect, but national security. Electricity should be able to be generated at more cost effective means and would not entail our being reliant on outside sources.
>
>
>>>Here is an interesting policy piece on the price of oil and national security that is interesting:
>>>
>>>http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/0522_oil_sandalow.aspx
>>
>>Tought this was one of you weaker links:
>>using electric cars to a sizeable percentage will raise electricity cost
>>(he seems to believe electricity just sits in the wall plug in)
>>renewable energy will lessen fuel military transport not by a large degree
>>renewable energy trucks will probably still have easily targetable signatures