New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize

I know the the New Orleans topic has been done ad nauseum, however its implications could be huge. I recieved this in an email, so take it cum grano salis, however it does at least offer some different ideas and things to think about in terms of the "big picture" and New Orleans. I also apologize for its length.

[I've edited Hunter's post for brevity's sake and only included snippets from the article penned by George Friedman. The full article can be read at the link above.---Dr D.]

...During the Cold War, a macabre topic of discussion among bored
graduate students who studied such things was this: If the Soviets
could destroy one city with a large nuclear device, which would it
be? The usual answers were Washington or New York. For me, the answer
was simple: New Orleans. If the Mississippi River was shut to
traffic, then the foundations of the economy would be shattered. The
industrial minerals needed in the factories wouldn't come in, and the
agricultural wealth wouldn't flow out...

...New Orleans is not optional for the United States' commercial
infrastructure. It is a terrible place for a city to be located, but
exactly the place where a city must exist. With that as a given, a
city will return there because the alternatives are too devastating.
The harvest is coming, and that means that the port will have to be
opened soon. As in Iraq, premiums will be paid to people prepared to
endure the hardships of working in New Orleans. But in the end, the
city will return because it has to...