Friday, April 09, 2004
The price of oil
As this article notes, the reason the price of oil has gone up is NOT because America is topping up its strategic reserves, but because China's fast growing economy is now the second-biggest importer of oil. Of course, that implies that oil-using products are in high demand, such as cars, as American car companies are noting (happily) on their balance sheets.
I'm not overly worried about the price of oil, however. Always remember that prices are a signal to markets. The last time the price of oil went up, new fields in the North Sea opened up to make up for demand, and fields in Texas suddenly became economical again. Of more interest to me, though, is a post-oil future. Hydrogen, and fuel cells, will only be a credible option if the price of oil starts to go up. Of course, that won't help the millions of Americans barreling down the roads in the civilian equivalent of Sherman tanks, but it DOES start to push us towards reducing our dependence on oil, something Congress didn't have the courage to try in the aftermath of September 11th.
We don't want it to go TOO high, to be sure, but never underestimate human ingenuity. As prices rise, we start to find ways to use oil more efficiently. Higher prices over the medium term will result in even more efficiencies.
As this article notes, the reason the price of oil has gone up is NOT because America is topping up its strategic reserves, but because China's fast growing economy is now the second-biggest importer of oil. Of course, that implies that oil-using products are in high demand, such as cars, as American car companies are noting (happily) on their balance sheets.
I'm not overly worried about the price of oil, however. Always remember that prices are a signal to markets. The last time the price of oil went up, new fields in the North Sea opened up to make up for demand, and fields in Texas suddenly became economical again. Of more interest to me, though, is a post-oil future. Hydrogen, and fuel cells, will only be a credible option if the price of oil starts to go up. Of course, that won't help the millions of Americans barreling down the roads in the civilian equivalent of Sherman tanks, but it DOES start to push us towards reducing our dependence on oil, something Congress didn't have the courage to try in the aftermath of September 11th.
We don't want it to go TOO high, to be sure, but never underestimate human ingenuity. As prices rise, we start to find ways to use oil more efficiently. Higher prices over the medium term will result in even more efficiencies.
On the other hand...
From Adnan Pachachi, a member of the US-appointed governing council:
“These operations were a mass punishment for the people of Fallujah," Pachachi told Al-Arabiya TV. "It was not right to punish all the people of Fallujah and we consider these operations by the Americans unacceptable and illegal."
Great. On the other hand, if Saddam Hussein was ruling the country and the people killed were part of a security detail for his forces, and if Fallujah had been as restive as its proved over the past year, Fallujah would now be a parking lot.
It simply isn't acceptable that Fallujah persists in fighting against American forces. Yes, Iraq belongs to Iraqis, but lest we forget, Iraqis didn't depose Saddam Hussein, a leader that the UN decided was so dangerous that it was better to starve his people in order that the leadership couldn't get the funds it needed to do some nasty things. America deposed Saddam (and waited 11 long years to do it, in hopes that Iraqis might manage change themselves), and now America is going to drag Iraq (kicking and screaming, if necessary) to democracy.
Fallujah benefited from the old regime, and quite selfishly, would prefer Saddam was still around. It's worth remembering that if America left, Iraq might well have a Shiite dictator (al-Sadr sure seems like a candidate), and then Sunnis might end up the ones filling mass graves of the sort found in southern Iraq. Either way, America didn't go to the trouble of invading the country so they can abruptly leave as competing interests destabilize the region through civil war. America won't use Saddam's tactics, but then again, America isn't going to sit idly by while Marines - or contractors - get repeatedly killed in Fallujah.
Just to show how bad things had gotten in Fallujah, consider this explanation of what happened to the contractors (from MSNBC):
The security firm that employed the four men, Blackwater USA, told the New York Times that they were lured into an ambush by members of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps.
The Iraqis promised the Blackwater-led convoy safe passage through the city, but instead, they suddenly blocked off the road, preventing any escape from waiting gunmen, Patrick Toohey, Blackwater's vice president for government relations said in Friday's editions.
Sorry, but that's not acceptable. America IS going to hand Iraq back to Iraqis. Heck, I think it's safe to say that America wants to get out of Iraq as fast as humanly possible.
But America will NOT leave if the outcome is civil war, or another dictatorship. Some might think getting involved in Iraq in the first place was stupid (I don't). It would be even MORE stupid to leave Iraq now, while the whole place bristles with armaments and there is no consensus on what kind of government should exist for a future Iraq.
From Adnan Pachachi, a member of the US-appointed governing council:
“These operations were a mass punishment for the people of Fallujah," Pachachi told Al-Arabiya TV. "It was not right to punish all the people of Fallujah and we consider these operations by the Americans unacceptable and illegal."
Great. On the other hand, if Saddam Hussein was ruling the country and the people killed were part of a security detail for his forces, and if Fallujah had been as restive as its proved over the past year, Fallujah would now be a parking lot.
It simply isn't acceptable that Fallujah persists in fighting against American forces. Yes, Iraq belongs to Iraqis, but lest we forget, Iraqis didn't depose Saddam Hussein, a leader that the UN decided was so dangerous that it was better to starve his people in order that the leadership couldn't get the funds it needed to do some nasty things. America deposed Saddam (and waited 11 long years to do it, in hopes that Iraqis might manage change themselves), and now America is going to drag Iraq (kicking and screaming, if necessary) to democracy.
Fallujah benefited from the old regime, and quite selfishly, would prefer Saddam was still around. It's worth remembering that if America left, Iraq might well have a Shiite dictator (al-Sadr sure seems like a candidate), and then Sunnis might end up the ones filling mass graves of the sort found in southern Iraq. Either way, America didn't go to the trouble of invading the country so they can abruptly leave as competing interests destabilize the region through civil war. America won't use Saddam's tactics, but then again, America isn't going to sit idly by while Marines - or contractors - get repeatedly killed in Fallujah.
Just to show how bad things had gotten in Fallujah, consider this explanation of what happened to the contractors (from MSNBC):
The security firm that employed the four men, Blackwater USA, told the New York Times that they were lured into an ambush by members of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps.
The Iraqis promised the Blackwater-led convoy safe passage through the city, but instead, they suddenly blocked off the road, preventing any escape from waiting gunmen, Patrick Toohey, Blackwater's vice president for government relations said in Friday's editions.
Sorry, but that's not acceptable. America IS going to hand Iraq back to Iraqis. Heck, I think it's safe to say that America wants to get out of Iraq as fast as humanly possible.
But America will NOT leave if the outcome is civil war, or another dictatorship. Some might think getting involved in Iraq in the first place was stupid (I don't). It would be even MORE stupid to leave Iraq now, while the whole place bristles with armaments and there is no consensus on what kind of government should exist for a future Iraq.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Iraq and America's Election
As I've noted before, I think, and still think, that the Iraq war was the right thing to do. A gamble, admittedly, but justified within the context of Sept. 11th. America was the body largely responsible for maintaining the cage within which Saddam Hussein, a man who had invaded two countries and threatened a third, was contained. It was OUR troops in Saudi Arabia. It was our planes maintaining the no-fly zone. Maintaining the status quo of UN sanctions meant America would be paying the bill.
We'd already paid a huge price for that, as our presence in Saudi Arabia is what attracted the attentions of a Saudi bin Laden. Since we were already in the fire, it makes more sense, if we were in a gambling mood, to provide a solution to the problems that keep pulling us back into the middle eastern quagmire. Build a democracy at Islam's historic heart and count on common sense (who wouldn't want to be free, when the effects are so clear and obvious) to spread that example throughout the Islamic world.
My belief in that is not shaken by the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq. However, I am finding myself more inclined to vote for John Kerry in the next election.
I don't blame Bush for a fractious Iraq. Iraq was ruled by a much more iron-fisted version of Yugoslavia's admiral Tito. Iraq was a nation whose borders were drawn by France and Britain in the aftermath of an Ottoman loss in WWI. When you see borders with unusually straight lines, it's a sure sign they were drawn by people with little concept of ethnic and cultural affiliations of people who live in the region.
Saddam Hussein kept things together by killing anyone who crossed him, as the Kurds found out when he gassed them prior to the Gulf war, and as the Shiite's discovered in the aftermath of their failed uprising after the first Gulf war. His absence has unleashed pent up conflicts and confusion, and that would have happened whether or not the UN had been involved.
However, our ability to properly respond to this confusion is hampered our need to rely on a "coalition of the willing" and not a set of treaty-bound allies committed to contribute. We can't call upon NATO, because this isn't a UN-sanctioned action.
Of course, it may well have been impossible to convince the UN to take part. However, it is pretty clear that a) Bush is a globally divisive figure, and b) has zero international charisma (versus domestic charisma, as Bush resonates more with certain segments of the American electorate). In other words, our failure to convince the UN might be due to Bush. Even if the UN was a lost cause (not inconceivable, as the UN has historically had very little backbone - witness Srebrenica, or the failure of the UN to do much about Rwanda), we need a president who is VERY good at convincing allies to do what is necessary in the absence of treaty obligations.
John Howard's opponent (JH is prime minister of Australia) is saying he would pull out Australian troops if he wins. The Ukraine is getting nervous about keeping troops in Iraq. Spain already plans to pull its troops out. I imagine MOST nations are wondering whether or not they should stick around to help out in what they consider to be "America's war."
We need somebody who can convince allies to pitch in when necessary. Kerry doesn't have Clinton's way with words (Kerry was upstaged recently at a Democratic unity conference by Clinton, though probably less than Gore was at the Democratic convention four years ago), but he's multilingual, has a lot of experience living and working with Europeans, and is married to somebody who knows five languages, is of Portuguese descent and was born in Mozambique. Who you choose to marry says a lot about the kind of person you are, and Kerry screams internationalist.
We need an internationalist...or at least, that's what I'm thinking right now, and November is a LONG way off. It might have been useful to have a unilateralist in the aftermath of September 11th (and I'm not entirely convinced of that myself). We need, in my opinion, an internationalist to make up for unilateralism's nasty side effects.
We need to rebuild the relationship with the rest of the world, and Bush quite simply will be unable to do that.
As I've noted before, I think, and still think, that the Iraq war was the right thing to do. A gamble, admittedly, but justified within the context of Sept. 11th. America was the body largely responsible for maintaining the cage within which Saddam Hussein, a man who had invaded two countries and threatened a third, was contained. It was OUR troops in Saudi Arabia. It was our planes maintaining the no-fly zone. Maintaining the status quo of UN sanctions meant America would be paying the bill.
We'd already paid a huge price for that, as our presence in Saudi Arabia is what attracted the attentions of a Saudi bin Laden. Since we were already in the fire, it makes more sense, if we were in a gambling mood, to provide a solution to the problems that keep pulling us back into the middle eastern quagmire. Build a democracy at Islam's historic heart and count on common sense (who wouldn't want to be free, when the effects are so clear and obvious) to spread that example throughout the Islamic world.
My belief in that is not shaken by the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq. However, I am finding myself more inclined to vote for John Kerry in the next election.
I don't blame Bush for a fractious Iraq. Iraq was ruled by a much more iron-fisted version of Yugoslavia's admiral Tito. Iraq was a nation whose borders were drawn by France and Britain in the aftermath of an Ottoman loss in WWI. When you see borders with unusually straight lines, it's a sure sign they were drawn by people with little concept of ethnic and cultural affiliations of people who live in the region.
Saddam Hussein kept things together by killing anyone who crossed him, as the Kurds found out when he gassed them prior to the Gulf war, and as the Shiite's discovered in the aftermath of their failed uprising after the first Gulf war. His absence has unleashed pent up conflicts and confusion, and that would have happened whether or not the UN had been involved.
However, our ability to properly respond to this confusion is hampered our need to rely on a "coalition of the willing" and not a set of treaty-bound allies committed to contribute. We can't call upon NATO, because this isn't a UN-sanctioned action.
Of course, it may well have been impossible to convince the UN to take part. However, it is pretty clear that a) Bush is a globally divisive figure, and b) has zero international charisma (versus domestic charisma, as Bush resonates more with certain segments of the American electorate). In other words, our failure to convince the UN might be due to Bush. Even if the UN was a lost cause (not inconceivable, as the UN has historically had very little backbone - witness Srebrenica, or the failure of the UN to do much about Rwanda), we need a president who is VERY good at convincing allies to do what is necessary in the absence of treaty obligations.
John Howard's opponent (JH is prime minister of Australia) is saying he would pull out Australian troops if he wins. The Ukraine is getting nervous about keeping troops in Iraq. Spain already plans to pull its troops out. I imagine MOST nations are wondering whether or not they should stick around to help out in what they consider to be "America's war."
We need somebody who can convince allies to pitch in when necessary. Kerry doesn't have Clinton's way with words (Kerry was upstaged recently at a Democratic unity conference by Clinton, though probably less than Gore was at the Democratic convention four years ago), but he's multilingual, has a lot of experience living and working with Europeans, and is married to somebody who knows five languages, is of Portuguese descent and was born in Mozambique. Who you choose to marry says a lot about the kind of person you are, and Kerry screams internationalist.
We need an internationalist...or at least, that's what I'm thinking right now, and November is a LONG way off. It might have been useful to have a unilateralist in the aftermath of September 11th (and I'm not entirely convinced of that myself). We need, in my opinion, an internationalist to make up for unilateralism's nasty side effects.
We need to rebuild the relationship with the rest of the world, and Bush quite simply will be unable to do that.
Monday, April 05, 2004
The rule of law, and Islamic clerics
America needs to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr. Iraq is facing a new reality. After 30 years of living under the absolute rule of single man, Iraqis are now trying to figure out what makes sense from a political standpoint. Shiites are trying to navigate a line between secular rule and religious rule. Sistani, for all his flaws, seems to understand that there MUST be some divide between state and religion, even if the divide is not as firm as most Western nations would find acceptable.
al-Sadr, however, seems to think that religious rule matters more than secular rule. Unfortunately, as the experience in Iran has demonstrated, religious rule translates into the desires of RELIGIOUS leaders, not the needs and wants of the general population. That's always been the problem with religious leaders pretending to speak for God. They no more speak for God than you or I. Unfortunately, lots of their followers seem to think they do, and if cult leaders are any indication, that is VERY dangerous.
To a certain degree, it's understandable that people might be lead down such a path after so little experience with self rule (or self-expression). Heck, it might be an expression of simple habit. You follow a leader for 30 years absolutely, so it makes a lot of sense to transfer that blind devotion to the next person who claims to have all the answers. Shiites might not have liked Saddam, but then again, they are VERY accustomed to having one person call the shots. There is comfort in certainty. Millions mourned when Stalin and Mao died, and millions had personal experience of their predations.
That doesn't mean, however, that it is right to let them walk that path. America, right or wrong, is now responsible for building a democracy out of a country with practically no experience of it. Having a religious leader inciting open rebellion, ignoring the will of EVERYONE ELSE in Iraq, isn't acceptable.
There is risk in confronting a Shiite leader head-on, even if he only speaks for a minority. Unfortunately, there is GREATER risk in letting him continue to incite his followers to resist America. Iraq isn't ready for America's departure, and al-Sadr knows it. Chaos and anarchy is fertile ground for dictatorship, and I suggest that (and a desire to confront Sistani's dominance) has more to do with current practices.
America needs to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr. Iraq is facing a new reality. After 30 years of living under the absolute rule of single man, Iraqis are now trying to figure out what makes sense from a political standpoint. Shiites are trying to navigate a line between secular rule and religious rule. Sistani, for all his flaws, seems to understand that there MUST be some divide between state and religion, even if the divide is not as firm as most Western nations would find acceptable.
al-Sadr, however, seems to think that religious rule matters more than secular rule. Unfortunately, as the experience in Iran has demonstrated, religious rule translates into the desires of RELIGIOUS leaders, not the needs and wants of the general population. That's always been the problem with religious leaders pretending to speak for God. They no more speak for God than you or I. Unfortunately, lots of their followers seem to think they do, and if cult leaders are any indication, that is VERY dangerous.
To a certain degree, it's understandable that people might be lead down such a path after so little experience with self rule (or self-expression). Heck, it might be an expression of simple habit. You follow a leader for 30 years absolutely, so it makes a lot of sense to transfer that blind devotion to the next person who claims to have all the answers. Shiites might not have liked Saddam, but then again, they are VERY accustomed to having one person call the shots. There is comfort in certainty. Millions mourned when Stalin and Mao died, and millions had personal experience of their predations.
That doesn't mean, however, that it is right to let them walk that path. America, right or wrong, is now responsible for building a democracy out of a country with practically no experience of it. Having a religious leader inciting open rebellion, ignoring the will of EVERYONE ELSE in Iraq, isn't acceptable.
There is risk in confronting a Shiite leader head-on, even if he only speaks for a minority. Unfortunately, there is GREATER risk in letting him continue to incite his followers to resist America. Iraq isn't ready for America's departure, and al-Sadr knows it. Chaos and anarchy is fertile ground for dictatorship, and I suggest that (and a desire to confront Sistani's dominance) has more to do with current practices.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
And they say anti-missile defense is crazy
As it turns out, even Brazil seems intent on getting in on the new, cool, trend among developing (or hopelessly undeveloped) nations, which is to build nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea are already in that league, and India and Pakistan are already declared nuclear powers.
If they can get anti-missile technology to work, then do it.
Back to the Brazil case, Lula has noted that he thought it unfair that rich nations have nuclear weapons and poor nations don't (or something like that). That being said, what are the odds of the rich world attacking Brazil, unless they do things like start to torture its own people or invade its neighbors, things it SHOULDN'T want to do, anyway? Nuclear weapons, historically, were a thing that rich nations brandished against the Soviet Union, not something we used as leverage against developing nations.
America needs to do more to ratchet down its nuclear arsenal, but it should be noted that the developing world has nothing to fear unless they do something REALLY stupid. Iraq wasn't a happy-go-lucky dictator who cared more about tending to his garden than events in the wider world. The guy invaded TWO of his neighbors, threatened a third (Saudi Arabia), and tortured, killed and/or gassed his own citizens as he built a police state wherein everyone was too scared of everyone else to pose much threat to his rule.
Lula isn't planning anything like that. In fact, I LIKE what Lula has managed to accomplish thus far in Brazil. His status as former labor leader has given him the moral authority to do things that oligarchs from the wealthier classes couldn't. That doesn't mean, though, that he has to stoke nationalist aspirations by cultivating a nuclear weapons program.
As it turns out, even Brazil seems intent on getting in on the new, cool, trend among developing (or hopelessly undeveloped) nations, which is to build nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea are already in that league, and India and Pakistan are already declared nuclear powers.
If they can get anti-missile technology to work, then do it.
Back to the Brazil case, Lula has noted that he thought it unfair that rich nations have nuclear weapons and poor nations don't (or something like that). That being said, what are the odds of the rich world attacking Brazil, unless they do things like start to torture its own people or invade its neighbors, things it SHOULDN'T want to do, anyway? Nuclear weapons, historically, were a thing that rich nations brandished against the Soviet Union, not something we used as leverage against developing nations.
America needs to do more to ratchet down its nuclear arsenal, but it should be noted that the developing world has nothing to fear unless they do something REALLY stupid. Iraq wasn't a happy-go-lucky dictator who cared more about tending to his garden than events in the wider world. The guy invaded TWO of his neighbors, threatened a third (Saudi Arabia), and tortured, killed and/or gassed his own citizens as he built a police state wherein everyone was too scared of everyone else to pose much threat to his rule.
Lula isn't planning anything like that. In fact, I LIKE what Lula has managed to accomplish thus far in Brazil. His status as former labor leader has given him the moral authority to do things that oligarchs from the wealthier classes couldn't. That doesn't mean, though, that he has to stoke nationalist aspirations by cultivating a nuclear weapons program.
