Sorry Trump, No Oil Company Wants to Drill in a War Zone
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The Venezuela operation involved coordinated special forces, air, and cyber attacks to neutralize defenses and capture targets.
- ❖Military operations now incorporate 'reflections' – monitoring public communications like Twitter – to assess ground reactions.
- ❖A major concern post-Venezuela operation is the absence of a clear, multi-agency plan for governance, economic stabilization, and oil field security.
- ❖Securing Venezuela's oil infrastructure would require a substantial, long-term military presence, and oil companies are reluctant to operate in war zones.
- ❖The US proposal to acquire Greenland offers no significant strategic advantage beyond existing capabilities and deeply insults Denmark, a key NATO ally.
- ❖Interdicting oil tankers on the high seas, especially with Russian escorts, carries a high risk of 'escalation dominance' and could trigger broader conflicts.
- ❖The 'belly button rule' – clear accountability for success or failure – is often missing in complex US foreign policy initiatives.
Insights
1Venezuela Operation: A Coordinated 'Snatch and Grab' with Digital Monitoring
The initial US military intervention in Venezuela was a complex special operations strike involving joint forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines). The operation targeted air defenses, jammed communications, and took out electricity. A notable aspect was the White House's monitoring of public social media ('reflections') to assess the ground reaction, indicating the integration of open-source intelligence into real-time command decisions.
General Hurtling describes the operation involving all four service branches, hitting air defenses, jamming, and taking out electricity. He notes the White House monitoring Twitter for 'reflections' to see how things were reacting on the ground, even allowing some communication channels to remain open to observe enemy reactions.
2Post-Invasion Planning Deficiencies in Venezuela Mirror Past Failures
A significant concern following the Venezuela operation is the apparent lack of a comprehensive, multi-agency plan for post-conflict stabilization. The administration's focus on military action without clear coordination for diplomatic, economic, and civil affairs roles (e.g., State Department, USAID, Commerce, Treasury) risks repeating past mistakes seen in Iraq, where a lack of 'belly button rule' and inter-agency friction hampered reconstruction efforts.
Hurtling expresses concern about 'what are the tasks? What are we trying to do?' and the lack of clarity on who is in charge beyond the military. He references the 2003 Iraq invasion where post-fight planning was 'thwarted' by leadership changes and inter-agency fights, and Trump's vague answer about 'these guys behind us' being in charge.
3Oil Companies Reluctant to Operate in Unstable War Zones
Despite the perceived oil wealth in Venezuela, major international oil companies are highly unlikely to invest in or operate the country's oil fields due to the severe security risks, dilapidated infrastructure, pervasive corruption, and potential for terrorist activity. This reality means any US effort to 'extract oil wealth' would necessitate a massive and sustained military presence to secure the entire supply chain, from wells to ports.
Hurtling recounts his experience in Iraq where Chevron, BP, and Shell executives surveyed Iraqi oil fields but refused to participate due to 'bad shape' facilities, 'bad' security, 'corruption and terrorist activity.' He applies this directly to Venezuela, stating 'I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of oil execs going to say, 'Yeah, we're going to do that.''
4Greenland Acquisition: A Strategic Insult with Minimal Gain
The US administration's interest in acquiring Greenland is strategically unsound. The US already possesses necessary Arctic capabilities and bases, often in cooperation with allies like Denmark and Canada. Attempting to buy or seize Greenland is a profound diplomatic insult to Denmark, a strong NATO ally with a high casualty rate in past US-led conflicts, and would severely undermine the NATO alliance, particularly the emerging Nordic Baltic 8 bloc.
Hurtling states, 'we already have what we need on Greenland' and that it's 'not a place you want to have a lot of troops to defend something.' He agrees with Senator Mark Warner that an offensive action against Greenland would be 'the end of NATO' and calls it a 'slight against Denmark,' highlighting Denmark's significant contributions and casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5High-Seas Interdiction Risks Escalation with Major Powers
The US interdiction of oil tankers, especially those potentially escorted by Russian submarines or destined for countries like Iran and China, carries a significant risk of military escalation. International law permits such actions under specific conditions (e.g., UN Security Council authorization for sanctions enforcement or blockade in declared war), but any misstep or perceived provocation could lead to direct confrontation and rapidly escalate into a broader conflict, as 'wars spin up' from such incidents.
Hurtling explains the complexities of international maritime law regarding interdiction ('flag state consent,' UN authorization, blockade as a 'declared war element'). He warns that a Russian submarine escorting a ship could 'fire off a shot and then it's Katie bar the door. That's escalation. Boom. Boom. And that's how wars spin up.'
Bottom Line
The US military's current operational doctrine includes real-time monitoring of public social media ('reflections') to gauge the effectiveness and impact of kinetic operations, even intentionally leaving some communication channels open to observe enemy reactions.
This signifies a shift in military intelligence gathering, where open-source information is integrated directly into command decisions during active combat, blurring the lines between public perception and tactical assessment. It highlights the vulnerability of information environments during conflict.
Develop advanced AI/ML tools for real-time 'reflection' analysis, capable of discerning genuine ground reactions from propaganda or noise, and providing predictive insights for military and diplomatic strategists. This could also inform counter-disinformation strategies during conflicts.
Major international oil companies are highly risk-averse to operating in conflict zones with degraded infrastructure and high corruption, even if the resource potential is significant.
This creates a substantial barrier to 'resource extraction' as a primary motive for military intervention unless the intervening power is prepared for a long-term, direct military commitment to secure the entire production and supply chain, effectively nationalizing the security burden.
Explore models for 'conflict zone resource development' that de-risk the environment for private companies, potentially involving international consortiums with robust UN-backed security mandates, or specialized private military/security contractors (PMSCs) with clear accountability frameworks, though this carries its own ethical and practical challenges.
Key Concepts
Reflections (Military Intelligence)
The practice of monitoring public communications, including social media, news media, and embassy reports, to gauge real-time reactions and assess the effectiveness of military operations on the ground, complementing classified intelligence.
Escalation Dominance
A concept in military strategy where one party maintains the ability to respond to an opponent's escalatory actions with a more powerful or decisive counter-escalation, thereby deterring the opponent from further escalation. The risk lies when this dominance is challenged or miscalculated.
Belly Button Rule
An informal military principle emphasizing the need for a single, clearly identifiable individual to be in charge and ultimately responsible for the success or failure of a mission or operation, ensuring accountability and clear decision-making.
Lessons
- When evaluating foreign policy decisions involving military action, scrutinize the publicly articulated 'end state' and the detailed, multi-agency plan for achieving it, beyond initial kinetic operations.
- Recognize that military interventions aimed at resource control (e.g., oil) are often far more complex and costly than perceived, requiring extensive, long-term security commitments that private industry is unwilling to bear.
- Understand that diplomatic slights against allies, even seemingly minor ones like a proposal to buy territory, can have significant, long-lasting repercussions on critical alliances like NATO, impacting collective security.
- Be aware that high-seas interdiction operations, especially involving vessels from major powers, are inherently escalatory and carry a tangible risk of triggering broader military confrontations.
Quotes
"This is not a place you want to have a lot of troops to defend something."
"What they were more than likely looking at is what the military calls reflections. So it's not only getting classified information from a variety of sources... but they also look at reflections. They want to see what is how how things are reacting on the ground."
"My major uh scary moment was when President Trump was asked at the press conference on Monday or on Saturday morning, who's in charge? And he said, it's these guys behind us. Well, that that ain't good enough for me. It's the belly button rule. Who? No kidding is in charge."
"We tried bringing in uh oil executives from Chevron BP and Shell, they came in, took a look around and said, 'we don't want any part of this' because the facilities are in such bad shape. The security situation is so bad and there's so much corruption and terrorist activity which exists in Venezuela as well."
"If they're escorting a ship and they decide they don't want that ship to be boarded, you know, they they can fire off a shot and then it's Katie bar the door. That's escalation. Boom. Boom. And that's how wars spin up."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Col. Jacques Baud: What a US Ground Invasion of Iran Would REALLY Look Like
"Colonel Jacques Baud dissects the strategic futility of a US ground invasion of Iran, arguing that current troop levels are insufficient and such an action would backfire, exposing US allies and potentially leading to Iran's nuclearization."
Col. Jacques Baud: The World Is Entering a Lawless Era
"Colonel Jacques Baud details his personal experience with arbitrary EU sanctions and argues that the world has shifted from a law-based international order to a dangerous, rules-based system dictated by powerful actors, exemplified by US actions in Venezuela and the EU's 'teenager decision-making'."
Bibi DEMANDS Ground Troops As Marines Rushed to Iran
"Benjamin Netanyahu is pushing for US ground troops in Iran, framing air strikes as insufficient, while the US rushes Marines to the region and struggles to secure the Strait of Hormuz against surprisingly capable Iranian defenses."
BREAKING: Israel BOMBS Major Iran Gas Site; Top Mullah ELIMINATED; Iran Vows VENGEACE | TBN Israel
"Israel and the United States have escalated their 'Roaring Lion War' against Iran, striking its largest gas facilities, eliminating key intelligence and military figures, and disrupting missile production, while Iran threatens a broader energy war in the Gulf."