Senator Warner: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here, this strategy. Do you feel that that is making America safer?General Petraeus: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
Warner: Does that make America safer?
General Petraeus: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted this in my own mind. What I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational Iraq. -- an exchange during the recent testimony of General Petraeus before the Senate
A Few More Questions For General Petraeus:
Q.: General, you have not “sat down and sorted this out in [your] own mind.” Does that make sense? Shouldn’t you not merely “accomplish the mission,” but ask yourself if the mission makes sense?
A.: Sir, I don’t know actually. I have to focus on the job I was given.
Q.: But what if the job, what if the mission, does not make sense?
A.: I’d have to think about that long and hard, Senator.
Q.: You have been in Iraq, General Petraeus, for a long time.
A.: Yes.
Q.: You were there in 2003.
A.: Yes.
Q.: You were there in 2004. You were in Tel Afar. You were building up Iraq’s forces. You were allowing American weaponry to be distributed to what were called “Iraqi” forces without much oversight.
A.: I was there, yes, in 2004. In Tel Afar. And elsewhere in the north. There was no time to waste in getting those weapons into what we thought were the proper hands, Iraqi hands, so they could help defend themselves.
Q.: Not all of those hundreds of thousands of weapons did end up in hands that were using them only to defend themselves, were they?
A.: No, sir.
Q.: Where did that weaponry end up? Isn’t it true that some of it ended up on arms markets, sold to the highest bidder, or even ended up in Syria? Isn’t it true that some of those weapons ended up in the hands of people who hate Americans and want to kill them?
A.: Well, Senator, if we are going to worry about that, there are plenty of people in Iraq to hate Americans and would like to see them dead, and if we counted all of those, I’m just not sure, outside of Kurdistan, how many people we would have left to work with.
Q.: General Petraeus, you have a Ph.D. from Princeton, isn’t that true?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: And you have a reputation as being something of a strategic thinker. You wrote a very detailed manual on counter-insurgency. Isn’t that right?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: And in that manual, you suggest there are some helpful rules, some generally-applicable principles, that apply to all counter-insurgencies, and that you think they might be helpful in this case.
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: And one of those rules, or laws or deductions was that, and let’s see if I get this right, that “in general, insurgencies last ten years.” Do I have that right?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: General Petraeus, does that mean that we should be prepared to stay in Iraq for another six years – if the “insurgency” in Iraq lasts the average length of time you say an insurgency does last?
A.: Well, sir, I haven’t given that much thought.
Q.: You haven’t?
A.: No, sir, I’ve been too busy with accomplishing the mission, trying to fulfill the mission.
Q.: General, if I were to tell you that a colonel in the British army had written a study concluding that “in general, civil wars last 4.7 years,” what would you say to that?
A.: I’m not sure I understand, Senator.
Q.: Would you find something a bit doubtful about someone who came to such a conclusion, and who thought further that such a conclusion might be useful?
A.: Yes, Senator, I take your point. There are many variables, of course.
Q.: And one of those variables, the biggest variable of them all, in Iraq is that there is both an insurgency, or many insurgencies, and a civil war, or several civil wars, and in the meantime the Muslim population, whatever it is fighting for or against, is certainly not a friend, and cannot be an ally, of the Americans who are, and will remain, Infidels. Isn’t that right?
A.: I couldn’t say actually. But I see what you are saying, and I think it is something I will have to explore with my advisers.
Q.: Yes, that would be helpful. That would be desirable. Now General, some Congressmen have come back from trips to Baghdad, where they met with you, and have reported that you have said the American forces might have to stay another nine or ten years. Is that true?
A.: I may have given that impression, sir. I talk about what might be or could be, not what necessarily will be.
Q.: So you think it might be necessary, it might make real sense, for the American forces, stretched as they are, with all the damage done to the morale, and to the quality of those forces, that everyone in the Pentagon knows about, you think perhaps it might make sense to keep American forces in Iraq for, as one Congresswoman put it last week, “another nine or ten years”?
A.: Sir, the situation in Iraq is evolving. I really couldn’t say. I’m not trying to evade giving you an answer. I just can’t say.
Q.: What kind of regime, what kind of neighborhood, what kind of welcome, do you think people in Iraq would offer Americans for the next nine or ten years?
A.: I really couldn’t say.
Q.: General, the other day I was disturbed to read the transcript of your answers to the set of questions posed to you about Islam. You apparently have read “parts of the Qur’an” but had not heard of the Hadith or Sira. Is that correct?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: Do you think that in order to discover the mental make-up of the people in Iraq -- I’m not going to call them “Iraqis,” you notice, General -- we might, just might, look into Islam?
A.: That makes sense, sir.
Q,: General, what do the officers and men, the soldiers and Marines, learn about Islam? What are they taught at Fort Jackson and Fort Bragg and Fort Benning before they are in country?
A.: I don’t know, Sir.
Q.: You don’t know?
A.: No, sir.
Q.: Do you think you should find out? Do you think morale might improve, and effectiveness might improve, if the soldiers knew in advance what attitudes they would encounter, and where those attitudes come from?
A.: I don’t know, Sir. I’m not sure that the hostility that they encounter is something we should tell them about in advance. They may not necessarily encounter it. They may have their own experiences.
Q.: But that is the general experience, isn’t it?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: And many soldiers in Iraq have been quoted as saying they find the “Iraqi” soldiers and police untrustworthy, as well as unwilling to take the risks that American soldiers routinely take? Isn’t that true?
A.: Yes, sir. But that doesn’t prevent us from working with them, as in Anbar Province. The success we have had in Anbar Province has been quite remarkable, sir.
Q.: Isn’t that “success” really a function of the local Sunnis wanting American weapons and money – just the way people all over Iraq, including the Shi’a, have wanted to get their hands on American weapons and American money?
A.: To some extent, Sir.
Q.: And isn’t it also a function of the local Sunnis simply resenting the Al Qaeda people who have been so extreme in their behavior, so domineering, that they have made enemies of the Sunnis?
A.: Yes, sir, there is that.
Q.: So it is really no wonder that the local Sunnis would turn on Al Qaeda, which after all was killing anyone who did not follow their orders?
A.: No, sir.
Q.: Not quite a miracle after all. And even if a “miracle,” a purely local one, that has no relevance to other regions, to the Shi’a in Baghdad or in the entire south of Iraq, does it?
A.: That remains to be seen, Sir.
Q.: Does it? Does it remain to be seen by 160,000 American troops? Do they have to experience it for themselves, or can we use the past as any guide? Do we have any reason to think that the Sunnis who are now, as you put it, “working with us” in Anbar Province, will ever acquiesce in the new status of Sunnis in Iraq?
A.: Senator, I don’t think the Sunnis are happy, anywhere in Iraq, with what has happened to their power. Even those who hated Saddam Hussein now claim they miss him, they wish he would come back.
Q.: And do you trust those Sunnis to be allies of Americans, or rather, while they are willing to work with the Americans, do you think they could ever be permanent allies of the Americans?
A.: Sir, I’ve been so busy trying to accomplish the mission that I just haven’t given this thought. I use what I can. The Sunnis in Anbar help defeat Al Qaeda.
Q.: General, some people say that if the American forces withdraw from Iraq, it is dead certain that “Al Qaeda will take over.” President Bush has said as much. And then other people, with the same certainty, tell us that it is undeniable that if we leave then the Shi’a, along with Iran, will take over all of Iraq. The forces of Al Qaeda hate the Shi’a and call them “Rafidite dogs.” The members of Al Qaeda think the Shi’a are not only not real Muslims, but they also play on the notion that any Shi’a in Iraq cannot be a real Arab, must be a Persian. Isn’t that right?
A.: Something like that, Sir. I haven’t studied the matter very closely.
Q.: So how is it that either Iraq will be taken over, definitely, by Al Qaeda, or by its enemy, the Shi’a, backed by Shi’a Iran? Who’s right?
A.: I don’t know, Sir. I haven’t given it any thought.
Q.: No thought? No thought as to what might happen in Iraq if the Americans withdraw?
A.: No, sir. Except that it would result in a bad situation, with lots of instability and fighting.
Q.: Bad for whom, General?
A.: Well, instability is always bad for America, isn’t it?
Q.: Is it, General? Is instability within the Islamic world bad for us? Is open hostility within the Islamic world bad for us? Was the Iran-Iraq War “bad for us,” as you put it, General?
A.: Well, I don’t think that our oil supplies would be as secure.
Q.: General, do you know that during the Iran-Iraq War oil supplies were largely untouched, and the price of oil went down steadily from 1980 to 1988?
A.: No, Senator, I did not.
Q.: General, President Bush has often spoken of bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to -- and these are his words, not mine -- “ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East.” Have you ever had occasion to think about those words, and what Islam teaches about “freedom” and “democracy”?
A.: No, Senator, I have not.
Q.: So, would it or would not surprise you to learn that in Islam men are regarded as merely “slaves of Allah” who must fulfill his will, or endure without complaint even his whim, and that it is not right for mere mortals to think that they know best, and that they can vote in just any government or regime they want, but must always and everywhere do the bidding of Allah?
A.: Well, Senator, that’s a tough question. I just don’t know enough about Islam to comment on that. I do know that I’ve always been taught that the love of freedom is universal, that everyone has that love of freedom, and no one wants to be a slave of anything. That’s why my father fled the Netherlands, and brought his boat here. He didn’t want to live under the Nazi occupation. He loved freedom.
Q.: General, I think many people in the Western world, many people in Western Europe, many people in the Netherlands right now, are worried about whether or not they will live in freedom. But you know, they are worried about a different kind of occupation, a new threat to their freedom. And General, I don’t think we are going about it the right way. I don’t think Iraq is the place to be.
A.: Senator, I don’t know anything about what is going on in the Netherlands today, or the rest of Western Europe. I’m under CentCom.
Q.: General, as you know, the Shi’a Arabs are about 60-65% of the population. So in any “democracy” that we bring them, they are going to win the vote, win power, have the Shi’a rule. Isn’t that right?
A.: Well, I suppose if there is bloc voting you could say that. But if they vote for individuals, that wouldn’t necessarily happen.
Q.: Do you think that in Iraq most people vote as individuals, for individual candidates, and pay no attention to whether those candidates are Sunni Arabs, or Shi’a Arabs, or Kurds?
A.: Senator, during the elections in Iraq I was not part of the Observer Force. I had many other things to do, many other things on my mind. I’ve got a war to fight, I’ve got people to train.
Q.: General, I have some figures here. The war in Iraq has cost a certain amount to date. And there is more to come, even if we were to announce a total withdrawal tomorrow. There is the cost of bringing home all that equipment, for example. Isn’t that right?
A.: Assuming we do bring it all home, yes, Senator.
Q.: Do you think it makes sense to leave that equipment behind, General? Are you quite sure that the mutually hostile groups in Iraq won’t use that equipment in ways that we wouldn’t approve?
A.: No, Senator, I’m not.
Q.: General, on another question, could you tell us how keeping American troops in Iraq has an effect on the Jihad elsewhere in the world?
A.: Sorry, I’m not sure I understand the question.
Q.: Well, in 1970 there were 15,000 Muslims in the Netherlands. And now there are a million. And in some cities in Europe, or parts of the biggest cities, the police do not go, and non-Muslims feel unsafe. And everywhere there are mosques and madrasas going up.
A.: I’m still not sure I understand the question.
Q.: I would like you to tell us what the continued presence of American troops in Iraq, for another year, or another five years, or another ten years, would do to the instruments of Jihad to spread Islam around the world. For example, what effect those American forces would have on the spread of Islam all over the globe? And since Jihad to spread Islam, until it dominates everywhere, and Muslims everywhere rule, is a central duty in Islam, how does our being in Iraq help in the war of self-defense against the Jihad?
A.: Senator, I haven’t really given that much thought. I’ve been focused on the mission.
Q.: General, you have been following the news in Europe, haven’t you?
A.: Well, of course, sir, I try to stay informed.
Q.: And you know that all over the countries of Western Europe there is great alarm over what people have been discovering about the behavior, the attitudes, the beliefs, of their Muslim populations, and it seems the more they find out about Islam, the more worried they become. Are you aware of that?
A.: Well, Senator, not actually. In a general sort of way I know that immigrants always have a tough time adapting.
Q.: Do they now? Did your father, Sixtus Petraeus, have difficulty when he arrived in the United States in 1940, fleeing the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands -- did he have difficulty integrating into American society?
A.: No, Senator, he didn’t.
Q.: General Petraeus, is it possible that an ideology, that is a Total Belief-System, may in fact mold the worldview of those who are taught from infancy to believe in that Total System, and who learn almost nothing outside of what that Total System permits, and who grow up surrounded by family members and others who have never doubted, never been allowed even to be exposed to the doubts expressed by others, that Total System?
A.: I’m not much on ideology, Senator. I’m a kind of hands-on guy. I do my job. And my job is doing the very best I can as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Q.: General, what constitutes fighting a war?
A.: Senator, I would say that what we are doing right now in Iraq constitutes fighting a war. Yes, in Iraq we are fighting a war.
Q.: A war against whom?
A.: Against the terrorists and those who would deliver Iraq over to the terrorists.
Q.: General, do you think Pakistan has been delivered over to the terrorists?
A.: I couldn’t say, Senator.
Q.: What about Saudi Arabia? Has Saudi Arabia been delivered over to the terrorists?
A.: As I understand it, Senator, the Saudis have been doing their utmost to de-program their own homegrown Al Qaeda members -- and we can learn from them.
Q.: Can we? Are you quite sure? And do you know how Saudi Arabia has spent some one hundred billion dollars spreading Islam throughout the Western world?
A.: No, I’m not familiar with Saudi finances, sir. I concentrate on the military aspect of things.
Q.: General, can you tell us why we are in Iraq?
A.: Well, let me put it this way. I am in Iraq to accomplish the mission. I haven’t given much thought as to larger questions. I have a job to do and I am giving it the very best I can.
Q.: I think that about sums it up. This session is adjourned.
Hey the Hildabeast (as Boortz says) had some groovy questions for the General.
He should just take the "Seargent Schultz Defence":
VEE KNOW NOTHING!
VEE being Patreus, Bush, Cheney and the whole lot of Bozos on the Bush Bandwagon. They know nothing. They've learned nothing.
Senator Warner,
General Petraeus is true to his mission in planning to win the fight in Iraq. It is too good for America to have a man of war 100% loyal to his country. This is exactly what he should be, that is to speak honestly. He was unwavering before you, though you wished he would side with your immoral political views.
A good military man will remain loyal to his military duty, unaffected by your political incitement. He ensures the US military succeed in its mission, so that you can enjoy the freedom to smear the reputation of anyone who disagree with you.
The General must truly be loyal to his country in carry out his mission for any Commander in Chief in Whitehouse, regardless of his party affiliation.
Remember, the General is a military man, not a liar like a politician--you in particular.
Senator Warner,
General Petraeus is true to his mission in planning to win the fight in Iraq. It is too good for America to have a man of war 100% loyal to his country. This is exactly what he should be, that is to speak honestly. He was unwavering before you, though you wished he would side with your immoral political views.
A good military man will remain loyal to his military duty, unaffected by your political incitement. He ensures the US military succeed in its mission, so that you can enjoy the freedom to smear the reputation of anyone who disagree with you.
The General must truly be loyal to his country in carry out his mission for any Commander in Chief in Whitehouse, regardless of his party affiliation.
Remember, the General is a military man, not a liar like a politician--you in particular.
"This is exactly what he should be, that is to speak honestly."
posted by ssa
Yeah, Patreus spoke honestly, proving that he doesn't know jack shit!
And the people pulling Patreus'his strings don't know Jack Shit either.
They don't know Jack because they don't Muhammad.
Anybody that supports our invasion of Iraq is completely ignorant about Islam. Anybody on this watch that remains ignorant about Islam is posting and not reading.
Hugh, sounds like a current version of "Murder In the Cathedral"
Another version:
General: Mr. F., have you ever fought a war ?
"No Sir"
General: What is the overriding object in a war ?
"Well that would seem to depend on numerous surrounding circumstances and conditions. First one might look to the parties and their relative strengths, and then one would....
General: Sorry to interrupt you Mr. F., but the overriding objective is victory, and after that we can write perspectives and scenarios and how we could have done it better.
the overriding objective is victory
posted by dgene
Victory in Iraq (in 2 easy steps)
1. Muhammadans decide that Islam in not of primary importance. The Muhammadans emancipate themselves from servitude to Allah and agree to let the earthly will of men guide their way. They enact a constitution that does not give supreme authority to Islam and provides liberty and equal rights to women, Jews, and other religious minorities.
2. Muhammadans renounce their 1400 year sectarian split and Shia and Sunni make up and live peacefully and happily ever after.
===============================================
Anyone interested in a bridge in Brooklyn?
"Anybody that supports our invasion of Iraq is completely ignorant about Islam."
Anybody that would make such a statement is willfully ignorant of the other side of this argument.
Anybody that would make such a statement is willfully ignorant of the other side of this argument.
Okay, I'm all ears. Give me the other side of the argument. Tell me how --be specific--and in what time-frame, we will install a secular and free and unified nation of Iraq composed of freedom-loving, democracy-abiding, secular-oriented Muhammadans.
Oh, yes, tell me, please!!!!
These two questions and answers relate directly to 'at what point, do I disobey orders, they are a trap:
Q.: General, you have not “sat down and sorted this out in [your] own mind.” Does that make sense? Shouldn’t you not merely “accomplish the mission,” but ask yourself if the mission makes sense?
A.: Sir, I don’t know actually. I have to focus on the job I was given.
Q.: But what if the job, what if the mission, does not make sense?
A.: I’d have to think about that long and hard, Senator.
The Gen only has three choices, ignore the question and continue on, admit it makes no sense and mutiny against it, or resign. He chose to continue on. He will continue his military obligation to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. He won't mutiny, so if the mission just makes no sense to him, he should resign his post, which would be a sort of mutiny in his case.
The debate about 'I was just following orders', was settled years ago.
Thinking long and hard about it, is about right.
About as long as it takes to get out the door. It's back to the mission, the only thing that really counts. But that's the way it is with Generals...focused. There may be a time when conscience overwhelms the mission, but that time is not usually recognized by generals.
They are the architects of mass slaughter, conscience is not in their bag of tricks, when the subject is the enemy, or the mission...
Don't expect the General to resign soon...
"General: Mr. F., have you ever fought a war ?
"No Sir"
-- from a posting above
But if "Mr. F." is meant to refer to me, I would answer:
"Yes, sir. I'm fighting one right now, but apparently not in a way that you can understand.
You, and that includes the poster above, who apparently can conceive of war and fighting a war in only one way, that is merely the boots-on-the-ground way that is largely irrelevant to the menace of Jihad as it presents itself today, and a way that furthermore, in the dreamy belief that Islam does not explain the reasons for misrule and inability to compromise in Iraq, when it is Islam, rightly understood, that is the real explanation for what seems to be an American failure but in fact is a permanent Iraqi -- a permanent Muslim -- failure.
That's how I'd answer. So don't put words, and especially not nos when yesses out-yessing Molly Bloom are called for, into my mouth.
Davegreybeard,
I have never seen a written declaration of the "Bush doctrine" by its' namesake anywhere, otherwise I would post it here with this question. But, Norman Podhoretz, the father of neo-conservatism, states the Bush doctrine is as follows in a Front Page mag. interview last week:
"The Bush Doctrine, to simplify, sets forth a two-pronged strategy, one military and the other political, designed to confront the new kind of threat we are now facing. The military component is preemption (because, as the President has said, "if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long") and the political component is democratization (to "drain the swamps" in which Islamofascist terrorism breeds). What I try to show in my book is that there is no other viable way to victory over Islamofascism."
I have no problem with the military-pre-emption prong of the doctrine.
Regarding the second prong though, the democratization prong, in the surge report thread last week you listed an impressive lists of books on Islam that you've read. I would presume then, that you must most know what Islam is, and what is required of one to be considered a faithful muslim. You would probably understand the differences between those activities required and/or permitted under Islamic sharia law and those behaviors permitted in western liberal democracies. Those differences are profound and they are what creates the hostilities between the infidels and the global jihad.
Would you agree that for the Bush doctrine to be successful as far as democratization is concerned, for muslim majority countries, such as Iraq and Iran, "success" would require the wholesale reformation of Islam and, that said reformation, when urged, or demanded by infidels or western politicians such as George Bush (or his his successors) makes said reformation highly impossible?
The pacification of Iraq is a requirement of pax Americana which requires a steady supply of oil to keep us all functioning. Not the profits therefrom, but the continuation of same.
The challenge of islam is a sidebar to this requirement, albeit an important one, and still must be factored in and met.
The reason we cannot leave is that we cannot afford to. Defeat and isolation is not an option.
There is no current substitute for oil in our evonomy. There probably will be, but as of now there isn't.
Without this as the central reality in any discussion, islationism is just smoking funny stuff.
@dgene
Just this once, stop blowing hot air out your ass and READ, READ what Fitzgerald has written.
He smashed that dumb-ass argument of yours about oil to smithereens on a post above.
You could post yourself here:
http://www.prankplace.com/dolls.htm
Ya see...this is one example of where I'm coming from.
Hugh's questions are legit...
Even Warner's questions are legit...
Why?
Because they ask them for the RIGHT reasons, under honest and forthcoming auspices, which is a far cry from those of the sock puppets who do are disengenuous, have their own personal hate-filled and predisposed agenda that is anything BUT honest, forthright and straight forward...like these scumbag socialists who are simply against anything that doesn't tow their own militant socialist party line, and are themselves sock puppets-in-projection:
http://www.imao.us/archives/008686.html
...and have no reason to call anyone anything derogatory, especially considering who owns them (admitted by their own words)...
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/14/no-lets-not-move-on/
who are influenced by fraudulent "experts" who aren't, such as...
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDljOTA3YTJkNmFmYzFkYjRiNjBiNzE0YzI5NTk2NDY=
(they REALLY freaked out over that one, not because he was exposed as a fraud, like william arkin at msnbc was, but because he was exposed, period)
their actions of attack, even before they even saw the preview page of the report (which is a big clue of their own agenda), which is outright TREASON (same thing they've accused all non-lefties of, again, projectionistic narcissism)
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
There was no excuse for this kind of behavior...at all...and worst of all...
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/10/showdown-in-the-senate-petraeuscrocker-testimony/
for such scumbags to allow this (and that was not by accident, either...they REFUSED to clear the neanderthals, INTENTIONALLY) shows where they're coming from, and it sure as hell isn't from a standpoint of honest inquiry, but that of towing a party line (party above common sense), which is that very same brownshirted political correctness that is killing us.
That's the big difference between people who do so for the right reasons,
like Hugh
and Sen Warner,
and those militant lunatic socialists masquerading as civilized Americans, and are NOT, and are sock puppets themselves (admitted to by their own peers!).
Despite the shortcomings, and there are plenty of them, I'll put my life and safety on a man who's served under both party administrations, who went above that as his country mattered more to him than this militant socialist setup,
than that of the politically correct brownshirts who made a mockery of real civility, and whose PC-moronathon is killing us worse than the enemy is.
Their actions were despicable, period...and all the spin in the world won't excuse that kind of treachery.
"know thine enemy"...from within as well as from without.
...and to get around georgeie "the capo" soros attempts at avoiding quotes of his own project...
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
(the first one didn't work)
beyond disgusting in anyones book.
lame try, capo...lol
doodl2,
Can't help noting when people refuse to be civil and reason or question, they become abusive.
We run on oil. Apart from immigration, it is what has given these islamists whatever purchase on the West that they have.
We have to beat them or coopt them or neutralize them the best we can.
Whatever disagreements one has with GWB, this poster admires him for his steadfastness in what is seen as the right war.
Disagree then.
Do the world not run and depend on oil at present ? Is or is not the supply of Iraqi and other ME oil vital to world commerce ?
Does or does not America have a vital interest in the ME for that reason ?
"There is no current substitute for oil in our economy. There probably will be, but as of now there isn't.
Without this as the central reality in any discussion, islationism is just smoking funny stuff."
-- from a poster, changing the subject when asked to discuss other matters
1. There is "no current substitute for oil." And? What about it? The oil-producing countries sell oil, and will continue to sell oil. They need, you see, the money. And at any point, we can dampen demand by merely taxing ourselves, and they know it. And we can continue to raise taxes on the use of oil and, especially, gasoline, and thereby continue to suppress demand and also encourage the development of other sources of energy, and other ways of living (telecommuting, increased use of mass transit, and so on).
There is NO oil weapon. There never was. Those who have been led to believe that the Arabs and other Muslims (e.g., Iran) possess such a weapon are ignoring the total reliance of oil-producers on oil revenues, and are ignoring the failure of those countries to produce anything else of value, whether goods or services. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that historically, even in October 1973, there was a great deal of sound and fury but, as J. B. Kelly showed conclusively in his exhaustive "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West" there was no real oil embargo for political reasons, but only as a way to make sure the quadrupling of oil prices was accepted uncomplainingly, even fearfully. The United States and the Netherlands, regarded as pro-Israel, received more oil compared to before than did both England and France, considered pro-Arab.
The myth of an Oil Weapon requires one to accept the Arab huffing-and-puffing, and the Western hirelings of the Arabs who, themselves profiting from what might be called the Money Weapon, kept saying that the Arab oil producers had to be placated, then and since, for they could do this, and they could do that. It's all nonsense, and the sooner this is fully understood by everyone, including the poster above, the better for the West.
2. "Isolationism" is raised as a bogeyman. What nonsense. Who here, in deploring the squandering of resources in Iraq, has preached "isolationism"? Do you think those who want the United States to intervene in the Sudan, or should it come it, on the side of the Christians should they attempt to become independent in Nigeria, are the recommendations of "isolationists"?
And it has been pointed out many times at this website that that the main theatre of that permanent war that Islam mandates between Believer and Infidel, is Western Europe. The American government, having failed to identify the problem correctly, and having also failed to recognize that the deployment of the three main instruments of Jihad -- not "terrorism" but, rather, Da'wa, the Money Weapon, and demographic conquest -- seems determined to stick to a policy that, if one examines it without any parti pris, simply makes no sense. For whatever happens in Iraq will not stop, in any way, those campaigns of Da'wa, that deployment of the Money Weapon, that steady demographic conquest. Or rather, if the American presence continues, which itself becomes the focus of world-wide attention and dismay, even if those doing the dismaying are not even quite certain what it is they are so dismayed about, the date of American, and general, understanding of the problem is delayed, a delay that might prove fatal. We can't dither any longer. A terrible mistake was made. It should now be recognized, and the troops withdrawn, and the natural forces of disarray and chaos that will strengthen, but never quite get out of hand, first in Iraq, and then, to a certain extent -- but let's not exaggerate, please -- will continue to simmer and cause headaches and expenditures of money and volunteers and war materiel and attention, by various Muslim states, and that is a bad thing for them, and a good thing, a highly desirable thing, for us.
Hugh,
When I invite someone over to my house for cocktails and conversation, if they make a statement with which I disagree, with an open mind I try to be sympathetic to their opinion yet state my own view. We may then engage in a bit of respectful back and forth. It could be that they are right or at least may provide a new way of understanding the issue at hand. Mostly, however, I try not to insult them by referring to their opinions as nonsense and then speaking down to them for the remainder of the evening.
That tends to ruin the party.
Yes, it is true that in polite company, talking of this and that, one does have to bite one's tongue, or turn away wrath with a soft answer, or even "in tragic conversations, learn to joke, learn to be silent."
But this is not an occasion where I have been invited to someone's house, or someone has been invited into the privacy of my house. It is a site of public pedagogy -- call in Chatauqua-on-the-Internet, and the topics are on and about Jihad and dhimmitude. There is some time off for occasional play -- running around at recess, and then naptime -- but that play must remain well-mannered and literate and of value.
This site is not akin to that private party. I have been invited nowhere, and have not invited anyone to visit my house, in which case one can be sure those I would invite would, save on rare mistaken occasions, not be the kind of people whom I would have to politely listen to and feign agreement or hide the extent of my disagreement.
Posters been invited to participate beyond merely reading, but only under certain conditions. Not everyone fulfills those conditions. If they wish to post, they should be mindful of both form and content (google "Hugh Fitzgerald" and "Verbal Decorum"). They should stay on point, and not, for example, engage in theological discussions with one another (google "Hugh Fitzgerald" and "What Is This Site For"). And if they wish to post, the price of entry is that a would-be poster should have been paying attention, and if something he maintains has been repeatedly answered, and is now unanswerable, he cannot keep coming back with the same complatin And part of that participation requires that they pay attention. If, not once, not a dozen times, not a hundred times, but nearly a thousand times, out of about eight or nine thousand postings, the same arguments must be given to those who did not appear here yesterday, and who have been answered at tedious length many times before, then one has a time to be a tad...irritable.
And I find that altogether too many people are just too damn time-wasting being too nice and too tolerant and too understanding of each other, being "good guys" when the situation requires a little less solicitude for whether or not one will be considered a fellow pleaser, a member of the racket (the political racket, the lecture-circuit racket of "experts" on this or that, name your racket), someone who won't rock too many boats or let down the side by smiting even those who seem -- but only seem -- to be on the "same team." No, I'm not having it.
If you google "Jihad Watch" and "oil weapon" and "Posted by Hugh" you will begin to get a small sampling of the many times this problem has been addressed.
When nonsense is spouted, I tend now -- perhaps my advanced age of 98 has something to do with it -- to call it nonsense. Time's a-wasting.
IYou suggest that sweetness and light go together. I suggest there is altogether too much sweetness in public discussions, and not nearly enough light. Mehr licht is my motto, and unlike Goethe, I'm not waiting for my deathbed to dyingly declare it.
As for those classes in Emily Post Etiquette, in dancing and French and deportment you suggest I need -- well, I've been there. I've done that. Apparently the lessons didn't stick sufficiently to please everyone. Tant pis.
Let's see if I get this right. Mr. Fitzgerald objects to having words put in his mouth, right after his essay putting words into General Petraeus's mouth. Hm.
The Fitzgerald argument has many strong points, which must be evident to anyone paying attention to world affairs, and educated by JW/DW about the militant nature of Islam. Yes, the Bush administration has failed to protect the border; has whitewashed Islam; has unrealistic expectations of the transformation of Muslim societies without the unconditional surrender and thorough reconstruction that we imposed on the Axis at the end of WW2; etc. Agreed! But -
Speaking of WW2, let me put the Fitzgerald proposal - as I understand it - in context, and please tell me where I misunderstood or drew the wrong conclusions. 65 years ago, we would have argued as follows: Hitler and Stalin are natural enemies (true); they will fight each other (true); they will kill millions of each other's people (true), thereby weakening two mortal enemies of the free world, national socialism and international socialism (true); thus leaving them too weak to endanger us (false), fight us (false), or weaken and shrink the free world (false). The analogy bears up, I think, since we have had continual terrorism and jihad from the dar al-Islam, no matter the degree of internecine warfare.
I agree 100% that I'm not interested in Iraqi freedom, and - Secretary Powell - if you break it, you don't have to buy it. All I want to know is this - is it at all helpful to our national interest to have troops in Iraq, mowing down al-Qa'ida, pacifying (killing) their allies, protecting those who risked their lives helping us, and - yes - keeping the world's second largest oil reserve out of the hands of Iran and al-Qa'ida? Right now, the answer is yes. Yes particularly now, when military action against Iran seems imminent. Such action could lead to dramatic changes in Syria as well, one may hope. Fianlly - wishful thinking - what a great base from which to overthrow the house of Saud... If this changes, then let's get out.
Hugh,
Dont say there is an oil weapon.
Do say that the world economy cannot withstand a disruption in supply.
One of the main reasons why Iran is not bombed forthwith is their threat to close the Straits of Hormouz. One of the main reasons not to leave Iraq is the question of who fights who and in fights for supremacy burns or sabotages the oil fields (what did Saddam do in retreating ? Didn't he understand exactly where the rubber met the road in threats or blackmail. He fired up the wells in retaliation)
It is the supply that must be protected.
Not to keep this vital interest central in discussions of the fight against islam, is to be short sighted and open to defeat.
We cannot disengage without victory, and not just a declared one. One might criticize the deficiency of violence on our part in the conduct of the war more than our being in it.
It's the right war.
Hugh,
Granted, it's a tough job. That's why Martha Stewart never smiles.
Thanks again for a great time.
"Mr. Fitzgerald objects to having words put in his mouth, right after his essay putting words into General Petraeus's mouth. Hm."
-- from a posting above
There is a difference. Everyone knows that I was putting words into General Petraeus's mouth. They were meant to be verisimilar, and to be telling --telling, that is, about how narrowly Petraeus views his mission, or has allowed himself, to our common dismay and distress, to view his mission. But I am not "putting words" in his mouth the way others are, in fact, doing to me, by attributing to me not only certain views, but views that are not verisimilar at all, nor of any pedagogic value, and are in fact views that I do not hold,a and I said so.
All I want to know is this - is it at all helpful to our national interest to have troops in Iraq, mowing down al-Qa'ida, pacifying (killing) their allies, protecting those who risked their lives helping us, and - yes - keeping the world's second largest oil reserve out of the hands of Iran and al-Qa'ida? Right now, the answer is yes.
--posed by Surak
Is it helpful to our national interest to wage a war without end, without achievable victory, at an annual cost of 300 Billion Dollars?
Is it helpful to our national interest to adjudicate a sectarian blood fest that has been waged incessantly for 1400 years?
Is it helpful to our national interest to prop up one special-interest, sectarian syndicate, after another, when, in the final analysis, the geopolitical supremacy of Saudi Arabia or Iran is the only outcome of consequence and uncertainty.
That America will lose is inevitable.
Why?
Because Muhammadans are NOT our allies. Not now. Not ever.
For Senator Warner to think that a gentleman, a soldier and a commander of such stature was going to bite on that putrid bait was pure folly. It was entertaining to watch, as I knew exactly how he would answer.
General Petraeus answered that question just as he should have. To ask him to speculate about anything beyond his responsibility was simply naive and purely an attempt to score political points.
Soldiers, especially those serving in the United States Armed Forces, regardless of their rank, take orders from others. They view their role as narrowly as is necessary for them to accomplish their assignment. They do not make policy.
Would we want things any other way?
"All I want to know is this - is it at all helpful to our national interest to have troops in Iraq, mowing down al-Qa'ida, pacifying (killing) their allies, protecting those who risked their lives helping us, and - yes - keeping the world's second largest oil reserve out of the hands of Iran and al-Qa'ida? Right now, the answer is yes. Yes particularly now, when military action against Iran seems imminent. Such action could lead to dramatic changes in Syria as well, one may hope."
-- from a posting above
When you ask plaintively "is it at all helpful to our national interest to have troops in Iraq" then I suppose many would say, yes, hard to deny that it might be "at all helpful" to, as you put it, have those troops "mowing down al-Qaida" but I deny it.
And note how loaded is your presentation. According to you, American troops are in Iraq"mowing down Al-Qaida." How many Al-Qaida members have been killed? Shall we guess? What do you think? Would the figure of 20,000 members of Al Qaida in Iraq be one we could agree on? What does that mean, when those 20,000 are endlessly replaceable from the world-wide ranks of 1.2 billion Muslims? And if the war in Iraq has now cost, in past, present, and committed future costs (chiefly lifetime care for the seriouslly wounded), $880 billion, which is more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has fought, what does that work out to per mowed-down Al-Qaida member?
Let's do the math. I get a figure of $44 million per each of those mowed-down endlessly replaceable Al-Qaida members. What do you get? Let's change the figures. Let's say that not 20,000 members of Al-Qaida in Iraq have been killed (by the way, that figure is a generous one, given the fact that at any one time the total number of Al-Qaidia in Iraq members, admittedly replaced as some die or are wounded, never gets higher than 10,000), but rather 40,000 are "mowed down" (that's not exactly the way it happens -- this is not fighting the Fuzzy-Wuzzies in Khartoum, nor human waves of fanatical basiji from Iran). In that case, it is only costing us, Americans who are just in the first and largely uncomprehending stage of an endless -- but manageable -- war, with a containable enemy, if we keep our wits about us -- merely $22 million per mowed-down Al-Qaida member. And each of them can be replaced at a moment's notice. Is this an intelligent use of American money, and lives, and materiel, and military and civilian morale, simply because you tell us that it cannot be denied that it is "at all helpful to our national interest."
But even that tepid endorsement by you -- I can imagine the speech now --"Yes, my fellow Americans, let's not cut and run, let's not leave Iraq, because who can deny that this effort 'is at all helpful to the national interest.'" Not exactly overwhelmingly persuasive, is it?
You then say that those troops are there to "protect those who risked their lives helping us." Is that why they are there? In that case, had the troops never come in the first place, no would would have "risked his life helping us" and, therefore, there would be no need now to "protect" them? Is that what you maintain? Or if you do not maintain that, do you think the troops really are selectively there to "protect those who risked their lives helping us"? And by the way, if that is what is being done, how successful has it been? How many of those who served as translators or, for that matter, cleaning staff on American bases, indeed have been well-protected, and how many have been killed or fled the country?
You know perfectly well that the Americans are not there to selectively protect the handful --mostly Christians, or Kurds -- who actually "risked their lives helping us" -- let's not exaggerate their numbers by the way, nor ignore the mixed motives (those cleaning ladies, for example, and some of those translators, were working because the pay was good, and not because they had an overwhelming desire to help the Americans whatever it cost).
That would be enough. But there is more. I flatly disagree with even your comically mild claim in the form of a plaintive query ("is it all helpful..."). I think it is not helpful to American national interest, rightly conceived, to continue to squander men, money, materiel, morale, and to do so in the service of a goal that is the exact opposite of the one which would indeed further the American national interest, and the interests of all Infidels threatened, as they all are, by the menace of Jihad. When you can use the weaknesses and divisions that the enemy camp presents on a plate, you should do so. God knows the Muslims and Arabs do so, in Western Europe, as they have played to, exploited, encouraged, those two pre-existing mental pathologies -- antisemitism and anti-Americanism -- in order to split the peoples of Western Europe from their natural civilizational allies, the Americans.
I deny that it is "at all helpful to American national interest" to remain in Iraq. I deny that it was "at all helpful to American national interest" to remain in Iraq once two things had occurred: first, that the country was scoured for weapons of mass destruction, and any programs disrupted that might in the future have led to the acquisition of such weaponry; second, that the regime of Saddam Hussein was permanently ended by killing or capturing him, his two sons, and most of the cards who were part of that inspired deck used by the Americans to play Fifty-Two Pick-Up.
Both were accomplished within a year of the invasion. By late February, or at most March 2004, the American government should have made plans to leave, certainly by mid-summer 2004. It would have saved some $700 billion dollars. It would have saved some 3000 lives. It would have husbanded civilian and military morale, for the long war -- the endless war -- that is to come. It would not have led to the troops being demoralized (at least, those young officers who have left the service, including fully half of the West Point graduates who are eligible to leave, not to mention the members of the Reserves and the National Guard who, being older than the soldiers in the regular army, and less inclined to be quite so dutiful or unquestioning in their obedience and acceptance of policy, are not only far less likely to re-enlist or urge others to enlist then they would have in the past, but even the soldiers in the regular army – if we are to judge by the anecdotal evidence provided by reporters in Iraq – are fed up with “the Iraqis” and “the mission” and the whole thing – not all, of course, but a number too significant for intelligent generals to think they can ignore).
No, Tarbaby Iraq is a fiasco when, if only the Americans withdrew, it could be, would be, the very “victory” that the Administration has defined so wrongly.
America has pre-paid for, in every way, that victory and deserves to have it. It can only have it if the forces of disequilibrium and internecine warfare within the Camp of Islam are allowed to be given free play.
I want that "victory" that will inevitably come from what will happenwhen the pre-existing fissures within Iraq are allowed to develop, and without the Americans needing to do anything to encourage them, requiring them only to cease doing what they are doing now, at such great expense and heartache and frustration.
I want that "victory." We deserve that American "victory." We deserve to reap the benefits of the incredible effort so far, the benefits that will result from those fissures that will divide and demoralize and weaken the Camp of Islam, and not only in Iraq.
It's hard to have allies who are so similar to one's enemies.
Who are the good guys? The ones with the white kefiyyehs.
Very interesting reading. But so far, the analogy I posted above has not yet been denied:
"65 years ago, we would have argued as follows: Hitler and Stalin are natural enemies (true); they will fight each other (true); they will kill millions of each other's people (true), thereby weakening two mortal enemies of the free world, national socialism and international socialism (true); thus leaving them too weak to endanger us (false), fight us (false), or weaken and shrink the free world (false). The analogy bears up, I think, since we have had continual terrorism and jihad from the dar al-Islam, no matter the degree of internecine warfare."
This is the hope on which the whole Fitzgerald program turns. (I do not mean to mock this set of views by misnaming it, and I acknowledge it comprises a complex set of proposals ranging from strategic to diplomatic to energy and so on, but in the interests of brevity I call it "the Fitzgerald program", after its most loquacious advocate.) What happens if we leave Iraq and the dar al-Harb continues to be attacked by the dar al-Islam? Now we have a foothold right in the middle of the region. A countrywide land base gives us more clout than two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf.
Thoughts?
DGENE
Your own arguments expose your faulty logic. You say that the two main objectives of this war in are the pacification of Iraq for the securing of our supply of oil.
Yet Bush has consistently defined "Victory" in Iraq as the achieving of a stable democratic Iraq-not merely the pacification of that country. And he never mentions oil.
If Bush were pressing to simply pacify Iraq and secure our supply of oil, many of us would be behind this war a hundred percent-these are well-defined and achievable goals.
But a stable, functioning democratic Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors? That is truly the Dream Palace of the Neo-cons.
"Islam is just a sidebar..."
Have you understood nothing?
"What happens if we leave Iraq and the dar al-Harb continues to be attacked by the dar al-Islam? Now we have a foothold right in the middle of the region. A countrywide land base gives us more clout than two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf.
-- from a posting above
Well, for god's sake, how can you even ask if, when we leave Iraq (and we will leave it, either after much greater expense and frustration and heartache, or with less, depending on how soon we leave), "what happens"? No one need doubt that "dar al-Harb" will "continue to be attacked by dar al-Islam"? Who ever argued otherwise? Who at this website ever suggested that somehow the removal of American forces from Iraq would lead to an end to what, it has been noted, is not a temporary phenomenon, not a response to "modernism" or the "problem of coming to grips with modernity" but is, rather, simply the classic duty of Jihad, updated -- with new instruments made possible, in large part, by Infidel negligence, Infidel incuriosity as to Islma -- for the new and dismal age in which we live. Of course that will continue. But at least the silly idea that we can somehow minimize the Jihad by bringing "democracy" (defined in the merely head-counting manner, with none of the guarantees for the rule of secular law, or rights of minorities, or great solicitousness for the autonomy of the individual, that characterize advanced Western democracies and are unthinkable in Iraq or any other truly Muslim country), will have ended. At least, once heads have cleared, and people will stop being mesmerized by Tarbaby Iraq, they will be able to survey the scene more comprehensively, and begin to understand that the war (even Bush says it is in large part an "ideological war" but then he forgets or never knew what that "ideology" is -- apparently he thinks it has something to do with some people who misuse or misinterpret Islam and if only "freedom" -- as defined by the Bush Administration -- is somehow transplanted into the midst of the Middle East, that will change Jihad, or cause it to wither away), that is the war to spread Islam until it everywhere dominates, is merely a continuation of what has gone on, whenever it proved possible to conduct it (that is, where the wherewithal existed on the Muslim side), for some 1350 years. Tarbaby Iraq stands in the way. Tarbaby Iraq offers a false hope, based on a false analysis, and false intelligence. It is wrong, wrong, wrong for America, and for other Infidels, every which way.
Now as to the second part. That "countryside land base" that "gives us more clout." Does it? How hard is it, at what expense in lives, that can be expected to increase as we are left alone, as the British cease to guard the southern route, as the Italians and the Poles pull out, and only the symbolic units, along with the Australians, are left as part of that famous "coalition" which has always been 98% American. What is it that all these other countries know about the famous "oil supply"? What is it that China, that is just as dependent on oil, that makes it supremely indifferent to the outcome in Iraq, save for the delight of Chinese leaders at the amazing capacity of the American government to waste its resources, to think that it, and it alone -- if one accepts its premises about the "catastrophe" and "chaos" that might ensue were it to leave Iraq -- has to fight, and spend nearly a trillion dollars, in order to keep that oil flowing, that Middle East calm (and once again it is worth recalling that from 1980 to 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, the price of oil went steadily down.
You talk of "clout." "Clout" to do what? To threaten Iran, or to be threatened by Iranian agents and local Iraqi collaborators of Iran? Do you think that if the Americans decide to bomb those nuclear installations, that those American troops in Iraq are going to be doing that bombing, or will it be planes from afar rather than from Tel Afar, and missiles from farther still, including those intercontinental ballistic missiles that at long last may be put to beneficent use?
"Bases" in Iraq are to be placed where? In Anbar Province, to be subject to the whims of the Sunnis, including those "tribes" we hear so much about, but which remain just as hostile to the Americans, in the long run, as they were before they made a deal by which they would graciously accept as much American money and weaponry as they could possibly wheedle out of us, and use some of it, no doubt, to attack the local forces of Al-Qaeda about whom they had had a change of heart, not because of anything the Americans said or did, but only because the foreign members of Al-Qaeda treated the local Sunnis with contumely. Or do you foresee those bases in the areas controlled by the Shi'a, Shi'a who, pari passu with the American outreach to the Sunni tribes, are becoming less enthusiastic about keeping the Americans around to do their fighting for them, and to keep shelling out the dough, and may now have concluded that the Americans have definitely outstayed that short-lived welcome and should go, go quickly, go so quickly that they are forced to leave a lot of that much-coveted equipment behind? Or do you think those "bases" that will give us such "clout" will be placed in Kurdistan? And if so, how do you think they will be resupplied? Will it be all the way up, in convoy after vulnerable convoy, through southern Iraq, and then through Baghdad or possibly Anbar Province or Diyala Province?
Or do you think those bases will be just fine in Kurdistan? Do you think that Turkey, which did not allow the Americans to use their own American bases to launch an attack on Iraq, by a fourth division coming from the north, will now allow the Americans to resupply their bases in that completely autonomous Kurdistan? And how close is that northern area to the Iranians, and what is the likelihood of Iranian agents, including possibly Iranian Kurds of the Mullah Krekar Ansar al-Sunna variety, whose Islamic identity has overwhelmed their Kurdish one, or who, as Kurds, try to be plus islamiste que les islamistes, that is to say the Arabs?
Tell us about the costs and benefits of continuing to have an American presence in Iraq?
Of course there is one place where American bases would have made sense, and might have been obtained, had someone other than the hideous Carter and Brzezinski been in charge at the time. When Saint Sadat was in full media flower, and the Israelis were being hectored and beaten about by Carter and Brzezinski (to the enthusiastic smiles of, inter alios, the so-called "Jewish community" that felt the Camp David Accords were simply splendid, and Peace Was At Hand), had those who understood Islam been in the Pentagon pr the State Department or in the National Security Agency, they might have suggested that the Americans demand that Israel give up the Sinai not to Egypt (most of the Sinai became part of Egypt only in the 1920s, as everyone forgets or never knew), but rather to them, the Americans, and those three advanced airbases that the Israelis built (and from one of which they still possessed at the time of the attack on the Osiris reactor, and it was from that Sinai airbase that the attack was launched) would then have become permanent American property.
And what would Egypt have gotten out of the deal? Oh, Egypt would have gotten a fantastic gift. Though a Muslim country, and deeply anti-American, it would nonethelss have received huge sums of money by way of rental -- nearly $2 billion a year. And that would certainly have satisfied the Egyptian government.
But how silly of me. I almost forgot. Of course. The American government did start an aid program for Egypt at the time, to "reward" it for agreeing to receive the entire Sinai, complete with those oilfields discovered by the Israelis, and those airbases built by the Israelis, and all the rest of that expensive infrastructure built by the Israelis, including that resort of Sharm el-Sheik that has been such a money-maker for Egypt.
But guess what? The Americans forgot to ask for the long-term lease that they had every right to demand, had they mentioned to Egypt the little matter of the fact that Egypt's claim to the whole Sinai is quite recent, and that Israel had a solid claim, the same kind of claim that allowed Italy to be given defeated Austria's Sudtirol after World War I, or to give Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia, and other countries that were victims of the Nazis to retain either what had been land in the possession of the German state, or of communities of Volksdeutsche, as in the Sudetenland.
No, Egypt -- not our "ally" -- received not only the entire Sinai, with those airbases, but also $60 billion, and counting, from American taxpayers, though it remains one of the most viciously anti-American countries in the world today, that sentiment fanned constantly by the Egyptian press, radio, and television.
Those are the only airbases that the Americans could truly have relied on -- not counting, of course, the airbases that Israel possesses, and that it uses, when necessary, with such admirable aplomb, in feats of derring-do that are a service to the United States and to the entire Infidel world, though much of that Infidel world shows not gratitude, but malevolence, toward this tiny, permanently imperilled, endlessly resourceful, and limitlessly brave old-new land.
I think Hugh's opinions are given a lot of credibility by observing Israel's learning process over the years. In a way, our Iraq foray is somewhat analogous to Israel's 1982 Lebanese invasion, which was an attempt to both smash the PLO as well as to help Lebanon be consolidated by moderate, anti-jihadist forces. It failed in the later, broader ambition.
Since then, Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon completely, as well as Gaza, and much of the West Bank, in an attempt to limit the exposure of soldiers and civilians to jihadist attack, no shorten their lines of supply, and be free to use air power, a technology they have an edge in, at their discretion. While this strategy has many holes in it, it has led to reduction of casualties and often given the IDF the advantage. It also, dramatically so in Gaza, has led to a lot of internecine conflict among the Muslims. The biggest rap against it is that it is seen as, and is, retreat, which is considered weakness, and that's a dangerous posture vis a vis the jihadis.
I understand that Bush is reluctant to appear weak, but then putting our troops in a position to be blown up by IEDs is not exactly strong, or smart.
The analogy suggested above does not hold up.
Iraq is far from the United States, and presents no threat of shelling, or launching of missiles, from its territory onto the territory of the United States. Gaza and Lebanon are right on Israel's doorstep. And the fissures that you describe within Gaza, at least, are not sectarian but rather, one between those who want the tap of Infidel aid re-opened, and kept wide open, because as Fatah, or the PLO, or the Worldly Party of Corruption they have long experience in such stealing of aid money, and those who, more fanatic in their faith, and eager for the FastJihad, and unwilling to make the cosmetic compromises (putting on suits, looking solemnly like what they think Western "technocrats" and accountants must look like) of the Slow Jihadists of Fatah -- differing that is only on tactics and timing, and not on ultimate goals.
There were reasons for leaving Lebanon, but it was pusillanimous and silly to abandon the SLA (South Lebanon Army). And there were reasons to leave Gaza, but one forgets that Gaza, Arab-ruled Gaza under the P.A., had been left more than a decade ago. The only thing new was the forced removal of Israeli villagers (the ones called "settlers" to make them seem to be intruders when some of those Jewish villages predate the founding of the state of Israel, and all of them are not only licit under the Palestine Mandate, but according to that Mandate were to be actively encouraged by Great Britain, as mandatory authority ("encourage close Jewish settlement on the land" -- see the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine).
I'd use analogies sparingly in this case. They almost never fit, or fit as badly as does that silly example of "peace-making" in Northern Ireland supposedly holding out hope for similar "peace-making" between Jews and Arabs. That's the kind of thing Tony Blair likes to think, likes to say. It makes no sense. Whatever the Catholics of Northern Ireland desire, they do not desire to see Great Britain destroyed. They do not have powerful allies who think exactly as they do, and surround Great Britain, and threaten it, and conduct diplomatic and economic war incessantly against it. Nor do either the Catholics or the Protestants of Northern Ireland represent the local shock troops of a gigantic world-wide effort to seize back any and all lands once in Muslim control, and to remove all the obstacles to the spread of Islam everywhere else so that they, too, will fall -- as by right they must, they should -- to the forces of Islam, and will become part of Dar al-Islam, where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule.
Some of the comments above suggest that not everyone realizes that only the initial paragraph is real. The rest of the questions were never asked of General Petraeus, and the answers are verisimilar conjectures. The piece is designed to expose the folly of the "mission" in Iraq, and the folly of those who are so busy fulfilling that self-defeating and senseless "mission" as to ignore the larger picture, not only in the Middle East, but around the world.
After that real exchange with Senator Warner, an unidentified "Senator" begins to ask questions. They are my questions. No real Senator asked such questions, and General Petraeus did not answer them. I asked those questions, and I composed those answers. Please make of it not what you will, but what one despairing over the policy in Iraq would make of it.
Hugh,
The point of my bringing up Israel was more that there has been a tendency to try and disengage, to avoid presenting a target via boots on the ground. Obviously, there are big differences.
President Roosevelt, can you tell us why we are in North Africa? After all it is the Japanese who attacked us. And North Africa is so far away as to be ridiculous. Why attack the innocent North Africans for what the Japanese do?
In otherwords, Hugh, in addition to knowing Islam cold it might help for you to learn something about military tactics and strategy. The optimum route to a destination is not always a straight line. To get from say Eat Los Angels to Las Vegas by automobile requires a considerable detour along the way even if you are driving a humvee.
And rather than Petraeus I'd like to see a President who is more aware of the Mohammedan radical mind set and the origins of that mind set. Then the Petraeus type people in the military can be aimed with greater precision.
We're there. It is best we cope with it lest we have to cope with the mess that results from our premature withdrawl. I see a premature withdrawl leading ultimately to a global nuclear war, which will do nobody any good. The real win is to expose the religion as a fraud imposed on gullible Arabs by an epileptic conman who could not even keep his stories correct. And that those conflicting stories also conflict with what we have learned about the world that is at odds wit Allah's declarations.
{^_^}
"it might help for you to learn something about military tactics and strategy."
-- from a posting above
I see. So there are no generals, no colonels, no majors, no captains, in the American army, who have served or are now serving in Iraq, who think the continued presence of American troops in Iraq to be damaging the quality, and the readiness and ability to fight elsewhere, of the American military? And your telling me, because I keep arguing that a withdrawal from Iraq is the only way to win the only kind of "victory" that makes sense -- a weakening of the Camp of Islam, that I should "learn something about military tactics and strategy," presumably applies as well to such people as Major General Batiste, who served as a general in Iraq? And it includes all those other officers who have deplored, but quietly, because they are currently serving, the "surge" and the rest of the "strategy" that is being pursued by those who have apparently been unable to take a moment from their busily "fulfilling the mission" to think about the instruments, and menace, of Jhad world-wide, and therefore cannot conceivably begin to think of Iraq and what kind of outcome there -- an unsentimental outcome, a ruthless outcome -- would cause the most damage to that Camp of Islam (hint: "the forward strategy of freedom" of which some prate is not the way).
And not just the generals, but all those colonels and majors and captains, and indeed all those soldiers and Marines who have experienced the meretriciousness, the hopeless hostility toward others not of the same tribe or group, of those Bush keeps calling "the Iraqis" or, still worse, "the Iraqi people," some of whom serve now, and some of whom have simply left the army altogether, never to return, diminishing its future quality.
And not just the generals and the colonels and the majors and the captains, but others lower down, such as the seven soldiers now serving in Iraq who wrote that celebrated article that appeared a few weeks ago in The Times, clearly criticising those who suppored a continued American presence in Iraq -- or should I correct myself to write the "five soldiers" because two of them have since been killed, or should I write "the four soldiers" because one of them was shot in the head after co-writing the article?
And not just military men, but also civilians, have expressed grave doubts, though none of them has dared to suggest that an American withdrawal would have consequences inimical to the Camp of Islam, but not inimical to the interests, rightly conceived, of Infidels. Or do you think that such such Congressmen with a special interest in the military, as Senator Warner, for many years a member of and then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, or others -- including those seventeen Republican congressmen who a while back dissented from the Bush policy, and some of whom, it should be noted, represent military districts, including the North Carolina Representative whose district includes Fort Bragg.
So are they all, from Major General Batiste (who left the army and now works for a steel company), and those whose doubts about the "surge" have been reported, such as Admiral Fallon, on down, all of them, because they have clear doubts about the American effort in Iraq, not least for the damage it is doing to the American military, in the same need as I am? Remember that need? Would you tell Major General Batiste, who in Iraq commanded the 82nd Airborne, and tell all the others who have grave doubts, and more, about the usefulness-- to American interests -- of a continued presence in Iraq, that ""it might help for you to learn something about military tactics and strategy"?
"Is the jist [sic] of your argument that we (as a country) don't understand the "mission" and that because of this we are wasting men, money and will? And that we should get out of Iraq so as not to squander any more of these valuable resources? That is, until maybe we re-define our “mission” or “understand “ what the hell the “mission” is in the first place?"
-- from a posting above
Yes.
Throw a brick
Suggest you google Hugh jihadwatch tarbaby Iraq
for essays on Hugh's oft repeated suggestions on how to deal with Iraq and the global jihad in answer to your questions.
From dgene:"Hugh, sounds like a current version of "Murder In the Cathedral"
Another version:
General: Mr. F., have you ever fought a war ?
"No Sir"
Surely that question should be put to Dubya the Blowhard?
More from dgene"General: What is the overriding object in a war ?
"Well that would seem to depend on numerous surrounding circumstances and conditions. First one might look to the parties and their relative strengths, and then one would....
General: Sorry to interrupt you Mr. F., but the overriding objective is victory, and after that we can write perspectives and scenarios and how we could have done it better."
So the overriding objective is victory is it? Well Dubya the Great talks of victory being when the Iraqis have demAAAAAcracy and freedom:
So, let's all keep on pouring those trillions into the desert and keep on getting those body bags piling home shall we?
After all, it's imperative that the hardline Shiites gov't be allowed to run Iraq according to it's Koran based constitution and forge closer ties with Iran. Basra has been criticised by Tehran for being too Islamist you know. Yes, the shiites are even crazier and scarier in Iraq.
Petraeus has no understanding of Islam. Nothing special in that, of course, as essentially no one in practically any Western gov't has a clue.
But at least the Iraqi debacle does raise some chuckles of the naive and eternally optimistic kind.
Note the emphasis by would-be critics of my position on the purely military aspect of things.
One poster above, a certain "jdow," instructs me that "it might help for you to learn something about military tactics and strategy." A second poster, "dgene," adds his own bit of imagined dialogue in which there is this exchange:
"General: Mr. F., have you ever fought a war?
"No, Sir"
So it comes down to this: I haven't "fought a war" -- the word "war" being defined only as a military matter, with weapons in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to one poster, and need to learn about "military tactics and strategy" if I am to comment on Iraq at all.
But that is exactly the point that I was making in the imagined addition to last week's Congressional cross-questioning of General Petraeus. That fictive but verisimilar q-and-a exposed the problem of relying on someone who is a good soldier, so busy with his 'mission' that, like many, simply hasn't given Islam as much attention and as much thought, relying on a general who has apparently been so busy with his "mission" in Iraq that he has failed to learn about Islam and failed to understand that the outcome in the Iraq War can be deemed a success if that outcome leads to a permanent weakening of the Camp of Islam --and if the Americans get out of the way, and cut out that "forward strategy of freedom" stuff, it will.
The two posters who focus exclusively on the military aspect of things, and indeed the military aspect of things only in Iraq (and not what is happening to the American military as a result of the Iraq fiasco) illustrate perfectly, and reinforce, the point I was making in the piece above.
And for putting things in such stark relief, they have earned my thanks. Yes: for this relief, much thanks.
Agree with you on this Hugh:
As free people we pays our money and we take our chances, and argument, is how one hopefully, help clarify the issues.
The nub of our disagreement is on the question of 'what is victory'.
You say victory can be achieved by retreat from Iraq, and this poster says otherwise.
dgene the talking doll repeats the same mindless mantra over and over again.
what's inside dgene's head?
50 dead Iraqis everyday = 50 dead Jihadis or 50 Jihadi sympathizers! (It's real simple for dgene)
Does it matter if the dead Iraqis are:
1) Innocent bystanders?
2) Mahdi militiamen?
3) Maliki soldiers?
4) Sunni chieftains?
5) Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia?
NOT TO DGENE! They're all Jihadis or Jihadi sympathizers! And there are 50 less of them today than there were yesterday! Therefore we are ON THE WAY TO VICTORY!
Case closed. Mind closed.
Only problem: There are 29 Million Jihadis and/or Jihadi sympathizers still to be killed. At 50 a day it will take 1,589 more years to achieve victory by killing every single Iraqi, man, woman or child. And that assumes they don't reproduce!
Another 1,589 years (give or take a few hundred) and DGENE says mission accomplished.
Hi doodl2:
My own personal stalker(lol).
Cheers.
Hugh, I agree with you that it was a big mistake for the USA to try to bring about 'democracy' within Iraq. However, as the post by throwabrick pointed out, this is now all past history. There is no way we can go back to square 1, as he put it. Clearly a US withdrawal from Iraq, and the continued ensuing bloodshed that would occur there, would be seen by the Islamists as a great victory... one which would encourage even the 'moderate' muslims to join fully in the jehadi movement. After all, as Osama himself mentions, everyone likes to bet on a winning horse. I would be interested in knowing your views on how best we should get out of Iraq, without handing over a major victory to the Islamists. If you have already discussed this before, my apologies (a pointer to the discussion would be welcome, though). Thanks.
"I would be interested in knowing your views on how best we should get out of Iraq, without handing over a major victory to the Islamists. If you have already discussed this before, my apologies..."
-- from a posting above
I don't need apologies, but I do wish that the hundreds and hundreds of postings where I have written about all the things that could be done before that withdrawal, during that withdrawal (it will take a year to remove all that equipment, and it should not be left behind), and after that withdrawal, that will make clear that the United States is not ready to appease, but rather ready to engage in a much more ruthless and relentless campaign, and has put aside all of the sentimental nonsense about bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, has put aside the notion that an Iraq now dominated by the despised and hated Shi'a could somehow become a Model Unto the Muslim Nations when all of those Muslim nations are -- with the sole exception of Iran -- run by and for, and largely populated by, Sunnis, and especially those Sunni Arabs who think of the Shi'a of Iraq, not accurately but typically, as not merely "Rafidite dogs" but as "Persians" (of course they are not "Persians" but the piling on of what they regard as malevolent charges is par for the Sunni Arab course).
For example, with a few thousand troops and air power blast every plane and helicopter that the government of Khartoum possesses, and then seize Darfur and the Southern Sudan, and hold them until a referendum on independence can take place. Smiling, grateful black faces, saved from death and persecution, by those American troops at long last surrounded by, feeling themselves surrounded by, those who are genuinely grateful.
Elsewhere in Africa, make it clear that if the Christians of southern Nigeria decide to repeat their attempt of 1967-69 in the Biafra War, this time Western powers will not abandon them, will not allow Egyptian pilots to strafe Ibo villages at will, will not permit the Arab-backed Muslims of the north to kill a million southerners, will not leave it to Israel alone, among the non-African powers, to recognize a free Biafra.
Announce a large tax on gasoline, a tax that will include an automatic increase, steadily rising, and announce further that the revenues so obtained will go to subsidies for residential solar energy, for mass transit, for nuclear reactors (which should be built not as one-off units, but to a standard, repeatable design, as is done in Europe), and in other measures undertaken, the President should announce, "to mitigate or slow down the inevitably climactic woe resulting from the use of fossil fuels" and also to "deprive the world-wide Jihad of its most effective weapon -- the Money Weapon."
Start speaking openly about the cost of monitoring Muslim populations all over the Western world. The cost of security guards, of police, of lawyers, judges, of the upkeep for the care and feeding of the ever-expanding population of Muslim prisoners, these "special-needs" prisoners with their endless requirements.
Give up that attempt to force on Israel that idiotic "two-state solution." Announce that before negotiations can go forward, the Arabs, and not merely the so-called "Palestinians," will have to explain how, given that Islam puts forth a claim that all territories once part of Dar al-Islam are forever part of Dar al-Islam, they can reassure the Israelis and those who wish Israel well (that should include every educated person in the Western world, and even outside the Western world, but as we know, alas, does not) that further reductions in Israel's already absurdly tiny size will bring that "permanent peace" and an end to the "Lesser Jihad" (call it that, be sure to call it that--for that is what it is) against Israel. Total confusion, total befuddlement in the Arab camp.
Stop giving any aid to meretricious Pakistan. Back India to the hilt. Back India more than some of those Indian leaders want to be backed. Start talking about the Jihad against India, that cannot be assuaged by giving Muslims control of Kashmir, in the same terms and tone with which Israel and its Lesser Jihad are discussed. Start asking aloud if the Bangladeshis are going to continue to persecute and drive out Hindus, and other non-Muslims, and if they think that this will be forgotten when, in a decade or two or three, as 40% of Bangladesh goes under water, India will be quite so ready to take in Bangladeshi Muslim refugees.
Make noises about seizing the assets abroad of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait -- the government and its nationals, for in World War II the Allies seized the assets of German nationals, and can do that kind of thing again. Recognize, in subtle ways at first and then proceeding to the less subtle, that a permanent state of war exists between Believer and Infidel, not because Infidels want it or even knew about it, but because it is mandated by Islam.
Start speaking openly about the need for NATO members to address the secuirty problems associated with a religio-geopolitical ideology with immutable texts, not subject to re-interpretation, and the tenets that arise naturally from those texts, and the atttiudes and atmospherics that naturally are to be found in societies and states and communities suffused with Islam.
Demand, as a sine qua non, that there be no threats of any kind, at all, directed at anyone exercising the rights of either free speech (and that includes speech of all kinds about Islam) and the right of freedom of conscience, which in this case means the freedom to leave Islam.
And while of course "hoping and praying" and "praying and hoping" that everything "works out" in Iraq, don't letr those crocodile tears be too copious, lest they actually fool someone.
Finally, start having such apostates as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina and Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq appear on Voice of America, or on a new channel, one not designed to "win hearts and minds" of Muslims, but to allow former Muslims, and real scholars -- no espositos need apply -- of Islam to discuss aspects of Islam, including the habit of mental submission that it encourages, and the way it discourages artistic expression and free and skeptical inquiry. Have programs devoted to inshallah-fatalism and economic backwardness, on Islam and despotism, on Islam and slavery (still practcied in all kinds of places), on Islam and the position of women.
These are the thoughts that come to me just now, in a minute of exhausted reflection.
You can find many more by googling key words or phrases -- "seizing the southern Sudan" would be a good one -- and you will find that I am aware of the shrill ululations of triumph that will greet an announced American withdrawal, and I also know what, after a very short period, will be the real attitude, in such places as Iran and Saudi Arabia, when they realize that the Americans are leaving -- leaving not because they think that Islam is not a threat, but because they think it is.
We are in an ideological war with Islam.
There has been an abundance of commentary on the appeal of Islam to Muslim populations. There has been No examination of the appeal to Muslim populations of the principles of freedom, equality of man, and the prosperity and quality of life that flow from adopting such principles.
Do we not have faith in the very core values that made us the most prosperous, powerful and free nation that the world has ever known? Why is it assumed that the great mass of “sort of” Muslims would not be attracted to these values if we proclaimed them loudly and clearly LIKE WE REALLY MENT IT AND TRULY BELIEVED IT OURSELVES!
Some comments on a few of the posts above:
“Would you agree that for the Bush doctrine to be successful as far as democratization is concerned, for muslim majority countries, such as Iraq and Iran, "success" would require the wholesale reformation of Islam and, that said reformation, when urged, or demanded by infidels or western politicians such as George Bush (or his his successors) makes said reformation highly impossible?”
Posted by: USorThem
No.
“Would the figure of 20,000 members of Al Qaida in Iraq be one we could agree on? What does that mean, when those 20,000 are endlessly replaceable from the world-wide ranks of 1.2 billion Muslims?”
NO army has “endlessly replaceable” recruits – not the U.S. Forces and certainly not the Jihadis. The perception of victory has a great deal to do with the supply of available recruits. The Jihadis win in Iraq they gain a HUGE number of recruits.
As a poster above states:
"Clearly a US withdrawal from Iraq, and the continued ensuing bloodshed that would occur there, would be seen by the Islamists as a great victory... one which would encourage even the 'moderate' muslims to join fully in the jehadi movement. After all, as Osama himself mentions, everyone likes to bet on a winning horse."
“Americans who are just in the first and largely uncomprehending stage of an endless -- but manageable -- war, with a containable enemy, if we keep our wits about us –“
This is the tenet of the “Fitzgerald Plan” that is totally unacceptable to me and many others. I am in a war to WIN not endlessly contain. Battles may result in military victories, but the war will be won on the battlefield of ideas.
“By late February, or at most March 2004, the American government should have made plans to leave, certainly by mid-summer 2004. It would have saved some $700 billion dollars. It would have saved some 3000 lives. It would have husbanded civilian and military morale, for the long war -- the endless war -- that is to come.”
It will only be “the endless war” if we follow the “Fitzgerald Plan”. A much better idea is victory and this is possible, but not by defeat as some would have you believe.
“(hint: "the forward strategy of freedom" of which some prate is not the way).”
This is absolutely 100% wrong and the path to “endless war". The “forward strategy of freedom” is the ONLY weapon that we have to defeat this totalitarian ideology and we must aggressively use it.
I do not reject the “Fitzgerald Plan” out of hand however; the following part is essential to victory:
“Finally, start having such apostates as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina and Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq appear on Voice of America, or on a new channel, one not designed to "win hearts and minds" of Muslims, but to allow former Muslims, and real scholars -- no espositos need apply -- of Islam to discuss aspects of Islam, including the habit of mental submission that it encourages, and the way it discourages artistic expression and free and skeptical inquiry.”
Do not shrink from the clash of Islam with freedom – any true American knows that we will win if we believe in ourselves.
Hugh
I used to support high gasoline prices - be it taxes or prices - hoping that that would dampen demand. However, a few months ago, when gas prices did peak, it did not reduce the consumption of gasoline. Instead, people cut down on other things, like restaurants, in order to adjust. Most trips that people make seem to be due to perceived necessity, so if gas prices were to be $5/gallon tomorrow, people would squeal but they'd still pay; instead, they'd cut down on other things and thereby hurt non energy American and other Infidel businesses.
Instead, a campaign to eradicate gasoline as a commercial power source - be it electricity, home heating, et al - could be done to just destroy that demand. Once that goes, gasoline should be back to $1/gallon levels, which would be a lot less enriching to the ummah: after all, in the 90s, when that was the price, were there mosques mushrooming everywhere in the world?
I do agree with disengaging from the region, and leaving energy sources insecure. Economic problem with that is that when the supply of energy becomes questionable, currency is the next to follow, so any plans along those lines need to factor in those repercussions. I'm all for OPEC going bankrupt, but question is - will the rest of the Infidel world be willing to put up with the economic tailspin that would definitely follow?
"I'm all for OPEC going bankrupt, but question is - will the rest of the Infidel world be willing to put up with the economic tailspin that would definitely follow?"
Nope.
High gasoline taxes will ruin our economy which makes this a foolish chioce. Drill in ANWR, offshore and anywhere else we have oil and build nukes. Sensible and limited support for alterative energy is O.K. also.
*sigh*
(visualizing this taking place 65 years ago)
http://images.redstate.com/files/liesandpower.jpg
...some things never change, and history repeats itself.
"I used to support high gasoline prices - be it taxes or prices - hoping that that would dampen demand. However, a few months ago, when gas prices did peak, it did not reduce the consumption of gasoline. Instead, people cut down on other things, like restaurants, in order to adjust. Most trips that people make seem to be due to perceived necessity, so if gas prices were to be $5/gallon tomorrow, people would squeal but they'd still pay; instead, they'd cut down on other things and thereby hurt non energy American and other Infidel businesses"
-- from a posting above
Would you judge the efficacy of a gasoline tax on the basis of what you observed during a short-term rise in gasoline prices -- a few months ago, when gas prices did peak" when you know that everyone else knew, or was expecting – the role of expectation in modifying behavior is important – the price to go down again, and then up and then down and so on. Of course you observed very little reduction in consumption.
But so what? That is:
1) Anecdotal evidence, with one observer. Did you study the behavior of people all over America? Did no one decide to eliminate a few trips to the store, or perhaps carpool, or hesitate about buying an SUV to replace the old one? But even if you had all the relevant statistics, a short-term anything here would tell us very little.
2) I was not writing about the ups and downs of the oil market, but of something different: the usefulness of a steady, inexorably rising tax on gasoline. That tax would, if it were indeed inexorable, and constantly rising in increments known in advance to everyone, who could then factor that steady rise into calculations, would – because of that “expectation” that was always met -- modify the behavior of car manufacturers, of buyers of cars, of employers trying to decide how much to encourage telecommuting and how much to discourage business travel by car or by plane (for the taxes should go up on fuel for planes as well). It takes time, not a month of an “oil peak” (followed by a drop), but years, and that unalterable expectation, for behavior to be modified. The most important thing for consumers and businesses and inventors and investors in other forms of energy and energy conservation is to know that the price will never go down.
3) Do we have evidence, over a sufficiently long period, to suggest that price rises modify behavior, and dampen demand, or keep that demand from rising as high as it might, even when it comes to countries where the automobile is the main automobile? We do. It comes from this country. It comes from Western Europe, where admittedly the car has never had the strangehold on transportation that it developed here (those Umbrian hilltowns are not the place for highways), but the system of public transportation – buses and trains and subways – is much more highly developed, with elaborate networks, and an intelligent willingness by the government to subsidize them.
4) Not only does a short-term experience tell us nothing, but that experience was with the market. I am talking about deliberately interfering with that “market” price in order to recapture some of the oligopolistic rents that OPEC has charged. (Google “recapture oligopolistic rents” and “Jihad Watch” and “Posted by Hugh” for more), has been allowed to charge, because of the weak or nonexistent response of the American government to OPEC since 1973, a response explained in large part by the role of the Saudi lobby in convincing or bribing (not always directly) many in both parties, serving or retired, into believing that Saudi Arabia was our “ally” and that, somehow, that would “take care” of the problem of OPEC price rises because the Saudis would always be there “to moderate prices” as a sign of their “friendship.” Utter fantasy, politico-economic fantasy – see J. B. Kelly, see Morris Adelman, see Eliyahu Kanovsky, -- from first to last. And of course not a thought was given to what all that money, transferred from Infidel oil-consuming nations to Muslim oil-producing nations, would go towards. Yes, palaces for everyone in the Al-Saud family and other ruling families in the sheiklets, planeloads of food flown in fresh from Hediard and Fauchon, yachts for thousands, and private 747s galore, and the top-of-the-line Western women imported, and those villegiaturre in Monte Carlo, where the bathroom fixtures in the fanciest hotels are ripped out, and gold ones put in, on all the floors rented by for the season by this or that oil-fueld prince or princeling. And there is so much more.
5) A real, steady, inexorable rise, not dependent on whims or the weather or which way the political wind is blowing, a rise that comes because oil-consuming nations are intelligently intent on dampening demand, and changing long-term behavior, and encouraging long-term investments in other sources of energy and other ways of doing business and other ways, indeed, of deriving happiness (hmm -- how did people manage to be happy before the Kingdom of Our Car came in? How did they keep busy in Concord in 1850, or in Philadelphia in 1776? How could anyone have been other than miserable without those cars, those lovely traffic jams, that fiddling on the dial for something bearable or those headphones that are one more way to shut you into a cocoon of your own construction, as cocoons tend to be?
6) Just read around, again, all the pieces about recapturing of oligopolistic rents, and ask ourself what if someone other than Jimmy Carter had been president in 1973, when it most counted, when an entirely different way of looking at oil – seen as fuel for the Jihad, which is what it is, through the Money Weapon – might have taken hold, when the American public might have begun to be educated about the malevolence of Saudi Arabia and of the certain uses to which those completely unmerited gains would be put. For the accident of geology that gave the Arabs, and Iran, some ten trillion dollars since 1973 alone – the largest transfer of wealth in human history – has now cost us, the Western consumers, another trillion or so in Iraq, and trillions more in future certain costs in monitoring, and containing, populations of Muslims allowed into our midst, whose mosques and madrasas and propaganda are, all over the West, paid for out of those OPEC trillions.
@ topic...
well, bottom line so far...looks like moron.org's *ahem* "actions" backfired on them...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070919c.html
Even the now-discredited as pro-islamist zogby had to admit it was political suicide by the sorosistas.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1844140220070919?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Yes, while it's reveled in the news ad hominem about Bush's "29%" approval rating (knowing him it's closer to 33%), not a single word admitted of the very same study (gee...what a shock!) that congress, now run by those "enlightened" ones, stand at 11%
Yes...eleven percent (and zogby is one of their greatest fans!).
Forget the obvious bias...that's old news, this is hilarious, as those who pursued their political enemies with such fervor as the soros sock puppets ended up looking worse than Petraeus...because we all saw right through them...they didn't ask questions in an honest and forthright manner-they went into it clearly not interested in anything he had to say, already to tear it to pieces, even before they knew what was going to be said (which did NOT come off nearly as "rosy" as they tried to claim). It only hurt the civility factor and solved nothing of significance, save that of backfiring on the orchestrators themselves.
Such reprehensible actions didn't help constructive discussion and real, honest, criticism (which nobody objects to)...it's about doing so for the right reasons, which the lunatic left did not, and had no intention of, doing.
Only goes to show, legit dissent and legit criticism will be accepted, even if it's not palatable...uncivilized vitriol will not.
Hate doesn't sell.
And that's "The Memo".