Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus attributes to Spengler...

For world peace ... involves the private renunciation of war on the part of the immense majority, but along with it involves an unavowed readiness to submit to being the booty of others who do not renounce it.

An interesting quote, but a flawed one. It clearly is not intended to be a good recipe for world peace, but rather to expose a perceived flaw in some people's recipe for world peace. I'd like to play with it, and perhaps suggest a more plausible recipe, with the caveat that any broad statement of principle as short as the above cannot be an adequate solution to a reality far more complex than any proposed cliché.

Let us reexamine the word "booty." A dictionary definition is "valuable stolen goods, especially those seized in war." I'll suggest that not all wars are fought for monetary considerations. One might consider territory, religious freedom, or human rights to be different in kind and nature from booty. Still, let's grant that the use of military force to gain some form of advantage is problematic. This advantage could involve cash, resources, territory, or more subtle religious or cultural advantages over rival groups. Seizing such advantages by force is problematic.

We might define a 'war of aggression' as a war fought to gain 'booty.' We might even use the expanded definitions of the word. A war fought by Aryans to subject Slavs or by Sunni to establish domination over Shiites might be more about race and religion than booty, but the booty, the advantage seized, is there. It would still be a war of aggression.

So, reworking the Spengler (?) quote, is it possible to reject war of aggression on the part of one's own culture without tacitly submitting one's culture to war of aggression? Is it possible to reject aggression as part of one's national policy, while maintaining a policy of containment, while being part of a defensive stand dedicated to preventing aggressor nations from seizing booty?

I would say it is possible, and it is necessary. I would also say that drawing a square line between waging a war of aggression and maintaining containment of aggression would be vitally important. Unfortunately, wars are often fought for multiple reasons. Nations fighting wars are generally not forthcoming in stating their less noble motivations. Few will say they are invading for booty. Instead, they will put forth propaganda claiming other motivations.

In the run up to the Y2K elections, Bush's foreign policy statements claimed Clinton over used the military on peace keeping missions. Bush would limit use of the military to maintaining vital American interests. Clinton was into peace keeping and nation building. In places like Somalia, the Balkans and East Timor, economic and political collapse had led to crimes against humanity. While there were no direct immediate ties between such collapses and United States interests, it was deemed prudent not to allow anarchy to expand.

At the same time, in September of 2000, the conservative Project for a New American Century deemed Middle Eastern oil to be a vital American interest. They advocated strengthening the American military, rebasing it away from dated Cold War theaters, and acquiring bases in the Middle East. They thought it prudent and necessary to secure the oil, to use military force to acquire... er.... well... booty.

Before, during and shortly after the war, Bush defended a policy of granting rebuilding contracts exclusively to US companies, companies that had all contributed financially to Bush's election. Saddam had been working to eliminate the UN sanctions preventing him from selling oil, and had been negotiating with French and Russian companies to renovate and reopen Iraq's oil fields. In public, the debates between the various powers considering intervention were about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Still, I can't believe that the various nations intelligence estimates on WMD 'just happened' to line up with the best interests of all nations involved in acquiring booty.

My primary concern is that a large part of the Third World is vulnerable to collapse. Population increases bring ecological bankruptcy leading to economic crisis which triggers ancient religious / ethnic strife, which leads to political breakdown. Examples include Somalia, the Balkans and East Timor. Clinton was developing an international consensus that major powers should intervene when such situations led to crimes against humanity.

The Middle East is a different situation. The economic health of many western nations is dependent on stable oil prices. The current political system for maintaining these prices depends on autocratic states, often set up by Britain and France during the Great Power years. These cultures are not stable. Autocratic government is essentially obsolete. Even with large supplies of oil money, maintaining a stable autocratic culture is not easy. The challenge might be maintaining stable oil prices while the Middle East transforms to a modern culture. Meanwhile, there are traditional and fundamentalist elements in the Middle East which emphatically do not desire a modern culture.

Clinton, and to some degree the Democratic Party in general, are better focused towards the Third World problems. Bush, and to some degree the Republicans in general, are better focused on the Middle East (excluding Israel, which cannot possibly be excluded.) Both problems need be addressed. The policies necessary in one area will not necessarily be right in the other. An either / or focus on one area or the other is problematic. We must treat both areas as distinctly different, yet each vitally important.

Coming back to that original quote, the Neocon focus on using US military force to secure, er, booty, is problematic. Defending one's nation from war of aggression or terrorist attack is understandable and proper. Using force to acquire booty is not. While this is not overtly the objective of Bush and the Neocons... Well. Check that. Securing access to the oil is the overt stated objective of the Neocons. This is why the Project for the American Century (Wolfowitz, Epstein, Barnett, Kagan...) advocated a big military with bases in the Middle East during the Y2K elections. No matter how they talk around it, those who have any reason to dislike Bush know it. Thus, Bush is easy to hate. Thus, America becomes easy to hate.

That Bush's clumsy handling of the Middle East broke down the international consensus building on the Third World... Let's just say I don't like it.

This doesn't make stable oil prices during a time of political transition in the Middle East any less desirable.

Unfortunately, Mr. Butler, all too many 'peace activists' aren't really just talking about the US 'renouncing aggressive war', but rather, about us renouncing all war, even in defense of our soil. (Since in their eyes, all US war efforts are acts of naked aggression against an innocent party.) Thus, while your distinction looks good in theory, it does not work in reality - or at least, it should not. Otherwise, we would be voluntarily agreeing to a restriction on our nation's conduct which Carthage only accepted after the Second Punic War, at the point of a Roman sword.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The problem is that the Democrats' preferred solution of multilateralism and operating through international institutions won't work, and will be perceived by the enemy as a sign of fear or the desire to appease, even though it isn't meant that way.

Isn't that how Bush I operated for the first Gulf War? It pretty much worked, for the goals that were stated. And we kicked Saddam's butt.

Only after giving Sadaam the green light to invaded, falsely claiming that there were Iraqi troops massed on Saudi Arabia's border and swallowing the fiction of Kuwaiti babies being dragged out of incubators.

Why quibble about a few allies. Sounds like Bush II followed the template from Gulf War I nearly perfectly. The big difference now is that Dubya doesn't know enough to avoid a protracted land war in Asia.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Unfortunately, Mr. Butler, all too many 'peace activists' aren't really just talking about the US 'renouncing aggressive war', but rather, about us renouncing all war, even in defense of our soil. (Since in their eyes, all US war efforts are acts of naked aggression against an innocent party.)

Are there any such 'peace activists' active on this web site, who insist on "renouncing all war, even in defense of our soil?" This sounds like an extreme position to me, way outside the main stream of discussion, on this web site, and in the general US political debate. I suppose I could find a person with such beliefs if I really looked, but danged if I could name one off the top of my head. Could you name a major party politician who has advocated such a position? Can you name a Think Tank, lobbyist group, student activist group or TV talk show host pushing the to implement such a policy? Is there anyone reading this who would like to claim such a position for their own, and defend it? Sorry, I find it very difficult to take such a position seriously.

The distinction or renouncing war of aggression while containing powers practicing war of aggression is hardly new. Let's see. The Atlantic Charter...

Originally Posted by Roosevelt and Churchill

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

The containment of Communism during the Cold War also ideally fits the pattern, at least as a matter of public policy, though the drift from the old martial colonial imperialism to modern corporatism is a slow and ongoing process. I hardly claim that military and political power isn't being used to boost profits, only that it shouldn't be.

Anyway, while I may be as radical an idealist as wanders this board, I don't take those ready to unilaterally reject all use of force seriously. I am most surprised that you would. They are too few, and too far out in left field.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Thus, while your distinction looks good in theory, it does not work in reality - or at least, it should not. Otherwise, we would be voluntarily agreeing to a restriction on our nation's conduct which Carthage only accepted after the Second Punic War, at the point of a Roman sword.

"Should not?" You do not agree? Which half of the policy do you disagree with, at least until we are forced into it by a war with Carthage? Do you believe we should retain a policy of fighting wars of aggression, or do you believe we should not attempt to deter and contain powers who attempt wars of aggression?

Mind you, things were different back in Roman Days. Prior to gunpowder, the printing press, and various other technological innovations that allowed larger and more destructive modern armies, war was cost effective, at least for the winner. Nations that played martial games, that had ongoing policies of war of aggression, became more powerful than those that did not. Europe might have had as warlike a tendency as anywhere, but the World Wars convinced even Europe that war wasn't worth it any more. That the world wars were fought in Europe rather than North America contributes to America's war budget and more frequent use of a military designed to project power abroad.

Man evolved as an aggressive territorial team warrior. Prior to, say, the machine gun, these instincts were 'healthy' in producing fit effective aggressive military forces. Many cultures took pride in fighting wars of aggression. Somewhere between the machine gun and the suitcase nuke, it all became less glorious, profitable and fun. We're not fighting with the gladius anymore. Conquering as much of the world as one can results in burned out cities, not parades of booty and captured slaves passing under triumphal arches.

Anyway, I'll buy into the spirit of the Atlantic Charter, and would like to see it taken a bit further. These days, the corporations might be getting as problematic as the governments.

Originally Posted by scott 63

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The problem is that the Democrats' preferred solution of multilateralism and operating through international institutions won't work, and will be perceived by the enemy as a sign of fear or the desire to appease, even though it isn't meant that way.

Isn't that how Bush I operated for the first Gulf War? It pretty much worked, for the goals that were stated. And we kicked Saddam's butt.

Only after giving Sadaam the green light to invaded, falsely claiming that there were Iraqi troops massed on Saudi Arabia's border and swallowing the fiction of Kuwaiti babies being dragged out of incubators.

Why quibble about a few allies. Sounds like Bush II followed the template from Gulf War I nearly perfectly.

Thanks for reminding me.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Willy nilly? No, that would defeat the purpose.

No, I don't think so.

The goal (or more precisely one goal of many) is that America's enemies perceive that America will act to destroy them if they push us too far, even if the rest of the world does not approve of the action.

A fool's errand. Case in point: al Qaeda successfully carried out an attack against us and didn't get destroyed.

Suppose Osama Bin Laden carries out a successful nuke attack against the US. We couldn't get him after 911 and we likely won't get him after the next attack either. If the US purpose were what you think it is, the larger Muslim world would have nothing to fear from al Qaeda attacking us again because the American counterstrike would be not be directed against those who did not actively aid al Qaeda. That means Muslim countries who don't like us can can feel free to not prevent such an attack. This pretty much guarantees an attack because we lack the contacts in terrorist organizations that these countries have. We want to prevent such an attack and to do that we need our enemies (like the Pakistani army) to actively defend us (out of self interest of course), just as we get Red China (hardly a friend) to pay for our wars. It's called exercising hegemony.

Remember Massive Retaliation, the stance we held wrt the the USSR when we could hit them but they couldn't hit us? We have this advantage wrt to the Muslim world today. The US has never renounced first use of nuclear weapons, we have always reserved to right to strike first, to launch a sneak attack if we so choose. And we alone have demonstrated our will to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations.

In recent decades US verbiage about democracy and such things may have caused our enemies to question our resolve to strike first. In response to 911, a conventional strike against our country, we responded disproportionately--not in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was (our effort there was very small scale), nor in Saudi Arabia who financed the attack and whose nationals comprised most of the attackers, but in Iraq who wasn't involved, but whose leader was a sworn enemy. So if we are attacked by a nuke you can make a reasonable guess that our response will be nuclear--and hence genocidal. And it won't necessarily be directed against those who attacked us. Prospective targets will not be able to hide behind their noninvolvement anymore than Iraq could and expect to escape attack. No, the fact that the attack happened proves that they didn't act effectively to stop it. And the fact that their leaders hate us provides a motive for their inaction. For that their nation may well be destroyed.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I regard LBJ as one of the tragic figures of American Presidential history. If he had followed his own instincts more, and disregarded the legacy personnel of the Kennedy years more, he might well have gone down in history as a great President.

Agreed. His domestic policies weren't all that out of line with the energies of the early awakening. If not for the Vietnam decision, the second half of the awakening might have continued with the positive aspects of the GI and Boomer generations working to some degree in sync. Instead, we got Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, stagflation, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis, Carter's national mailaise, and the death of Big Government attempting Great Things. I doubt we could have avoided all of the above, but the last half of what was scheduled to be an awakening was sick. It destroyed much of what was positive in the GIs and Boomers, and likely contributed to the Xer character as well. If we are having trouble bootstraping the 4T due to a lack of interest, we might look back to LBJ and dream of what might have been.

But I'd blame Nixon as much as LBJ. LBJ was tragic. Nixon was a tragedy. It's more fun to blame Nixon. :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Regarding the nature of a Crisis, it should be remembered that the nature of the Crisis isn't always clear, or even set at the start of the 4T. The last Crisis started out as a global economic disaster, Hitler was a minor thug of no consequence in 1929 and Germany was militarily weak. The German threat, and its associated Holocaust, emerged during the Fourth Turning, as a result of events that occurred after the Crisis had begun. It was not written in stone that the Crisis had to take the late-stage form it did, even in 1929-1935 (or thereabouts).

Maybe. There were quite a few autocratic military governments in various parts of the world. Almost by definition, the autocratic military governments had not figured out that war of aggression was not cost effective anymore. I am not saying that World War II precisely as it played out was inevitable. Still, it seems likely that the two major lessons of World War II had to be learned at some point about that time. 1) The democracies must contain expansionist autocratic powers. 2) The autocratic military cultures must try some other forms of government and less aggressive foreign policies.

I don't believe that it had to get as ugly as it got, or that it couldn't have got uglier. I won't suggest that every theater had to have been fought at an inevitable time with an inevitable result. Still, the two major lessons had to be learned. The S&H cycles might suggest it would have happened at about that time, but other forces suggest something like that would have to happen. Aggressive cultures would keep acting in an aggressive fashion until, like a young puppy in training, they got their nose rubbed in it really really thoroughly.

Anyway, Bush 43 and most everyone else involved ought not only avoid wars of aggression, but even the appearance of anything vaguely resembling a war of aggression. The world tries to redirect the noses of people who do such things. We shouldn't be surprised when something starts to stink.

And I'm not sure that even the 1930s economic crisis had to inevitably take place as it did. If Keynes or someone like him had written a decade or two earlier, and the right politicians had understood and acted... Somewhen, about that time, laissez faire was going to die. It would become understood that governments have a role to play in regulating the economy. S&H cycles suggest it would happen at a certain time, and a certain degree of crisis and upheaval would be involved. The exact degree of crisis and upheaval seems less inevitable.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

In recent decades US verbiage about democracy and such things may have caused our enemies to question our resolve to strike first. In response to 911, a conventional strike against our country, we responded disproportionately--not in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was (our effort there was very small scale), nor in Saudi Arabia who financed the attack and whose nationals comprised most of the attackers, but in Iraq who wasn't involved, but whose leader was a sworn enemy. So if we are attacked by a nuke you can make a reasonable guess that our response will be nuclear--and hence genocidal. And it won't necessarily be directed against those who attacked us. Prospective targets will not be able to hide behind their noninvolvement anymore than Iraq could and expect to escape attack. No, the fact that the attack happened proves that they didn't act effectively to stop it. And the fact that their leaders hate us provides a motive for their inaction. For that their nation may well be destroyed.

It might not just be recent verbiage, but a traditional perception of Third Turning democracies. Hitler too thought the US and UK weak and decadent. Heck, it could be argued that we were and are weak and decadent. It is easy to think that when we are coming through a 3T. This doesn't necessarily mean we will stay that way should push comes to shove.

But the next question is whether you just believe our government policy would be to answer a nuke with a nuke directed at an uninvolved civilian population, or whether you are actively advocating genocide of the innocent. Character attacks on Bush and company are one thing. Open advocacy of genocide is something else.

There might be three ways of winning a war, at least. I'll refer back to the US Civil War as it provides examples of all three. The first is to destroy the enemy's armies in the field. Late in the war, Grant had enough superiority in manpower that he could fight a war of attrition, keeping all armies active on all fronts, sure that he could eventually destroy all the southern armies.

A second method is to destroy the enemy's infrastructure, the materials necessary to wage war, and the farms and industry needed to produce these materials. Sherman's march from one major southern city to the next, tearing up tracks and burning barns as he traveled, might stand as an example.

A third is to destroy the enemy's will to fight. This might be as straight forward as forcing the enemy's war party to loose an election. Some say this is what Lee was trying to do in the Gettysburg campaign, make it clear to the Northern population that the war just wasn't working, thus making it hard for Lincoln to get reelected. Or it could go beyond that. The blockade, casualties, the burning of much of the south, all made it clear that The Cause was Lost. One should meditate somewhat, study the history, to become familiar with how much suffering, death and destruction a culture is willing to absorb in a Fourth Turning before admitting The Cause is Lost.

But we are not anywhere near the above points. We are still in the spiral of violence building up to the point where it is clear all out conflict is inevitable and necessary. Thus, the current objective isn't any of the above three. The current objective is to convince the other side that an all out conflict is not worth it, that it would not be prudent or wise to attempt it, while at the same time keeping the level of violence short of all out 4T level conflict.

Neither September 11th, the similar attacks preceding it, the invasion of Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq achieved any of the three classic victory conditions. There are antagonists in the field from both sides, no one is short on weapons, and everyone has the will to use them. Not close. We have not yet begun to fight. Nor have they, the more the pity.

I do not see an exchange of nukes changing this. They would escalate the spiral of violence. They would not break the spiral, as the OKC bombing broke the spiral between our militant domestic arch conservatives and the US federal government. In a Fourth Turning, a nuke will be more apt to evoke a Pearl Harbor response increasing the resolve of the opposite faction than break the spiral. It takes an awful lot of destruction for Cause to go Lost. One or a dozen nukes won't do it. Cities full of civilians were routinely burned in World War II. When London burned, and CBS covered the event on live radio, the isolationists lost America. Early in the spiral, adversity breeds a determination to respond. This should be consider the normal human response at this point in the turnings.

I am not convinced responding to genocide with genocide is a clear win. I am not advocating appeasement. I have been repeating often enough of late that containment of autocratic militaristic nations as a major lesson of World War II. The lesson of Hitler and Chamberlain can't be forgotten. Still, our recent foes, with the military fascist values and economic communist values, might be considered almost rational by western standards. A fundamentalist guerilla or terrorist is a different beast. Sacrificing a city or three in order to build support for a fundamentalist cause might seem like good tactics. A jihadi wants to escalate the spiral of violence. It is not clear we want to.

Doesn't mean I don't would complain if we develop those deep cave busting rock penetration bombs, conventional or otherwise...

No, this wasn't a decisive argument. I'm not sure this discussion could be settled in polite words on the net, without a live exchange of plutonium. This might well be one of the more expensive lessons to be learned, a lesson that might only be learned the hard way.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But the next question is whether you just believe our government policy would be to answer a nuke with a nuke directed at an uninvolved civilian population, or whether you are actively advocating genocide of the innocent. Character attacks on Bush and company are one thing. Open advocacy of genocide is something else.

Neither. I simply note that answering a nuke with a nuke is a possible response.

Look at this from the POV of the Muslim world. Suppose Bin Laden strikes the US with a nuke and the US is no more able to strike back at him as we are now. What do you suppose Arab leaders will believe about the US response to that attack in light of Iraq?

Wouldn't history suggest that the US will strike back at an easy target we don't like? So perhaps we would invade Syria.

On the other hand, their use of a nuke establishes a precedent. If we choose to use nukes then it becomes possible to attack any Muslim country. So perhaps we might strike at Pakistan or Iran or Palestine.

Or perhaps we would act in a different way. What we don't want to do is to be predictable as HC says we should.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But the next question is whether you just believe our government policy would be to answer a nuke with a nuke directed at an uninvolved civilian population, or whether you are actively advocating genocide of the innocent. Character attacks on Bush and company are one thing. Open advocacy of genocide is something else.

Neither. I simply note that answering a nuke with a nuke is a possible response.

Look at this from the POV of the Muslim world. Suppose Bin Laden strikes the US with a nuke and the US is no more able to strike back at him as we are now. What do you suppose Arab leaders will believe about the US response to that attack in light of Iraq?

Wouldn't history suggest that the US will strike back at an easy target we don't like? So perhaps we would invade Syria.

On the other hand, their use of a nuke establishes a precedent. If we choose to use nukes then it becomes possible to attack any Muslim country. So perhaps we might strike at Pakistan or Iran or Palestine.

Or perhaps we would act in a different way. What we don't want to do is to be predictable as HC says we should.

If I might venture an opinion, I'm going to disagree on the point of predicability. No, you don't want potential enemies to know for certain how you will react to any and all actions they might take, but there should be a degree of certainty about the degree of response. Doing something to the US that's very bad, like the 9-11 attacks, should guarantee full retribution on those involved, even those in secondary roles. It's no greater a standard than we apply in jurisprudence. Why accept less in this case.

This points directly to the mess Bush made of the 9-11 response. It was tragically stupid on its face. What was required was a full response in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan that would have destroyed al Qaeda as a viable organization. We should have made no bones about the extent we would go to capture the leaders, either. If the locals wanted to continue protecting them, then they became part of the 'enemy', and should have been treated as such.

Iraq, on the other hand, was an exercise in great-power world molding - and a piss-poor example to boot. Those who point to Vietnam and see a corollary aren't far off the mark. The big question is, how much and in what currency do we pay for this arrogant act?

Today's activities in London merely show how poorly we handled this, but are not the main act, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This points directly to the mess Bush made of the 9-11 response. It was tragically stupid on its face. What was required was a full response in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan that would have destroyed al Qaeda as a viable organization. We should have made no bones about the extent we would go to capture the leaders, either. If the locals wanted to continue protecting them, then they became part of the 'enemy', and should have been treated as such.

Iraq, on the other hand, was an exercise in great-power world molding - and a piss-poor example to boot. Those who point to Vietnam and see a corollary aren't far off the mark. The big question is, how much and in what currency do we pay for this arrogant act?

Today's activities in London merely show how poorly we handled this, but are not the main act, I'm afraid.

I tend to agree with much of the above. It might be prudent to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan, and other members of the nuclear club. I also don't know that al Qaeda much needs a leadership. I don't know how much, for example, the capture of Bin Ladin would have effected the London operation. From the White House perspective, Pakistan might have had all the risks of Iraq, but none of the oil.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This points directly to the mess Bush made of the 9-11 response. It was tragically stupid on its face. What was required was a full response in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan that would have destroyed al Qaeda as a viable organization. We should have made no bones about the extent we would go to capture the leaders, either. If the locals wanted to continue protecting them, then they became part of the 'enemy', and should have been treated as such.

Iraq, on the other hand, was an exercise in great-power world molding - and a piss-poor example to boot. Those who point to Vietnam and see a corollary aren't far off the mark. The big question is, how much and in what currency do we pay for this arrogant act?

Today's activities in London merely show how poorly we handled this, but are not the main act, I'm afraid.

I tend to agree with much of the above. It might be prudent to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan, and other members of the nuclear club. I also don't know that al Qaeda much needs a leadership. I don't know how much, for example, the capture of Bin Ladin would have effected the London operation. From the White House perspective, Pakistan might have had all the risks of Iraq, but none of the oil.

I'm less concerned than you are about tweaking nuclear powers when they clearly need it. After all, how many countries and political groups have felt constrained by our power? By exempting the nuclear club from any action, we merely encourage rouge states to develop or buy them. That's asking for real trouble in the future.

I believe the US and the the Western world in general, is better served by being consistent about where the line is in dealing with us. If foreign agents attack us, we will retailiate. If the attacks are egregious, the response will be too. Hiding inside the territory of any nation, including a nuclear club member, makes them responsible to eliminate the offender, stand aside while we do it, or be vulnerable to a response as a collaborator.

We aren't ready to do this yet, but the 4T is coming. I'll bet this or something similar is included in the <insert the then current President's name> Doctrine. Misdirected fault-finding and mushy indecisiveness are both parts of the problem, and mirror the world view of democracies in decadent times. We're rapidly running out of the time for enjoying decadence.

C'mon! Iraqipalooza is a great party!

Surprise surprise.

According to a new piece in the New Yorker, it appears the Bush adminstration may have rigged the January elections in Iraq. If these allegations pan out the last remaining justification for the war in Iraq - that we were there to spread liberal democracy - will have gone done the crapper:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050725fa_fact

It would seem now that the war was officially pointless.

"Have I got an Oil-Control Formula for you?" or "Remember Occam's Razor!"




Oil-Control Formula

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...ol_formula.php
for discuss only
Robert Dreyfuss
July 18, 2005
Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone. His book, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, will be published by Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books in the fall.


George W. Bush’s war in Iraq may not be going as planned. But for those who’ve stopped believing the myth that prewar Iraq represented any sort of threat to the United States, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence mounting that the real reason for the American invasion of Iraq was the most obvious one: Oil. In this case, “oil” doesn’t mean that we went to war for the commercial benefit of U.S. oil companies—and in fact, as I reported in Mother Jones magazine in early 2003, before the war, most U.S. oil firms and their executives were against the war. But in Iraq, “oil” means the strategic commodity that is the single most important world resource. Even a novice geostrategist knows that who controls oil controls the world. And in this case, America’s rival for control of oil is, first and foremost, China.

Last week, China, Russia and four Central Asian “Stans,” including Uzbekistan, rather impolitely asked the United States to withdraw from Central Asia. That part of the world is a significant oil and gas region, and neither Moscow nor Beijing want the United States to put down roots there. But Central Asia’s oil and gas resources pale next to the Middle East, and that is where America’s imperial presence has set off alarms in Beijing.

Consider oil the Occam’s Razor explanation of the war in Iraq.

A June 24 New York Times article subtly attacked China and its CNOOC oil firm over its bid to buy Unocal, a U.S. oil company with long experience in Asia, calling the intended purchase (in its page-one headline) a “costly quest for energy control.” But if any nation “controls” energy, it is the United States. Buried in the article was this fairly explosive paragraph:

Privately, Chinese officials and analysts say oil is treated as a strategic crisis. They have sounded the alarm about Western and particularly American domination of oil supplies and influence over major oil-exporting nations, including Saudi Arabia and now Iraq, which has made China dependent on what many here refer to as American economic and military hegemony.

Together, Saudi Arabia and Iraq control roughly half of the world’s oil deposits, a share that is likely to rise as oil countries deplete their reserves. Saudi Arabia has long been in America’s back pocket, and now Iraq— though not going well for the United States—is occupied by the American army and its quisling government is comprised of American puppets. It isn’t shocking for the Chinese to have a legitimate beef here. Consider the following from the July 13 Washington Post . The headline read: “Big Shift in China’s Oil Policy” and the subhead, more revealing, was “With Iraq Deal Dissolved by War, Beijiing Looks Elsewhere.” It began:

Until recently, China's view of the global energy map focused narrowly on the Middle East, which holds roughly two-thirds of the world's oil. Special attention was directed toward one well-supplied country: Iraq.

Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein's government, China sought to develop some of Iraq's more promising reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that prevented investment in Iraq's oil patch and limited sales of its production.

Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes. The war and its aftermath have reshaped China's basic conception of the geopolitics of oil and added urgency to its mission to lessen dependence on Middle East supplies. It has reinforced China's fears that it is locked in a zero-sum contest for energy with the world's lone superpower, prompting Beijing to intensify its search for new sources, international relations and energy experts say.

So. We went to war in Iraq, “wiping out China’s stakes” in Iraq. And so, Chinese “officials and analysts” call the current situation an oil crisis, says the Times.

Meanwhile, neoconservatives, Bush administration officials, some members of Congress and (unfortunately) a few labor-connected liberals are making a big deal of CNOOC’s Unocal bid. For perspective, let’s recall that Unocal is the company that did more to support the Taliban than any other U.S. entity, courting those Islamic radicals in search of a pipeline, oil and gas deal in central Asia—and hiring various malleable U.S. strategists to support the Taliban on its behalf, including incoming U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. It’s hard to imagine anything that China could do with Unocal that would do more damage to U.S. interests than Unocal has already done. Still, the outcry goes on, most recently during a congressional hearing at which Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director, and Frank Gaffney, the neocon-linked military strategist, railed against China. (CNOOC, by the way, is partly owned by Shell Oil, which bought a big chunk of the mostly state-owned firm when it conducted a public stock offering in 2002.)

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, road transportation in China will be the driving force for that country’s enormous oil appetite in the next two decades, noting that “the Chinese passenger car market grew tenfold between 1990 and 2000.” By 2025, says EIA, China’s oil demand will reach nearly 13 million barrels of oil per day. (Saudi Arabia’s entire output is only about 8 million barrels a day.) To meet such demand, China is searching everywhere, from Sudan to Venezuela to Central Asia. Iran and China are making oil deals, too. But by invading and occupying Iraq, the United States has pretty much locked up the most easily expanded source of oil in the world; Iraq, which manages to eke out about 2 million barrels a day, can produce six to eight times that much oil if it made sufficient investments in production facilities. Quite a prize, Iraq—if Washington can hold onto it. No wonder various neoconservative world hegemonists consider talk of an Iraq exit strategy to be treasonous.

Typical really.

Well, it appears we invaded Iraq so that women could have fewer rights...

http://www.soapblox.net/myleftwing/s...do?diaryId=403

and Jews could become enemies of the state...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=4974

Originally Posted by Mr. Peter Galbraith in the [i

NYRB[/i]]The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Erbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at Ms. Bodine, he said simply, "This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power." He did not add "Thank you, George Bush." The unstated was understood.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Peter Galbraith in the [i

NYRB[/i]]The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Erbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at Ms. Bodine, he said simply, "This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power." He did not add "Thank you, George Bush." The unstated was understood.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Virgil K Saari is inimitable, and indispensable.

Originally Posted by Milo

Well, it appears we invaded Iraq so that women could have fewer rights...

http://www.soapblox.net/myleftwing/s...do?diaryId=403

and Jews could become enemies of the state...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=4974

Ugh! I was afraid this would happen.

Originally Posted by Mr. Jaconb Hornberger

Last week the new Iraqi regime entered into a military
pact with Iran, which President Bush and the Pentagon
have long maintained is part of an “axis of
evil” and which is even the potential target of
another U.S. military invasion.

So, U.S. troops have killed, maimed, and died and
destroyed Iraq, with the result of installing a
Shi’ite regime in Iraq that is now aligning itself
with the Shi’ite regime in Iran, which U.S.
officials say is a sworn enemy of the United States. And
U.S. troops continue to kill, maim, and die to ensure the
continuation of the Iraqi Shi’ite regime even while
the president and the Pentagon consider
invading Iran for the purpose of ousting
the Iraqi Shi’ite regime there.

The Persian DOD

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Mr. Jaconb Hornberger

Last week the new Iraqi regime entered into a military
pact with Iran, which President Bush and the Pentagon
have long maintained is part of an “axis of
evil” and which is even the potential target of
another U.S. military invasion.

So, U.S. troops have killed, maimed, and died and
destroyed Iraq, with the result of installing a
Shi’ite regime in Iraq that is now aligning itself
with the Shi’ite regime in Iran, which U.S.
officials say is a sworn enemy of the United States. And
U.S. troops continue to kill, maim, and die to ensure the
continuation of the Iraqi Shi’ite regime even while
the president and the Pentagon consider
invading Iran for the purpose of ousting
the Iraqi Shi’ite regime there.

The Persian DOD

Mr. Saari, your thoughts on the matter are obviously not "mainstream". Rest assured that the "imminent threat" Hussein represented validates all that has come after. I am awaiting Pope Hope's Scholastic interpretation (with just a hint of PoMo) to assuage our concerns on the matter. Trust that all will be well and that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. :wink:

What good came out of it:

1) Hussein was taken down and will be put on trial

2) Reforms triggered in the region as a result of the war

What we did wrong: not pay attention to the long-term repercussions of taking out a government (!!!) Bush should have realized how important Iran was to winning the peace in Iraq and made deals with the former country. Big mistake to treat Iran as "evil enemy" instead of potential ally with "troubling issues" that could be worked out. How about through Europe? Oh, right, they don't talk to us because Bush is such as asshole. Now Iran has the upper hand because of Bush admin's inability to work diplomatic channels.

This is no surprise to me. I voted for Gore.

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

What good came out of it:

1) Hussein was taken down and will be put on trial

2) Reforms triggered in the region as a result of the war

What we did wrong: not pay attention to the long-term repercussions of taking out a government (!!!) Bush should have realized how important Iran was to winning the peace in Iraq and made deals with the former country. Big mistake to treat Iran as "evil enemy" instead of potential ally with "troubling issues" that could be worked out. How about through Europe? Oh, right, they don't talk to us because Bush is such as asshole. Now Iran has the upper hand because of Bush admin's inability to work diplomatic channels.

Are you prepared to fork over your ten grand for the war? The war and occupation are projected to cost a trillion dollars by the end of the decade, and each American taxpayer's share should be close to ten grand. This of course doesn't factor in interest payments to our Chinese banker friends (who are the ones fronting us the money to pay for it).