Bush just authorized giving a billion (?) dollars to research fuel cell technology over the next 30-40 years.
Probably need more $$$ over a shorter timeframe, though.
When I hear people criticizing Bush, his ties with the oil industry, and the war on Iraq, I don't think about this war and his oil industry connections as a way to leverage oil reserves that aren't ours.
Instead, I think about how this war (indirectly) is a way to ensure the supremacy of petroleum for years to come, by keeping the flow stable, and that by dragging our feet on alternative technology, our politicians ensure that we are dependent on petroleum and petroleum companies for years to come. Petroleum certainly is a more powerful and effective lobby than the much vaunted NRA will ever be.
And no, I don't think we are specifically going to Iraq just for oil, at least as some finite commodity to take and use; it is more complex than that. Backward countries with traditions of despotism were suddenly made rich and powerful because of their resources, without ever having to evolve the society and values necessary to be a part of the modern world.
Osama and Saddam are part and parcel to this. Two thugs, opposite in belief, yet the same, spawned by the same traditions. Both made wealthy, directly or indirectly, via oil. Both can project power because of their wealth. One to rid the world of ideas and beliefs he doesn't like, the other to dominate his neighbors and resources to secure more power to repeat the process over and inflate his ego.
The US cares little for this region, but for its natural, crucial resource: oil. Sand certainly isn't too useful. Date Palms we can take or leave. No, we need oil and we've been kissing the a--es of tyrants and despots since the '30s to get it.
Thus, we are involved, partly in a situation of our own creation, to safeguard vital resources (actually our allies and trading partners resources, since roughly 10% of the petroleum the US uses is from the Persian gulf).
We propped up Saddam for a while because it was convenient. the enemy of my enemy, Iran, in this case, is my friend. We also made enemies in Iran because we supported a tyrant to get his friendship, and more importantly, his oil.
We stepped in when Saddam invaded another oil producing nation, Kuwait, because it would've been bad to have such an unstable personality dictating terms to us, especially had he moved on to Saudi, and increased his share of the world's oil reserves. I don't believe for a minute that we aided Kuwait for humanitarian reasons; only because it behooved us to maintain the divisions that keep the competition strong and the supply of oil steady.
Now, we go to war because we built a house of cards that involved us creating people who hate us, to a certain degree, because of the governments we allied with (we won't even go to the ideological reasons we are hated, which are probably greater than those engendered by our choice of friends in the Middle East, except for Israel), and PAYING THEM TO DO IT.
That's right, we pay those who hate our guts. Some took the money to buy WMDs to drive the West out and secure all the leverage to be had from controlling the Middle East's oil, while the others used the money to train fanatics to drive us out of the same regions so that they may establish a "paradise" on earth. We are suffering from the fallout of an oil "culture," if you will.
Thus, we are driven to war. Only problem, is that I think we'll be back. You don't just drop from the 14th century into the 21st without growing pains.
Russia is an example of a country that has never shaken despotism, and one that even seems to fear democracy. I suspect that we'll see even more authoritarian leaders therein the future, even if they do adopt more market reforms. I draw a parallel, however tenuous, between a country like Russia, and a region like the Middle East to show that even as things change, they stay the same. Both will be anti-democratic well into the future because the majority no nothing else and accept what they know more readily than what they don't, despite how it harms them.
) like big engines, the freedom to drive wherever and whenever they wish, etc., but this has been at the expense of making us dependent on imported energy. I think that if we'd put the equivalent of 5% of the defense budget into research on alternative engines, fuels, transportation design, etc. for the past 20 years, there would be no oil crisis now... I hope that the impetus of the War on Terror, and disruptions in the world oil supply, will provide new impetus for the effort.