This article proposes that the middle eastern arab states and surrounding nations (like China, Russia, etc) are forming a new oil-goods-worker exchange alliances whose ultimate goal is to foster energy and economic cooperation and to deter or contain U.S. presence and influence in central Asia.

The New Silk Road Globalist Perspective > Global Economy

By George Magnus | Thursday, November 30, 2006

Asia and oil exporters, especially those in the Gulf, have a long history of commerce. The ancient and continental Silk Road was once a major conduit of goods, technology and even religion. As George Magnus — UBS's Senior Economic Advisor — argues, a new silk road has emerged through the trade of hydrocarbons, petrodollars and, like its ancient counterpart, consumer goods.

The Silk Road as a trading route can be traced back about 2000 years. It was named by the German scholar Baron
A new strategic tapestry is in the process of being formed, its threads being hydrocarbons, petrodollars, consumer products and technologies, military ties, labour migration — even religion.

Ferdinand von Richtofen in 1859 — many centuries after this caravan network had faded into obscurity.

Originally, Chinese silk was the main commodity traded from the old imperial capital at Chang’an (Xi’an) west via central Asia, south of the Caspian Sea and on to the Middle East — then to Turkey and Europe.

By the 6th century, merchants, traders and armies were also developing trade in spices from India and the East Indies, gold from Persia and pottery and grains from Europe.

A great exchange

The trading of goods was supplemented by exchanges of technologies — glass and paper-making, for example. As such, the trade routes served as an important conduit for the spread eastwards and westwards of art and, inevitably, religion. The Silk Road was in fact a main collection of tracks with connecting routes north through Russia to the Black Sea and south to India and the Arabian Sea.

By 900, at the end of the Tang Dynasty, China had started to fragment, the Islamic empire in central Asia began to splinter and the peoples of central Asia were moving west and east.

Abandoning the route

Although the Silk Road remained active for another 300 years, political instability and upheavals in Asia and the Middle East consigned the Silk Road to disuse. Between the 14th and 16th centuries, the trade route was abandoned.

Since 1993, when China first became a net oil importer, the intensity of political and economic ties has grown.

Much later, during the era of the British Empire, the regional connections were apparent in that, for example, the Gulf states were administered out of India — not London — and the economy of the Gulf region was linked mainly with India.

Oil production on a major scale changed everything. With it and then later the Cold War, the economic and political orientation of the Gulf shifted towards the United States and the West.

New ties

In any event, the economic significance of Asia until the 1970s at the earliest was not especially noteworthy, certainly not as an outlet for energy or capital. However, from the 1950s onwards, China aligned itself with anti-colonial movements all over the world, including in the Middle East.

Since 1993, when China first became a net oil importer, the intensity of political and economic ties has grown. Of course, the cementing of deeper relationships was facilitated by the collapse of the Soviet empire after 1989-90. The route has been further encouraged by some mutual interests and concerns resulting from the behaviour of the American empire, not least in the Middle East itself and in central Asia.

A multi-polar East

A multi-polar Asia and Middle East, incorporating China, Russia, India, Japan, Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia, could hardly have remained passive as the significance and price of hydrocarbons increased
Although the Silk Road remained active for another 300 years, political instability and upheavals in Asia and the Middle East consigned the Silk Road to disuse.

and as the economies of Asia continued to grow absolutely and in importance.

A new strategic tapestry is in the process of being formed, its threads being hydrocarbons, petrodollars, consumer products and technologies, military ties, labor migration — even religion.

The hydrocarbon part of this is self explanatory, and a shift in the Middle East to prioritise shipments towards Asia is evident in both crude oil and natural gas as Asian demand rises and as it switches steadily away from coal.


Flow of capital

The other economic linkages are rather newer and warrant attention, not least because Middle Eastern countries may now be much more sensitive to Asian business cycles. Further, Asia is becoming more sensitive to Middle Eastern energy developments.

For 30 years, East and South Asian investors have been significant investors in the Middle East, competing for management and investment contracts while capital has gone in the other direction.

Islamic finance

But these flows of expertise and capital have gathered considerable momentum in very recent years and, of course, the increase in interest in Islamic finance and banking has provided new links between not only the Middle East and South East Asia, but also with China, India and Pakistan.

For 30 years, East and South Asian investors have been significant investors in the Middle East — competing for contracts while capital has gone in the other direction.

Indeed, the emphasis on infrastructure and project finance in the Gulf and in Asia is ideal for Islamic finance, especially bonds (sukuk), the outstandings of which have soared since 2002 when pioneered by Malaysia to reach over $40 billion currently.

It is still fair to point out that the institutional structures underpinning Asian and Middle Eastern ties are relatively weak or embryonic. Bilateral relationships are most common, but the wider institutional structures necessary for deeper and broader interactions are starting to change.

The OIC

The Organisation of Islamic Conferences, founded in 1969 and comprising 57 countries, is the only major body with complete coverage of the GCC states and certain Asian countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and India. Russia has observer status in this organisation.

However, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, founded in 2001 by Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to deal with disputes, terrorism and separatist threats now has a new raison d’etre.

Beyond OPEC

The function of the OIC is, essentially, to foster energy and economic cooperation and to deter or contain U.S. presence and influence in central Asia (which is seen as destabilising for a variety of reasons).
The increase in interest in Islamic finance and banking has provided new links between not only the Middle East and South East Asia, but also with China, India and Pakistan.

In 2005, it admitted Iran as an observer, along with India, Pakistan and Mongolia.

As a group, it now represents about half the world’s population. Moreover, since June 2005, several structures have evolved to further the networks of economic and political interactions.

These networks include the Asia-Middle East Dialogue, the China-OPEC Energy Dialogue, the Asia Cooperation Dialogue, the China-Arab Cooperation Forum, the Indo-Gulf Summit, the Arab-Asian Financial Forum, the UAE-Asia Investment Forum and, at the end of this year, the India-Arab World CEO Summit.

Asymmetric relationship

The relationship between Asia and the Middle East, however, has been asymmetric so far in that Asia is far more dependent on energy imports than the Gulf states are on Asian consumer and capital goods and its companies.

Nonetheless, significant changes are starting to occur in both directions, highlighting for both regions an external dependence on the other. In other words, the relationship between the Gulf and Asia can be seen partly as a simple comparative advantage play with hydrocarbons and petrodollars going to Asia and manufactured goods coming back the other way.

A new Silk Road

But this simplified explanation should not belittle the significance of the relationship amongst Asia and the Middle East. Labor movements and capital flows should be expected to flow in the manner dictated by factor rerurns.
The function of the Organization of Islamic Conferences is essentially to foster energy and economic cooperation and to deter or contain U.S. presence and influence in central Asia.

Thus, Indian workers have long been active in the Gulf energy and construction markets, but now they are being joined by Chinese workers following their firms’ investments across North Africa and the Gulf, from Algeria to Iran.

Furthermore, politics are also playing an important role now. The way countries in Asia and the Gulf perceive geo-political change, mutual economic and cultural interests and strategic allegiances all seem to be playing a role in not only the movement of migrant labor, but more importantly that of capital.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The solution to our foreign policy problems is not merely a reevaluation of our strategy in iraq, or even that of the entire war on terror; but the complete transformation of our worldview. Instead of assuming that everyone loves democracy and wants to have it; instead we must come to the recognition that their are only two important groups: the predators and the prey. I ask you should we wait and allow ourselves become the prey, or should we commit ourselves to the logical course of action and show the world why one should fear angering america.

Whilst our National Symbol is often thought of as a predator supreme, the sad fact is that it is often a feaster upon on another's ill fortune, a scavenger rather than either prey or predator.

To be as an eagle; dain to dine upon history's road kills.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The solution to our foreign policy problems is not merely a reevaluation of our strategy in iraq, or even that of the entire war on terror; but the complete transformation of our worldview. Instead of assuming that everyone loves democracy and wants to have it; instead we must come to the recognition that their are only two important groups: the predators and the prey. I ask you should we wait and allow ourselves become the prey, or should we commit ourselves to the logical course of action and show the world why one should fear angering america.

I'm a fan of Guns, Germs and Steel, a book that focuses on the materialistic reasons why Western cultures came to dominate the world. Basically, sailing ships, weapons and superior disease immunities allowed some cultures to dominate and suppress others. In your metaphor, that was a golden age for predators, when the hunters could grow fat at the expense of the grass eaters.

Problem is, modern weapons technology and medicine have closed that window of opportunity. When the West comes in contact with other cultures these days, there are no outbreaks of smallpox or similar infectious diseases that decimate their populations. When western soldiers come ashore carrying assault rifles, they face opponents with a perfectly adequate supply of just as good assault rifles. Insurgent tactics provide a force multiplier such that while a big western country might suppress a small third world country, doing so is no longer cost effective. Imperialism is simply not as cost effective as it was from the days of the Spanish Armada through Queen Victoria's Empire.

In short, this is a tough time to be at the top of the food chain. The plants are developing thorns. The grass eaters are forming into herds, growing horns, and getting into the habit of stampeding towards predators rather than running away. Making one's living by preying upon others isn't as easy now as it once was.

But some people are really slow to recognize this. Imperialism has given western countries a wonderful life style. Some are reluctant to let go of the notion of taking wealth from other parts of the world by force. I would advise such people to take a long hard look at the handwriting on the wall.

This isn't to say we shouldn't grow some thorns and travel in herds ourselves. This is a time when aggressors are at a disadvantage in dealing with defensive alliances. Sure, let's be part of some defensive alliances. It is possible to avoid being prey without trying to eat someone else.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Those of us that found the idea of the Iraq War inane, did so for many differing reasons. We need to be cautious about being too smug in our correctness.

I will take this opportunity to readmit that I was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on Iraq. I supported the invasion when it happened. I wrongly believed the Bush Administration about "imminent threat", "clear and present danger", "mushroom clouds" over our cities.

I would still say that if a president has a strong indication that an attack is truly imminent, then his oath is not to the UN Charter but to the US Constitution and he needs to protect America, if by a preemptive strike if necessary. That said, that was not the case. HC can twist himself into as many pretzels as he likes, it still won't be the case.

Other than in the severe condition I outlined above, I consider it a crime to pre-emptively invade another country, especially without legitimate international sanction. Believe you me, I am shocked that I am saying this, but I can actually understand those who say we are now a "rogue state".

The fact that we were lied to (forget WMD's, just on the "imminent threat" garbage), and that Dubya preemptively invaded another nation in our name, leads me to support impeachment and trial of the president. He should sit in jail for the rest of his life. Hell, I'm tempted to turn him over to the War Crimes Tribunal, but that still too much for me.

I admit to being wrong, very wrong, on the Iraq invasion.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm a fan of Guns, Germs and Steel, a book that focuses on the materialistic reasons why Western cultures came to dominate the world. Basically, sailing ships, weapons and superior disease immunities allowed some cultures to dominate and suppress others. In your metaphor, that was a golden age for predators, when the hunters could grow fat at the expense of the grass eaters.

Problem is, modern weapons technology and medicine have closed that window of opportunity. When the West comes in contact with other cultures these days, there are no outbreaks of smallpox or similar infectious diseases that decimate their populations. When western soldiers come ashore carrying assault rifles, they face opponents with a perfectly adequate supply of just as good assault rifles. Insurgent tactics provide a force multiplier such that while a big western country might suppress a small third world country, doing so is no longer cost effective. Imperialism is simply not as cost effective as it was from the days of the Spanish Armada through Queen Victoria's Empire.

In short, this is a tough time to be at the top of the food chain. The plants are developing thorns. The grass eaters are forming into herds, growing horns, and getting into the habit of stampeding towards predators rather than running away. Making one's living by preying upon others isn't as easy now as it once was.

But some people are really slow to recognize this. Imperialism has given western countries a wonderful life style. Some are reluctant to let go of the notion of taking wealth from other parts of the world by force. I would advise such people to take a long hard look at the handwriting on the wall.

This isn't to say we shouldn't grow some thorns and travel in herds ourselves. This is a time when aggressors are at a disadvantage in dealing with defensive alliances. Sure, let's be part of some defensive alliances. It is possible to avoid being prey without trying to eat someone else.

It is not about taking wealth or securing the world by force or by spreading democracy, no matter how much ideologues such as the neocons and their rivals say it is. What we need is the formation of a movement that is a clean break from the politics spawned in the 60's. We need strong leaders who will promise and execute the realization of our nations' fullest potential with courage and honesty. We need to realize that our future lies not with partnerships with the mideast, europe, and russia; but with that with the anglosphere, latin america, sub-saharan africa and possibly india. Our issue with the muslim world should be purely because of 9/11. We should have sought the destruction of those who had attacked us, if the muslim world chooses to side with our attackers; we should show no more concern for the peoples of that region than what a man shows toward the flies he finds and squashes with his swatter.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

It is not about taking wealth or securing the world by force or by spreading democracy, no matter how much ideologues such as the neocons and their rivals say it is.

Good. Mind you, movement towards democracy would benefit many cultures if they are ready to so move, but forcing it at gunpoint seems clearly problematic.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

What we need is the formation of a movement that is a clean break from the politics spawned in the 60's. We need strong leaders who will promise and execute the realization of our nations' fullest potential with courage and honesty.

I'm a fan of the Blue Awakening. I'll favor ethnic equality, gender equality, and ecological thinking while distrusting the military industrial complex. The 60s also held the last gasp of the GI generation's willingness to tax and spend to achieve great things. When you talk of "strong leaders who will promise and execute the realization of our nations' fullest potential with courage and honesty" I think of JFK.

My distrust is for the politics spawned of the 70s. After the Fall of Saigon, Watergate, the Oil Crisis, the Hostage Crisis and the National Malaise, we have had shrunken ambitions. Rather than fighting poverty or flying to the Moon we have been looking for tax breaks and ways to impose local morality on other parts of the country. We're about big houses and big SUVs. Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you. Don't worry about costs. Our children and grandchildren can pay of the debt at their leisure.

We haven't been really trying to solve major problems since the 60s. You can't leave problems unsolved indefinitely. They grow and fester. I can agree with the sort of leader and government you mentioned above, though we seem not to quite agree on what is wrong.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

We need to realize that our future lies not with partnerships with the mideast, europe, and russia; but with that with the anglosphere, latin america, sub-saharan africa and possibly india. Our issue with the muslim world should be purely because of 9/11. We should have sought the destruction of those who had attacked us, if the muslim world chooses to side with our attackers; we should show no more concern for the peoples of that region than what a man shows toward the flies he finds and squashes with his swatter.

Im not ready at this point in the crisis to bind to some parts of the world and reject others. Europe was wiser than us in its approach to Iraq, but is in more trouble with immigration and ethnic difficulties than we. I think we can learn from them if we can overcome our arrogance. The Mideast, Latin America, Africa and southern Asia could each pull through or could see failed state situations. Iraq and Darfur might be previews of the coming crisis. China, Russia and India have the potential to grow into solidly modern nations, but corrupt and autocratic government and high population density might also bring them into chaos. Our own corruption is to me a genuine concern.

Aggression and imperialism aren't good ideas just now. Thinking in terms of balance of power, alliances, friends and enemies doesn't seem overly relevant. Each area of the world has headaches to solve. If necessary, perhaps we'll have to swat those who attack us like flies, but maintaining stability might be more helpful than readying flyswatters.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I will take this opportunity to readmit that I was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on Iraq. I supported the invasion when it happened. I wrongly believed the Bush Administration about "imminent threat", "clear and present danger", "mushroom clouds" over our cities.

I was even more wrong I supported the invasion and never believed the shit about clear and present danger in the slightest. I always thought the WMD & democracy stuff to be justifications, not reasons, for the war. I thought the objective of the war was to do a Noreiga on Saddam. Take him out, replace him with an Iraqi general or this Chalabi guy and then get the hell out.

As soon as the US did this, the embargo would be removed, and the no fly zone ended allowing the US to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and return things to the pre-1991 status quo.

Of course the Bush administration never had anything like this in mind. Since I couldn't figure out what Bush had in mind--I had put something in there that made sense to me and supported that. As it turns out the Bush administration had noting in mind when they invaded. There was no unified goal. Each player, like me, substituted his own beliefs about what the war was about and operated from that. So Rumsfeld believed something like I did, that the goal was to get rid of Saddam and get out. Hence the invasion was swift, the country was not secured and no reinforcements sent. On the other hand, his neocon deputies Wolfowitz and Feith truly believed the war was about exporting democracy. It was they who gave Bremer instructions to disband the army and for deBaathification. In their naviete, they simply refused to believe that it could take more troops to hold a conquest than to conquer it in the first place. General Franks thought the war would an impressive operation with which to end to his career. He wasn't going to be involved in the post-war operations and he had recieved no instructions to plan for any--so he didn't. His war plan did leave 270,000 coalition troops for his post-war successor, far more than the 180,000 we actually had (the reinforcements that were to arrive after the troops reached Bagdad were canceled by Rumsfeld as not needed for {i]what he thought[/i] was the war's objective).

Had a stronger man been in the White House, like Bush 41, one who would force unity of purpose, the war might have been successful. More likely it wouldn't have been fought. I had made the critical errror in thinking that since the same people occupied most of the leadership positions in this war as had in the Gulf War, the competence displayed in the Gulf War would extend to this war.

But the most important figure in Bush 41's war cabinet, Bush himself, was not present for this war. Think of Bush 41 as Edward I, the Hammer of the Scots, and Bush 43 as Edward II. If you have seen Mel Gibson's Braveheart, the English King is Edward I (Longshanks) and his nebbish son is Edward II.

In the Gulf War we had Bush I, the "Hammer of the Iraqis". In the Iraq war we got our own Bannockburn.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course the Bush administration never had anything like this in mind. Since I couldn't figure out what Bush had in mind--I had put something in there that made sense to me and supported that. As it turns out the Bush administration had noting in mind when they invaded. There was no unified goal. Each player, like me, substituted his own beliefs about what the war was about and operated from that. So Rumsfeld believed something like I did, that the goal was to get rid of Saddam and get out. Hence the invasion was swift, the country was not secured and no reinforcements sent. On the other hand, his neocon deputies Wolfowitz and Feith truly believed the war was about exporting democracy. It was they who gave Bremer instructions to disband the army and for deBaathification. In their naviete, they simply refused to believe that it could take more troops to hold a conquest than to conquer it in the first place. General Franks thought the war would an impressive operation with which to end to his career. He wasn't going to be involved in the post-war operations and he had recieved no instructions to plan for any--so he didn't. His war plan did leave 270,000 coalition troops for his post-war successor, far more than the 180,000 we actually had (the reinforcements that were to arrive after the troops reached Bagdad were canceled by Rumsfeld as not needed for {i]what he thought[/i] was the war's objective).

Sounds like somebody's been reading Woodward's State of Denial. I just finished it the other day. Dang, if he's even one-third right, let alone half, about how incompetenty the war was handled, then it's a clusterf*ck of enormous proportions. If he actually is right, or God forbid not right enough (i.e., the incompetence was even worse in reality), then I'm speechless.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Why did we see things differently?

I agree with David, this is a very important question -- though one which I had not thought yet to ask myself...

I think, were I to consider my part and try to reduce it to a level that might be held widely in common, I would simply indicate that:

• We are not incessantly driven to be hasty.
• We are skeptical of those who know for sure.
• ...even moreso if they come wielding a Program.

For my part there is much more nuance of course (as with every other person), but I could imagine that, lacking the above qualities, I might have found myself on the other side of the thing.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Our issue with the muslim world should be purely because of 9/11. We should have sought the destruction of those who had attacked us, if the muslim world chooses to side with our attackers; we should show no more concern for the peoples of that region than what a man shows toward the flies he finds and squashes with his swatter.

That's repulsive.

How you can denigrate an entire group of people (most of whom just want to make a living and enjoy their lives, wishing you no harm in the least) simply because they share the same religion (allegedly) as those who attacked us on 9/11 is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Our issue with the muslim world should be purely because of 9/11. We should have sought the destruction of those who had attacked us, if the muslim world chooses to side with our attackers; we should show no more concern for the peoples of that region than what a man shows toward the flies he finds and squashes with his swatter.

Our issue should be with Al Qaeda and those that support them, at least directly. Osama bin Laden's head should be on a pike at Ground Zero right now. That very fact that it is not is ANOTHER reason to impeach George W. Bush.

Our issues should be to embark on a massive program to make outselves energy independent in the short run and post-carbon in the long run. Then we can tell the mullahs who stir up hatred against us to eat their nations' oil, because that's all it will be good for.

If we can difuse the power of oil and contain fundamentalist nutjobs on both sides (ours and theirs), we will be okay in regards to the Middle East and the Islamic world.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Had a stronger man been in the White House, like Bush 41, one who would force unity of purpose, the war might have been successful.

The only consistent unity of purpose I've ever seen in the current Administration is that forced by Carl Rove to get Bush re-elected.

Double down on the Darwin theory.

paper urges a "surge" of many thousands more US troops into Baghdad beginning in March, 2007 for one more grand roll of the iron dice. The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq. Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need. I do not think that belief is justified.

Nor do I.

One of the tasks to be accomplished by the "surged" force would be to disarm the Mahdi's Army and the other Shia militias. The authors seem unclear as to whether or not the militias will fight to avoid being disarmed.

Nor whether they will "melt away" into the larger population and bide their time.

BTW, whatever happened to Osama bin Laudin? Didn't he provide the pretext for everything that's happened scince? No one seems to mention him anymore.

Andrew Sullivan compares the Iraq War and its possible spreading to the 30 Years War.

For what its worth, its a better and more creative analogy than I've read in some time.

The question is: did Sullivan think this is in 2003, and was unwilling to say so aloud (---$$$???), or did he come this realization last week?

The sorrow and the pity of being an elite, well paid blogger, and all that...

(There's nothing like the sin of being prematurely anti-fascist...I mean anti-war...is there?)

Originally Posted by Linus

Andrew Sullivan compares the Iraq War and its possible spreading to the 30 Years War.

For what its worth, its a better and more creative analogy than I've read in some time.

I very much agree.

Here's some light reading over the holidays (caution, very long pdf). Its what the best commanders in the field are reading --

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repositor...OIN-FM3-24.pdf

I like this -

Today’s operational environment also includes a new kind of insurgency, one that seeks to impose
revolutionary change worldwide. Al Qaeda is a well-known example of such an insurgency. This movement
seeks to transform the Islamic world and reorder its relationships with other regions and cultures. It
is notable for its members’ willingness to execute suicide attacks to achieve their ends. Such groups often
feed on local grievances. Al Qaeda-type revolutionaries are willing to support causes they view as compatible
with their own goals through the provision of funds, volunteers, and sympathetic and targeted
propaganda. While the communications and technology used for this effort are often new and modern, the
grievances and methods sustaining it are not. As in other insurgencies, terrorism, subversion, propaganda,
and open warfare are the tools of such movements. Today, these time-tested tools have been augmented
by the precision munition of extremists—suicide attacks. Defeating such enemies requires a global, strategic
response—one that addresses the array of linked resources and conflicts that sustain these movements
while tactically addressing the local grievances that feed them.

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_12_19_06.htm

In a parallel universe, I received a wire last week from the Executive Mansion. Would I meet with First Citizen George X. Bush (Jefferson had won the 1796 election) to advise him on the war in Mesopotamia? Being a Small Endian, I was somewhat surprised to be asked to meet with a Big Endian First Citizen, but of course I telegraphed back that I would.

It was commonly thought that the war in Mesopotamia was not going well. We still had no effective answer to the Mesopotamians' war elephants, and our legionaries were getting squashed on too regular a basis. I had said publicly that we ought to give it up and go home, which made the invitation to the Executive Mansion all the more surprising. First Citizen Bush had to know what advice I would give him.

We met last Friday afternoon, in a gathering that included a few other opponents of the war besides myself. The First Citizen asked what we thought he should do in Mesopotamia, and we all told him we should get out as fast as we could, leaving lots of large caltrops on the roads behind us as we left. Then First Citizen Bush threw us a curveball.

"You've said just what I expected you to say," he told us. "Now I want to ask you a harder question. I'm not going to pull out of Mesopotamia, at least not yet. I have decided on one last throw of the dice, one last attempt to win this war. What should that be?"
.
.
.

Go to link for the answer; its good

I wonder if the fact that Millies are not out in the streets using people power to keep their generation and their country from cosponsoring this needless, illegal, immoral, dishonest and deadly war, is because of what the authors suggested; that the millies will follow a babyboomer leader like a pied piper; even off a cliff?
Too bad the wrong babyboomer was installed by The Supremes...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wonder if the fact that Millies are not out in the streets using people power to keep their generation and their country from cosponsoring this needless, illegal, immoral, dishonest and deadly war, is because of what the authors suggested; that the millies will follow a babyboomer leader like a pied piper; even off a cliff?
Too bad the wrong babyboomer was installed by The Supremes...

Typical Boomer attitide, it's got be just like you guys did it (moaning. bitching, and saying catchy slogans and other typical prophet generation stuff) or it's not "real" protest. Us Civic Millies are attacking the system in our own way via the internet and the Netroots. We Civics are about action, not rhetoric. You'll need to wait 40 more years for your precious Pepperland to come back, Eric.

I sent this idea to Bush, who I'm sure is ignoring it. But, besides pulling out, or setting a timetable for same with the idea of forcing the Iraqis to get their act together, Bush has but one other option IMO to salvage something from his disasterous adventure, and that is to adopt this idea his opponent proposed. Kerry said get the UN to help, or to take over. So my idea takes off from Kerry's. I think for this to work, Bush would have to renounce the goal of an "American victory in Iraq" (something he's not at present willing to do, but needs to do soon before the issue is decided FOR him), and allow the UN and Iraq to take over the occupation with American help and advice. The Iraqi resistance will continue to oppose an American occupation, but the country still needs foreign help if order is to be restored anytime soon and avoid the danger of genocide and regional conflict. But this help would have to be truly massive; I say: at least a million foreign troops, PLUS Iraqi troops (as many as possible who are willing and competent). I mean, every pipeline, every worksite, every highway needs to be protected in a visible way; there must be house to house searches in Baghdad and other cities for bombs and militants; a truly massive effort. This would be billed as a temporary security measure to prevent genocide and regional conflict. And while it's going on, the insurgents, sectarian militants, and other able-bodied folk need to be given jobs to rebuild the country, offered by companies run by Iraqis, but funded by the USA and other sources and by nationalized oil. The good theory being bandied about is that people join the militias and rebels because they need the money and the work, so this needs to be provided post haste. Meanwhile, prisoners should not be tortured, but offered work if and when possible. Diplomacy should be used to avoid internal and regional conflict, and new elections are probably needed.

Unless Bush becomes willing to take this approach soon, instead of sending another 20,000-50,000 troops to attempt to do what only a million more can do, which only the whole world can provide (convinced as it must be, that the purpose is not to "win" Bush's war), then the only alternative for a country (the USA) that wishes to recover its bearings and its very future, is to demand from the new Democratic Congress that it cut off funds ASAP for this insane, unnecessary, dishonest war, and to "support the troops" by bringing them home now (with only such funds provided as to ensure a safe exit).

I hope a few of you will write your congress person and tell them to act.

Originally Posted by Odin

Typical Boomer attitide, it's got be just like you guys did it (moaning. bitching, and saying catchy slogans and other typical prophet generation stuff) or it's not "real" protest. Us Civic Millies are attacking the system in our own way via the internet and the Netroots. We Civics are about action, not rhetoric. You'll need to wait 40 more years for your precious Pepperland to come back, Eric.

Well, that's good. We need the action. I'm just concerned I don't see enough such "attacks." Are you claiming you guys elected the new Congress? Will that be enough? Will it do your bidding? The vibe from a lot of you new-civic guys seems to be, well, we were attacked on 9-11, so the "civic" thing to do is to get in line and support our president. Not so? I do know that the new civics do have a pretty liberal voting record so far, and I like that!

BTW people power, though probably invented earlier by Gandhi or whoever, was the method of choice by boomer rebels in the 60s, but it became the way to do it all over the world in the 80s, 90s and today. Many countries have risen up and overthrown their oppressive system, but such action has been forgotten here in the USA where it's needed most, or relegated in our thought to the days of young boomers. Despite what people here might think, certain things transcend generations. It's not just bitching and moaning; people need to "put their bodies against the levers and the gears and prevent the system from working," as Mario Savio said during the first people power protest at Berkeley (lunch counters and busses in the South apart). Sometimes sending emails and stuff is not enough; if the system won't budge, we gotta get into the streets. Whatever generation we are. But, I'm for whatever works, ya know!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, that's good. We need the action. I'm just concerned I don't see enough such "attacks." Are you claiming you guys elected the new Congress? Will that be enough? Will it do your bidding? The vibe from a lot of you new-civic guys seems to be, well, we were attacked on 9-11, so the "civic" thing to do is to get in line and support our president. Not so? I do know that the new civics do have a pretty liberal voting record so far, and I like that!

BTW people power, though probably invented earlier by Gandhi or whoever, was the method of choice by boomer rebels in the 60s, but it became the way to do it all over the world in the 80s, 90s and today. Many countries have risen up and overthrown their oppressive system, but such action has been forgotten here in the USA where it's needed most, or relegated in our thought to the days of young boomers. Despite what people here might think, certain things transcend generations. It's not just bitching and moaning; people need to "put their bodies against the levers and the gears and prevent the system from working," as Mario Savio said during the first people power protest at Berkeley (lunch counters and busses in the South apart). Sometimes sending emails and stuff is not enough; if the system won't budge, we gotta get into the streets. Whatever generation we are. But, I'm for whatever works, ya know!

The main problem is that the corporate media has had a tendency of ignoring or minimizing anti-war protests; being stuck in "free speech zones" in places where no one can see you doesn't help ether. Another problem is that us Millies don't have as much free time as you Boomers did because we are working our asses off to pay for obcenely high college tuition (I rember some quote somewhere that said that college students with too much free time cause rebellions, LOL! ). We need to take over the media if we want to get our message out and that's what the left-wing blogosphere is all about. We need to create a new media infrastructure in which corporate influence is minimized.

I'm starting to see some rumors floating in the press that there might be a significant shift upcoming for Iraq. I'm not saying that it's going to work, but my vibes....

Bush isn't going to admit a mistake. He will also be very reluctant to pull the US out of the Middle East with the dominoes falling the wrong way. This would impact the oil supply too much, and leave him sort of responsible for the fall of western civilization.

The Iraq politicians, however, may have seen some handwriting on the wall. With the voters in America going democratic, they don't think they have forever to settle things, and an infinite flow of American money funding their dithering. There is talk of a new Shiite - Kurd - Sunni coalition forming with the purpose of getting their act together. So far, just talk.

Then we have the new SecDef in a position to assign new Cencom and Iraq commanders. Rumsfeld was a 3GW guy locked into his bases and firefighting tactics. He'd rush troops to the hottest hotspot, pacify it, and once peace was achieved in a given town, he'd retreat to the bases. The insurgents know the pattern, and simply retreat for a while when the Americans surge, knowing they will be able to walk back in after a month or a week. There is a younger counter-insurgent generation of 4GW / 5GW commanders who want to imbed troops into the neighborhoods they are trying to protect. The idea is to get to know the people and the neighborhoods as well as the locals. The Rumsfeld era generals resisted this approach.

I don't see much point in a surge of additional troops without a change in tactics. I don't know that the new approach could work, but the old approach hasn't. On the other hand, the culture of the army is 3GW. From what I hear, most of the 4GW advocates are young guns, somewhat junior for the major command slots, and they would need significant clout to change the army culture. The Army wants to fight other armies wearing uniforms in a fair fight. I suspect the Rumsfeld era commanders would sympathize with the old revolutionary era Redcoats. This business of farming by day and shooting by night while hiding behind trees isn't fair. Why won't the enemy cooperate and fight in a style that meshes with familiar doctrines?

And we get to see 5GW put to the test. Having gotten a glimpse of how the insurgents can manage chaos, do the major players in Iraq want to cooperate by helping contribute to the chaos?

I'm not saying that everyone has suddenly gotten their act together, but don't be surprised to hear that a significant shift is being attempted. I don't know that all that much will change though. We'll hear assurances from the White House that the war is winnable, that we're about to turn the corner, and that things will be much better in six months.

And no one will believe it. Not sure I believe it. I think this round of shifts might be more significant than prior transitions, though.

Usual disclaimers apply.

Der Spigal wrote:

By Joshua Gallu in Berlin

The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors.

The consequences for such a law in such a state are huge. Not only could it determine the future shape of the Iraqi federation -- as regional governments battle with Baghdad's central authority over rights to the riches -- but it could put much of Iraqi oil into the hands of foreign oil companies.

The Kurdish and Shia populations want to control their oil-rich territories without Baghdad's help. Meanwhile Sunni Arabs located in the oil-poor center of the country want the federal government to guarantee they're not excluded from the profits.

the draft law lays the ground work for private oil companies to take large stakes in Iraq's oil. The new law would allow the controversial partnerships known as 'production sharing agreements' (PSA). Oil companies favor PSAs, because they limit the risk of cost overruns while giving greater potential for profit.

Companies argue they need long-term legal security to justify huge investments in risky countries; the current draft recommends 15 to 20 years.

Nevertheless, Iraq carries little exploratory risk -- OPEC estimates Iraq sits atop some 115 billion barrels of reserves and only a small fraction of its oil fields are in use. By signing oil deals with Iraq, oil companies could account for those reserves in their books without setting foot in the country -- that alone is enough to boost the company's stock.

some fear Iraq is setting its course too hastily and in too much secrecy. Greg Muttitt of social and environmental NGO Platform London told SPIEGEL ONLINE: "I was recently at a meeting of Iraqi MPs (members of parliament) and asked them how many of them had seen the law. Out of twenty, only one MP had seen it."

Last week, the Iraqi Labor Union Leadership suggested the same. "The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors,"

Many worry instability would only get worse if the public feels cheated by the government and multinationals -- the Iraqi constitution says the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. The Labor Union Leadership warned: "We strongly reject the privatization of our oil wealth, as well as production sharing agreements, and there is no room for discussing the matter. This is the demand of the Iraqi street, and the privatization of oil is a red line that may not be crossed.


Critics say the US is leaning on the IMF and World Bank to push Iraq into signing oil contracts fast, so western firms can secure the oil before Chinese, Indian and Russian firms do.

Criticisms have also been levelled against the World Bank, where former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz is in charge. Wolfowitz has been accused of pushing a US agenda after opening a World Bank office in Baghdad.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Then we have the new SecDef in a position to assign new Cencom and Iraq commanders. Rumsfeld was a 3GW guy locked into his bases and firefighting tactics... There is a younger counter-insurgent generation of 4GW / 5GW commanders who want to imbed troops into the neighborhoods they are trying to protect. The idea is to get to know the people and the neighborhoods as well as the locals. The Rumsfeld era generals resisted this approach.

So, do you have the impression that Gates "gets it" wrt 4GW? He's quick to point out all the mistakes that Rumsfeld et al have made, but does he understand that the military's tactics are completely inappropriate for the Iraq theatre?