Don’t disagree w/you. But the flipside of federal authority is occasional overweening federal control.
Hurrah!
Cheers
Rick
Does anyone know of an aftermarket provider that supplies bomb racks for the Cirrus, and is a 337 required?
Paul,
Thank you for an excellent post! You’ve hit several nails squarely on the head.
Cheers,
Roger
Paul,
Your post most definitely does not suck.
-Mike
P.S. Or should I say it was not double-plus ungood?
P.P.S. Do you know what the “W” in George W. stands for? Wimpson.
Paul,
It is clearly about oil, but perhaps not quite in the way you think. Oil income gives some small middle eastern states a disproportionate ability to threaten our national security. Your best point, IMHO, is re: “our allies” the Saudis. The State Department seems institutionally committed (on a bipartisan basis!) to a cozy relationship with a corrupt aristocracy presiding over a repressed and largely unemployed citizenry. In order to stay in charge, the regime lavishly funds the Wahabi sect of Islam and all sorts of unsavory characters. As an apparent quid-pro-quo “the enemy” of the day is always someone other than the Saudi regime, typically the US, Israel and, to a lesser extent, the UK.
Of course, the Saudis are difficult to deal with directly, since the regime controls the holiest shrines in Islam. Military action against the regime by “infidels” might well lead to the generalized muslim vs. “everyone else” conflict so ardently sought by Bin Laden and his followers. I think that everyone can agree that this would not be good for anyone, anywhere, excluding Al Qaida.
Unfortunately, the key worry of the Bush Administration right now is a real one: Unfriendly foreign governments (e.g., Iraq and North Korea) are acquiring weapons of mass destruction. These regimes know that they can’t use these weapons against us directly without horrible retailiation. However, they certainly can give the weapons to someone else to use. A terrorist network “cut-out” would preserve what Admiral Poindexter, speaking about Iran-Contra, memorably and colorfully termed “plausible deniability,” making US retaliation difficult to justify. It is instructive that on 9-11-01, Saddam Hussein’s regime simultaneously made declarations to the effect that: 1) the attacks on the US were the greatest thing ever to happen in world history and; 2) that the Iraqi regime had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks.
Despite the real nature of the threat, we all must insist that our government is more selective in targeting the bad guys (i.e., keeping them out of the country) without infringing on our civil liberties.
Paul,
Very well said! Thanks,
A short non-partison post re: “the oil angle”. Presented briefly and simplistically herein:
From working in the petroleum industry we have a unique perspective on the events in the Middle East. Our various trade journals (and, rarely, some general circulation press) relate that much of the current divide among allies e.g. Germany/France/Russia vs GB/USA relates to the geopolitical hydrocarbon politics. France and Germany are peeved as they have a significant market in oil industry equipment and technology sales to Iraq that will be disrupted upon regime change. Russia’s biggest concern relates to, some loss of sales, but more critically to the potential for LOW oil prices which could cause huge economic disruptions. Several weeks ago a US contingent was meeting with Russian officials to allay fears of low oil prices. Russia depends significantly on oil exports to fund their government and their export pipelines are at capacity, so that can’t increase production to offset low prices.
Coming from California, I noted with interest a recent newspaper article that indicated that California imported the bulk of the Iraqi crude sent to the US.
It’s not just about oil, but oil has alot to do with it. Sadly, this isn’t the first war in which oil played a major roll (examples: Japan’s invasion of Borneo, Hitler’s invasion of Eastern Europe - remember those B-24’s bombing Ploesti?, etc.)
Hi Paul,
this Cirrus crowd keeps amazing me. Your excellent post is so refreshing for us “old Europeans”. We were wondering where the US intellectuals/left has gone. Well actually we were wondering were “sense” had gone alltogether. And now I find it in the COPA forums.
I sign every sentence. My compliments!
ralph
Paul, I came late to the public forum, and found this thread very interesting. I would, however, suggest that the “group of anti-British terrorists in 1776” that you refer to are maligned by the terrorist label. Rebels and outlaws [outside British law], but not terrorists. Other appellations could be nation builders, self-sacrificers, and noble risk takers. It’s popular to say that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” but it simply is not true. Not in 1776 and not today. it was not a policy or practice of the founding fathers to engage in terror. Gary
Agreed – well said! Yes, it does seem that we are a “bunch of white male libertarians” lately. I wonder what happened to the right-wing genuflectors that used to be prominent here?
Dennis,
Which of these bombs were you planning to drop?
"Unfriendly foreign governments (e.g., Iraq and North Korea) are acquiring weapons of mass destruction. These regimes know that they can’t use these weapons against us directly without horrible retailiation. However, they certainly can give the weapons to someone else to use. "
This is the heart of the matter. Those who pan the US/Britain stance on Iraq/PRK must offer their own credible solution to this situation. I haven’t heard any, but I’m still listening. France/Germany/Russia et al. will have much to answer for if their view carries the day and Iraq later blankets Israel with chemical weapons missiles or some surrogate of theirs uses such things for a terror attack elsewhere.
Saying “it’s ALL [emphasis mine] about oil,” is at root a religious statement: either you believe it or not and for most people no amount of argument will change their minds. I personally do not believe it. It is all about our national interests, and those of the civilized part of the world. Part–a small but significant part–of that is having a reasonably stable oil marketplace. I don’t have a problem with this.
I agree with Paul that decades of short-sighted foreign policy have led us to this point. I believe all thinking people would share this view. Unfortunately our system of government, dependent as it is on 4 year election cycles and the tendency of the vast majority of the electorate to vote based on their immediate (cheap gas so I can drive–or fly!–my gas-guzzler), not long-term concerns, has a hard time escaping this. I don’t know a solution that wouldn’t have other even worse “unintended consequences.”
Hi Kevin,
For a solution that many people regard as a very viable alternative, http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/adrian_hamilton/story.jsp?story=378130click here.
Cheers,
Roger
It looks to me like this is a “left coast” forum of political ideas.
I’m all for the freedoms of the United States, and don’t like them being infringed upon. However, I have no problem with rooting out the terrorists and stopping a regime like Sadaam’s in Iraq before they are able to give WMDs to the likes of Al Quaida.
I truly believe that the anti-war comments linking this whole thing to oil are an attempt to confuse the issue at stake, and many of you have fallen for it. If we opened up the north slope of Alaska, we’d have more oil available than we import from Saudi Arabia each year. How long it would last, no one knows for sure, but please stop clouding the issue and hiding from the real issue.
I am not a politician or an adept writer, but you should read CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER’s article at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030217-421021,00.html
Roger:
If the ideas put forth by the article you referenced would work the League of Nations and the UN would have been resounding successes rather than colossal failures. I think it would be a probable utopia if countries could work together on some of these critical, global issues. However, sovernty being what it is and general US envy will keep that from happening any time in the near future, keeping worldwide instability at its current high level.
Just my $.02
Jim
Roger,
We’ve been reading the latest Bill Maher book, and I couldn’t help but think of you with your love of WWII poster art. The cover gives only an indication of the updated gems that live inside:
It looks to me like this is a “left coast” forum of political ideas.
“Left coast?” Hmmm… Now, which state was the late Senator Paul Wellstone from? Lemme think here… someplace out west, I bet…
Or by “left coast” did you mean “west of the Mississippi River?” If so, you can include http://www.unitedforpeace.org/calendar.php?calid=1660Lanesboro, Minnesota. (Of course, being Minnesotans, they’re following the peace march on Saturday with a potluck at the Lutheran church.) [:)]
Cheers,
Roger
In my day job, I do reporting on, and write about, this subject all the time, and I won’t go into it here.
I will say that my friend David Ignatius has a columnthis annotation of Bush’s state of the union address and other material you might find vauable.
Minnesota’s turning around: Conservative Governer, 1/2 in the senate, and 4/8 in the house. We’ve tried the left coast theories and calmer heads are beginning to prevail.
You’ve got Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Maxine Waters and Gray Davis. Budget in a shambles and taxes going up. Economy in a mess. Better weather for sure, but oh for the days of Ronald Reagan.