Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, unfortunately history is full of moments when defeat has been pulled from the jaws of victory by shortsighted leaders. Let us hope that history doesn't again write this as one such case.

Posted by mpthompson at August 5, 2007 01:02 PM

The Viet Nam era, Kerry type anti-war crowd are well versed in the cut and run style warfare. If they can convince enough people that the war is un-winable, if they can convince enough people that war is un-just and un-necessary, if they can convince enough people that we are the aggressors, then they can have the election stacked toward a President who will pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again we'll win all the battles, and declare ourselves the losers. Then our MSM will tell us how it's America's fault that the bad guys are allowed to slaughter the truly innocent.

It seems that genocide is a tool used to gain power for some of our politicians too.

Posted by Steve at August 5, 2007 03:33 PM

How sad a comment on our society, when we can win a war, yet lose because of one political party's agenda, with the complicit help of the mainstream media.

Posted by Dave G at August 5, 2007 08:04 PM

Look what Newt Gingrich said, last Thursday:

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

Hmmmm . . .

Suppose I were to agree with Newt Gingrich. Would I be a wing-bat or a moon-nut?

Posted by Bill White at August 5, 2007 08:34 PM

At a minimum, Dave G should retract his "one party" comment. I don't think Newt Gingrich has ever been a Democrat. Or ever will be.

Posted by Bill White at August 5, 2007 08:35 PM

Gingrich's ideas are scary and dangerous. A lot of people are of the opinion that if the US weans itself off of middle eastern oil that we won't have to worry about Islamic radicalism any more. This is dead wrong for several reasons. First and most importantly, oil is a fungible market. Look, Canada is a net oil exporter, and yet when gas prices go up in the US they go up correspondingly in Canada, because it's a market. Today the US does not actually consume much middle eastern oil, even if we cut that consumption to 0 the rest of the world (such as Europe, China, India, etc.) would still eagerly lap up middle eastern oil. We lack the capability to cut off middle eastern oil revenue through domestic economic means. Period.

Secondly, it is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic radicalism to think that reducing middle eastern oil revenue would dry it up. Rather, dispirited middle eastern moderate muslims would be more and more inclined toward radicalism. Look at the rise of Fascism in Europe, Communism in Russia, and expansionist militarism in Imperial Japan. Every case was driven by desperation, by being at the bottom with broken economies, not by being at the top flush with funds.

If tomorrow we were to invent a magical device which would allow every existing usage of petroleum products to be replaced with some hand wavery magic, if we were to destroy utterly the oil incomes of all OPEC member states, the middle east would quickly erupt in violence out of our darkest nightmares. State sponsorship of regional terrorism on a state destabilizing scale such as with Hezbollah, Al Qaeda in Iraq and such like is somewhat expensive, but international terrorism of the 9/11, 3/11, Bali, etc. variety is very inexpensive in comparison. Destroying the oil revenues of the middle east would do little to destroy the ability of international terror cells to infiltrate the US and execute their missions successfully, but it would vastly increase the pool of fervent volunteers for such missions. Also keep in mind that the middle east is not without wealth, to be differentiated from income, should Saudi Arabia's oil wells dry up tomorrow they would still have many billions of dollars with which to spend on whatever they decide (which might quite well be something we would not like) tomorrow.

The economic downfall of the middle east is one of the worse case scenarios for this long war. The best case scenario is something not that far from what's happening today (yes, really and truly). With incremental changes throughout the region as it slowly grows out of the habits of tyranny, oppression, stagnant economies, and the exportation of violence.

We could do better certainly, but muddling through is actually not half bad compared to the disastrous alternatives on offer. We tend to be rather sanguine about those alternatives because they have not yet revealed themselves, but it doesn't take much imagination (especially for a student of history) to realize that things could quite easily be vastly worse.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at August 6, 2007 02:45 AM

Look at the rise of Fascism in Europe, Communism in Russia, and expansionist militarism in Imperial Japan. Every case was driven by desperation, by being at the bottom with broken economies, not by being at the top flush with funds.

Heh!

I recall massive bashing of liberals for suggesting that economic development can help thwart terrorism.

More recently, Mitt Romney has been attacked for suggesting that Hezbollah and Hamas have made themselves more effective by launching social welfare programs.

Will you guys please make up your minds? Besides, come January 2009, you won't have George W. Bush to do your thinking for you anymore.

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 06:53 AM

More seriously, building economies NOT based on petroleum revenues is what will best help moderate Muslims.

When all that wealth is merely pumped from underneath the sand, fighting for control of the spigot trumps genuine economic development. Setting aside oil, what would Saudi Arabia's GNP be?

Back before 9/11 I recall that Bill Clinton suggested the Saudis start building solar farms.

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 06:58 AM

Gingrich could be scarier, but I'm not sure how.

Again, on the subject of winning / losing the war in Iraq and whether we are gaining the trust of the average Iraqi citizen, I'm still relying on the facts from my sons Marine buddies who are coming and going for the 2nd or 3rd time. Newt and the MSM are not telling the truth IMHO.

And things are in fact better since the surge, regardless od what Newt, the MSM, or anyone else says right now.

The radical Imams could give a good G/D less about oil markets, oil prices, gas prices, MPG etc. Their focus is on the forced impression of their religious beliefs on the world. If the radicals, Al Queda or the Taliban or whomever, were interested in those things, then every country they over run would have gas stations on every corner and a new car lot every other block.

Most of the places they've controlled have reverted to Medieval times with respect to schooling, infrastructure and most importantly machinery and equipment. Oil is NOT an issue to them, so it shouldn't be one for us when talking about them as an enemy. There are other important issues at work when we talk about Radical Islam.

The fact that they want to kill us outright, and enslave the world for Allah is a big enough of an ideal that we need to fight the radical jihadis. Preferably the fight should be THERE not HERE. Never forget that they are calling the war in Iraq the FRONT of the war against us.

And don't misconstrue the facts, it's Saddam's fault we're fighting over there not GWB's. A few reasons why.

Bush didn't ignore 12 years of U.N. sanctions, Bush didn't line the pockets of Kofi Annan's family with money from illegal oil deals, Bush didn't murder the Kurds, Bush didn't use American troops to invade Kuwait to get control of the Kuwaiti oil fields, Bush and his family and lackeys didn't live well in big palaces while his countrymen starved and died of minor medical problems, Bush didn't pay the families of homicide bombers to blow up Israeli citizens, Bush didn't continually threaten the entire Middle East repeatedly over the years.

Of course this is just my opinion, not that of Dan Rather's, Barbra Streisand's, Nancy Pelosi's, John Kerry's, Sean Penn's et al. I don't have any real facts to go on.

And pigs are aerodynamically built.

Posted by Steve at August 6, 2007 09:07 AM

Of course, drying up the flow of oil money would also make quite a lot of things more difficult for the jihadis - various sorts of bribery, various sorts of propaganda and "education" and various attempts at suppressing the truth by tying up book and newspapers in legal knots.

In other words, it would make it much easier to interrupt the creation of new jihadis in the West, stop the promotion of their cause, profile security appropriately and just plain keep them out.

And if there are no barbarians with any power to do anything in the West, and the Middle East erupts in flames - so what? If they're killing each other they aren't killing us.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 6, 2007 09:12 AM

Much of this misses the point.

First, lets get real about the cost of jihad...it is very, very low. Yes, in absolute terms it is high enough (certainly many millions, even low billions of dollars), but this is a trivial figure in relative terms. Fletcher is correct that the loss of oil revenues would squeeze many aspects of the jihadi movement, but this constriction would be quite limited. Those funding the movement long since diversified their investments (the Gulf states are a superb example of this, but even the Saudis are quite well protected), and the individuals behind the movement would suffer little if the price of oil collapsed overnight. Actually, the collapse of the various middle east economies would affect the broader populations very little as well, as they are horribly poor to begin with, but that is another issue entirely...

As a minor point, if economic development (or the lack thereof) created jihadis, African suicide bombers would be as common as raindrops. Last I checked, they are not. Perhaps we might consider the following...jihadi movements (among other things) help create poverty (backwardness, whether religious, political, or economic, seems quite destructive...), not the other way around. I have little hope that (absent a huge reform of Islam, or sadly...its destruction) that very much can be done to 'fix' the middle east, but again, that is probably another discussion entirely.

As for Gingrich, this blowhard had ONE moment of usefulness, as an insurgent leader that destroyed the Democratic control of the House in 1994. He has been dining off of that indisputable achievement ever since, using eccentricity as a substitute for depth of analysis. To answer Bill's question, I suppose it makes him a moon-nut to quote Gingrich, but what it really makes him is a man with very poor taste in pundits.

Posted by Scott at August 6, 2007 09:40 AM

More Newt

And Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, took the opportunity to blast the Republican Party's basic approach to government. "Republican political doctrine has been a failure," she said. "Look at New Orleans. How can you say that was a success? Look at Baghdad... I don't think you can look around and say that was a great success."
Wait, did I say Democrats at YearlyKos? Actually, all of these comments came from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, during a speech at the Young America's Foundation National Conservative Student Conference in DC.

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 09:51 AM

Bill, quotes from one retired (and I hope he stays that way) from political life Republican proves what exactly?

We all know that you don't really like Newt, that you would never vote for hi, so what is your point other than being an ass?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 6, 2007 10:41 AM

If White is arguing that we should agree with something that Newt said, then he's arguing that Newt is an authority. We may not agree that Newt is an authority, but White now has to accept him as one.

If White isn't arguing that we should agree with Newt, then it's unclear why he posted his "appeal to authority".

So, which is it - is Newt one of White's authorities or was the quote a non sequitor?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 6, 2007 11:40 AM

Bill, quotes from one retired (and I hope he stays that way) from political life Republican proves what exactly?

I see this as being like quoting Michael Moore.

How many times has Moore been used to characterize the Democrats?

We all know that you don't really like Newt, that you would never vote for hi, so what is your point other than being an ass?

Actually, I do like Newt. Far too power hungry and ego-maniacal to ever trust with power, but he is an interesting fellow.

I am also tickled by reports that Newt was receiving oral pleasure from a woman not his wife at the exact same time he was denouncing Bubba for that same behavior.

That does makes Newt a total scoundrel, but an audacious and entertaining one.

In other news, I have read that Rudy Giuliani's daughter had established a My Space space in support of Obama.

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 11:45 AM

Andy Freeman,

I believe Newt can be legitimately cited to establish that there can be legitimate diversity of opinion on how to confront radical Islam. Too often, any criticism of current policy is met with the charge that the critic seeks to empower the global caliphate.

Not so with Goldilocks Bush:

A $1.1 trillion tax cut? Too small.

A $1.5 trillion tax cut? Too big.

A $1.3 trillion tax cut? Just right. Why? Dubya's the Decider.

= = =

120,000 troops? Too few

200,000 troops? Too many

160,000 troops? Just right?

Why? Dubya persuaded some generals to say so.

= = =

Of course, Mitt Romney was EXACTLY right to point out that superior social welfare programs from Hamas and Hezbollah aid their infiltration of various places. But it falls outside the Bush wisdom and therefore must be condemned.

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 11:52 AM

"I see this as being like quoting Michael Moore."

In that case you're an idiot.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 6, 2007 11:58 AM

Yup, Michael Moore better represents Democratic views that a former GOP Speaker of the House represents GOP views.

Okay. Thanks Cecil, got it.

Cheers!

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 12:01 PM

I am also tickled by reports that Newt was receiving oral pleasure from a woman not his wife at the exact same time he was denouncing Bubba for that same behavior.

Despite the continued repetition of this canard (I know, you're a Democrat, so you'll never get it, but I can't allow the lie to be repeated on my web site without correction), he was denounced for: lying under oath, intimidating witnesses, bribing witnesses, suborning perjury, and other manner of obstruction of justice, after having taken an oath to see that the law of the land was faithfully executed. He was also denounced for taking advantage of a young intern with a high disparity of power, something against which he had signed a law with his own pen.

But go on, continue to pretend that it was about nothing except a BJ from someone not his wife. We know you will, along with the rest of the conscienceless liars of your party.

Oh, and in case you wondered, Bill, yes, I am angry that I have to keep rebutting this bull manure on my own web site.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 6, 2007 12:13 PM

Bill Clinton's lies were and are a very serious matter. No argument. Just as Lewis Libby's lies and obstruction of justice were and are a very serious matter.

That said, Newt did often wax poetic on the more lurid aspects of Bill & Monica during that same time period.

The idea that Newt might get -- ahem -- serviced on Saturday night and then go on the Sunday talk shows and carry on about moral values is simply amusing and I do not intend to diminish the damage done to your nation by lying under oath, etc . . .

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 12:19 PM

Correction: "our nation" not "your nation"

And I agree, Clinton's impeachment was not just about a BJ. I didn't think I had said that.

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2007 12:20 PM

Did Libby suborn perjury? Intimidate or bribe witnesses? What justice did he obstruct, since no crime was committed? Oh, that's right, I forgot. You want to go on a fishing expedition to find the hidden conspiracy at the heart of the Joe Wilson's Lies Scandal.

Sorry, but there's no comparison between Clinton and Libby, for all the reasons I already stated.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 6, 2007 12:39 PM

"Michael Moore better represents Democratic views that a former GOP Speaker of the House represents GOP views."

Absolutely!

MM espouses views that most of the democrat party agrees with, but how many other Republicans are saying Bush is "waging a phony war"? None, except maybe Ron Paul.

I don't know where newt stands on many issues anymore, he seems to be all over the spectrum at times.

But one thing is sure:

Michael Moore and the rest of the loons of the extreme left ARE the democrat party.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 6, 2007 01:52 PM

Gosh, who gives a damn what Newt Gingrich has to say on foreign policy? The guy was a modestly effective politician -- in terms of getting elected in the Television Age, not in terms of keeping his coalition in power through effective governing -- but I don't recall anyone ever saying he was some foreign policy wonk.

I mean, quoting Gingrich on geopolitics is indeed like quoting Michael Moore on medicine, inasmuch as neither knows anything about the topic and is pretty much blowing smoke out his ass, pardon my French.

I don't know any broad swath of Republicans who think Gingrich is some serious foreign policy guru. He's not on the foreign policy team of any mainstream Republican candidates, so far as I know.

Does this contrast with Moore and the Democratic Party? Maybe. Hillary sounds alarmingly like she would indeed invite Moore to sit on her national health care policy team. Maybe that's the problem, Bill. Few Republicans think Gingrich is going to dictate President Guiliani's foreign policy, but it seems quite a number of Democrats foresee Michael Moore (or someone like him) directing President Clinton II's domestic health care policy.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 6, 2007 01:54 PM

I can't help but smirk when posters here insist that our dependence on ME oil has nothing to do with this war on terror . No relationship, none at all.

Heh.

Yeah, I know. We are there so we can reconcile the Sunni with the Shia and Oil has nothing to do with it. The messenger from heaven to heal the breach in Islam is US.

I always thought Gingrich was a smart fellow. One wonders what took him so long to figure this out.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 6, 2007 06:18 PM

OK Brainiac,
I can't help but smirk when posters here insist that our dependence on ME oil has nothing to do with this war on terror . No relationship, none at all.

Tell us the correlation. Well tell me anyhow, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I don't see it. Unless it's in the over abundance of cheap gasoline that became available after we went into Iraq.

Guide me oh sage.

Posted by Steve at August 6, 2007 07:03 PM

TNT - Why is it difficult to imagine that while the West's dependence for oil as a fuel for its industry makes it vital that we ensure stability (or at least some safety for the extraction enterprises) there that this has little to do with the war on terror? My earlier post pointed out that the cost for running a terror network does not require petrodollar incomes (a hedge fund manager could do it without cashing in his shares), and it s difficult to see how the West's dependence on oil has INCREASED from the 90's, a period when the war on terror was not even on the radar.

The middle east, with its strategic position, burgeoning population, and yes...oil deposits is a natural place for conflict, something that has been going on for quite a long time. Napoleon's first great defeat occurred in the middle east, and the 'Great Game' was played out in Afghanistan. One needn't assume that the US (or anyone else) needs to be altuistic to see that many vital national interests BESIDES OIL are in play here.

One cannot deny that oil has some impact, but it is at best a necessary, not sufficient cause. If it were otherwise, it is difficult to see how the US would have simply left Saddam to his own devices following the First Gulf War. After all, another president Bush (an oil man, as I remember) with VERY strong ties to the Saudis placed a huge army (much larger than the one sent there in 2003) in 1990/1991, defeated Saddam, and then...left. If Oil was a driving factor in our interest in the region, this behavior is simply inexplicable.

Consider numerous other possible motivations (all debated here in the past, many of which with you participating...) offer a far better explanation not only of present actions, but past ones as well...

Posted by Scott at August 6, 2007 07:12 PM

I can't help but smirk when posters here insist that our dependence on ME oil has nothing to do with this war on terror.

Well then you're a first-class idiot. What, pray, makes oil any more vital an ingredient to national prosperity than the other two dozen commodities we import? Are you under the curious impression that, except for the magic black elixir, the US economy is independent of foreign trade and imports?

Geez, Rip van Winkle, wake up: this is the 21st century, not the 17th. International trade is no longer limited to tiny iron-bound chests of tea and pepper from the Far Indies, hauled agonizedly by clipper ships around the Cape of Good Hope. Enormous quantities of commodities -- oil, yes, plus natural gas, ore and metals, grain, sugar and other foodstuffs, plus huge amounts of machinery and gargantuan amounts of capital flow back and forth. It's laughable to think that oil alone is the tender jugular of the American economy.

Plus anyway the argument is economically vapid, because it ignores the fact that the seller of a good is just as "vulnerable" to a trade disruption as the buyer. More so, in this case: the US can and would use other energy sources in a pinch, but the Middle East has nothing to sell except oil, and no conceivable combination of customers could replace the US.

Finally, gee, I thought Bush was in the pocket of the oil industry and liked keeping us all on edge so he can tap the phones and keep the Marines on permanent deployment? In that case, why on Earth would be want cheap and reliable oil supplies? Did you short the logical consistency mental fuse again? You know that voids your brain's warranty, don't you?

Posted by Carl Pham at August 7, 2007 02:20 AM

Bill, you need to think about "goldilocks Bush" a little here. Because Bush is the President, he is the decider. And of course, he's going claim his decision is the right one.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 7, 2007 07:12 AM

I thought Bush was in the pocket of the oil industry and liked keeping us all on edge so he can tap the phones and keep the Marines on permanent deployment? In that case, why on Earth would be want cheap and reliable oil supplies?

I'm still waiting for "progressive" idealogues to explain this inconsistency. Still haven't heard an answer that is logical. Halliburton makes more money the higher the oil prices, because oil companies need more engineering field services. So how does becoming Imperial Overlords of the Middle East via spilling blood to get cheap oil help Halliburton? How does it help the special interest in Texas trying to sell their oil at high prices?

Posted by Leland at August 7, 2007 08:16 PM

Careful, Leland. Remember all those Star Trek episodes where Captain Kirk pointed out to some robot the logical inconsistencies in its behaviour, and it exploded in a shower of sparks? You want that kind of carnage on your hands?

Posted by Carl Pham at August 8, 2007 06:39 PM

Post a comment