Gyroscopic Investing

I don't think so.  

If we want to continue driving our Suburbans and Escalades, we'd better get used to fighting for oil resources. The reason we're talking about Libya and not Bahrain is that the revolutionaries in Bahrain are Shia and have strong links to Iran.  Iran is quickly sliding down the back end of it's own peak oil production, and having a sphere of influence over Bahrain would be a major coup for them.  And it would put a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia next door... thus enhancing Iran's "player" status in the region.  

As for Saddam going into Kuwait: From what I remember, that was a good example of a diplomatic miscommunication (read: Screw up) on the part of April Glaspie.  

Going into Iraq post-9/11 was most likely a macro geopolitical play from what I can tell-- in order to have a more direct and centralized influence on all of the ME oil producers, not to mention:

1.  A buffer in case of revolution in Saudi Arabia and we needed to go in and kick ass.  
2.  A way to pressure Iran.
3.  A way to pressure Syria.
4.  An excuse for getting rid of Saddam, who had become a nusance and hatched a plan to assassinate Bush Sr.

So-- it killed a lot of birds with one or two stones.  (Two if you count Afghanistan).

Of course: If we invested the same money into oil alternatives... who knows where we'd be by now.  Although there are many who argue that all of the current alternatives together will only offset our oil use by a fraction.

Too much stuff going on below the surface of what we can see, to actually tell anything for sure.

Coffee,

Don't forget about the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" when listing the reasons for war with Iraq.

As I recall, that was the main reason that was given to the public.

BTW, for anyone who is interested in an excellent history of the Iraq war, George Packer's "Assassins' Gate" is great.

Simonjester wrote:

Adam1226 wrote: I have heard the argument made that we are bombing Libya to simply distract from our thumbs up on what's going on in Bahrain. Any opinions?

i have heard it suggested that it may be to set a new legal precedence for UN "R2P”? "right to protect" as far as i know we have always had a national/strategic interest in country's where we have sent troops to fight, this may be a first or near first (Somalia and Serbia come to mind as predecessors) putting troops in battle for humanitarian reasons...

There is no shortage of places where intervention on humanitarian grounds could be suggested: Darfur in Sudan, Southern Sudan, the Congo DR, Zimbabwe, Kirghizstan, and West Irian (in Indonesia) just to name a few.  For those without a coherent world view, doing nothing appears heartless. But for those who take the time to soberly envision a world in which everyone is eager to liberate the "oppressed" citizens of other countries, the picture is not a peaceful one. After all, Russia's desire to protect Serbs from Austrian reprisals led to World War I, and the plight of ethnic Arabs in southwest Iran was one stated reason for Saddam Hussein's invasion of that country.

It's also true that countries that remain aloof from such impulses do so by turning a blind eye to a lot of evil deeds. This is the not-so-pretty side of being habitually neutral. I think most folks really cannot sort out the moral conflicts inherent in deciding what to do about it all.  That's why we hear people loudly proclaiming the need to "do something" one moment, and wishing they hadn't the next.

MediumTex wrote: Coffee,

Don't forget about the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" when listing the reasons for war with Iraq.

As I recall, that was the main reason that was given to the public.

BTW, for anyone who is interested in an excellent history of the Iraq war, George Packer's "Assassins' Gate" is great.

This criticism has never made any sense to me:  The French, the Israelis, the Brits, and pretty much every other intelligence organization ALL  thought there was very strong evidence to suggest he had them.  I believe Hussein even admitted later that he was trying to deceive the West into thinking he had them. 

I think a stronger argument could be made, asking: "Why didn't we invade Iran?"  After all, there is undeniable proof that Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for years and is working on weapons of mass destruction.  My feeling is that: Iran isn't as central to the oil, strategically.

Coffee wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Coffee,

Don't forget about the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" when listing the reasons for war with Iraq.

As I recall, that was the main reason that was given to the public.

This criticism has never made any sense to me:  The French, the Israelis, the Brits, and pretty much every other intelligence organization ALL  thought there was very strong evidence to suggest he had them.  I believe Hussein even admitted later that he was trying to deceive the West into thinking he had them. 

I didn't say it was a criticism.  I just wanted to add it to the list of reasons that were given for going to war.

One of the many problems with war is that it is often based on a misunderstanding of actual events. 

MediumTex wrote:

TBV wrote: In the interests of historical accuracy.....
--Does Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to corner the world's oil supply qualify as an attack on an American interest?

As you may recall, Saddam was inclined to think that the U.S. was more of an ally than an enemy in 1990, after years of U.S. support in its war against Iran.  But just to make sure that the U.S. would not take exception to an invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked U.S. ambassador April Glaspie about the U.S.'s position with respect to this matter in 1990.  Ms. Glaspie's response was anything but clear, and appeared to say that the U.S. had no interest in the matter.

Here is a transcript and other material regarding the Glaspie-Saddam meeting:  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... april.html

The transcript is one data point.  I would recommend people read the Wikipedia article on April Glaspie to get additional data before forming a judgement on US diplomatic communications to Saddam prior to the Kuwait invasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

fnord123 wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

TBV wrote: In the interests of historical accuracy.....
--Does Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to corner the world's oil supply qualify as an attack on an American interest?

As you may recall, Saddam was inclined to think that the U.S. was more of an ally than an enemy in 1990, after years of U.S. support in its war against Iran.  But just to make sure that the U.S. would not take exception to an invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein asked U.S. ambassador April Glaspie about the U.S.'s position with respect to this matter in 1990.  Ms. Glaspie's response was anything but clear, and appeared to say that the U.S. had no interest in the matter.

Here is a transcript and other material regarding the Glaspie-Saddam meeting:  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... april.html

The transcript is one data point.  I would recommend people read the Wikipedia article on April Glaspie to get additional data before forming a judgement on US diplomatic communications to Saddam prior to the Kuwait invasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

After reading that material, I am still sort of in the same place.  It seems as if U.S. diplomatic communications with Iraq prior to the first Gulf War were, at best, ambiguous.

The larger point I draw from this possible bungling of communications that may have ultimately led to two wars is simply that war is rarely as satisfying an experience for a nation as the politicians imagine it will be going in.

The question of who is "right" seems to be quickly lost in a flood of tactical decisions, which create an environment of exponentially increasing complexity in which it is very hard to make prudent strategic decisions.  The expression that captures this problem well, I think, is "no one is wise on horseback."

Adding to the ambiguity of what "right" means in battle we also have the problem of modern U.S. style warfare as resembling one more big government program, complete with its own bureaucracy, thick levels of middle management, cost overruns, and intense difficulty in scaling it back once it is underway.  Note, for example, the way troops were deployed in WWII, Korea, Iraq War 1, Iraq War 2 and Afghanistan, and in each case these troop deployment became more or less permanent, in some cases even decades after the shooting stopped.

Harry Browne was asked once about why, if war is such a clumsy, inefficient and destructive process, the U.S. was somehow able to emerge victorious in several cases in the 20th century.  His reply was that if one government was successful in a war, it could only be because another government was the opponent and they couldn't both lose.

The book Harry Browne was working on when he died was to be titled "The War Racket" and I'm sure it would have been a good read. 

For a couple of thoughtful pieces on how to think about war and the state, take a look at the farewell addresses of George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower.  In both cases, we have distinguished generals-turned-Presidents basically cautioning strongly against a political atmosphere that can make war look like a good idea.

I agree that the diplomacy that led up to GW1 wasn't crystal clear.  However, my impression is that it isn't black and white either in terms of the US "greenlighting" an invasion, which is the impression some might get just reading that one transcript.  More generally, I think the US State Department is incompetent, but no more so than most other governments' equivalent agency. 

The broader point that the US has way too large a military and far too many foreign entanglements is one I agree with.  President John Quincy Adams was not talking about the present-day when he wrote that the US "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."  We do it all the time

The undercurrent of many foreign policy discussions (not necessarily here) is that it's the US that's responsible for ___________ (fill in the blank.)  Strikes me as a form of adolescent rebellion against authority rather than thoughtful analysis.  A few examples over the years:

1) Though there is zero evidence that the US favored the liquidation of the country of Kuwait, it is somehow our fault that Iraq invaded that country for that purpose.  The discussion never seems to dwell on the obvious: that Saddam invaded Kuwait and he alone is responsible.  To think otherwise is akin to saying that France is responsible for WW II for failing to send Hitler a strong enough signal that he shouldn't invade Poland.

2) Though the Soviet Union (and Russia before and after it) had a documented history of subjugating the national aspirations of the "near abroad" countries, it was allegedly fear of "American encirclement" that was to blame for their behavior.

3) Though the most costly defense miscalculations by the US (Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Bulge, Tet Offensive, 9/11, etc.) occurred when we underestimated the lethal potential of our enemies, some still argue that it's prudent to ignore a certifiably bellicose regime that already used biological weapons and who went to great lengths to convince the world that it had nuclear weapons as well.

4) Though the US engages in numerous foreign military campaigns (a worthy topic for skeptical examination), critics never tire of suggesting other campaigns that the US should be pursuing instead.  (Afghanistan instead of Iraq, Libya instead of Iraq, N. Korea instead of Afghanistan, Pakistan instead of Afghanistan, Iran instead of Libya, etc.)  However, when some of those alternatives appear likely to be adopted, the critics lose their enthusiasm and move on to something else.

For every libertarian or hippie unfairly accusing the U.S. of corruption, savagery or stupidity in foreign affairs there's two nationalists trying to defend everything she does, often viewing anyone who disagrees as somewhere between Anti-American (anti-war activists) to sub-human (muslim civilians).  This isn't how ALL nationalists or defenders of the U.S. in foreign wars behave, though, and I don't want to get in a straw man game where we're simply pointing out the dumbest arguments of the other side and try to act like we just won an argument.  I try to come at this without any preconceived notions that either side is giving the U.S. an honest shake, but I definitely don't think there's one homogenius group attacking the U.S.'s foreign policy with the same goal of undermining our success and stature in the world.  Some come to the table with arguments of mistreatment of the thousands of civilians that die in war.  Some point to the corruption and self-fulfilling nature of occupational wars.  Some just don't like paying taxes and are "live and let live" libertarians.  It is not one group of people changing their minds so much as it's diverse people with diverse opinions regarding sovereignty, occupational wars, foreign relations and aid, etc.

moda0306 wrote: For every libertarian or hippie unfairly accusing the U.S. of corruption, savagery or stupidity in foreign affairs there's two nationalists trying to defend everything she does, often viewing anyone who disagrees as somewhere between Anti-American (anti-war activists) to sub-human (muslim civilians).  This isn't how ALL nationalists or defenders of the U.S. in foreign wars behave, though, and I don't want to get in a straw man game where we're simply pointing out the dumbest arguments of the other side and try to act like we just won an argument.  I try to come at this without any preconceived notions that either side is giving the U.S. an honest shake, but I definitely don't think there's one homogenius group attacking the U.S.'s foreign policy with the same goal of undermining our success and stature in the world.  Some come to the table with arguments of mistreatment of the thousands of civilians that die in war.  Some point to the corruption and self-fulfilling nature of occupational wars.  Some just don't like paying taxes and are "live and let live" libertarians.  It is not one group of people changing their minds so much as it's diverse people with diverse opinions regarding sovereignty, occupational wars, foreign relations and aid, etc.

Moda:

I agree that individuals and groups of all kinds can be held up to criticism, but my post really had nothing to do with that.  Nor did it say anything about homogeneity, conspiracy, or anyone's goals.  My point is simply that the arguments listed did not qualify as thoughtful analysis. It seems you agree with me that at least some of them are pretty shallow.  That's a start.

To broaden the discussion a bit....

The libertarian argument seems to be increasing in relevance of late because of the frequency of our military engagements, the disproportionate burden we bear relative to other world actors, and the ruinous impact that all of this has on our country's finances.

On the other hand, the "political" utterances (from any quarter) of those who seek to benefit momentarily from a natural distaste for sacrifice, struggle and conflict are less compelling because they run the risk of being insincere. I seriously doubt that anyone has a lock on "peace", nor that those who scream the loudest about it oppose all wars.  You sometimes hear that we should not "escalate" conflicts when perhaps there are times when that is just the ticket, like in 1945.  You hear that we should bring our boys home, when that is essentially what we did in Korea....just before the North Koreans attacked in June 1950.  You hear that we should be spending money on rebuilding our cities rather than bombing others.  Sounds good, but if it's so urgent how come 40 years and trillions of dollars of targeted government spending hasn't stopped the economic hemorrhaging in Detroit, St, Louis, Gary, Cleveland, etc?

This thread provides us with an opportunity (if we want it) to step back from fixed positions and examine the nature of all debates over war and peace.  And to recognize that a fair amount of what people say is pure reflex, sometimes duplicitous reflex to boot.  Some examples:

1) If the republic is in peril because of runaway government spending, what difference does it make if the overspending is for entitlements or the military?

2) If opposition to past wars was based on the alleged unilateral nature of American involvement, then those who said so before should be delighted that the present Libyan adventure is endorsed by NATO, the UN, the Arab League, and perhaps even Betty Crocker.  If they're not, then we can conclude that anti-unilateralism is a red herring.

3) If non-interventionism is really that laudable, then shouldn't we be prepared to tell the Libyan, Egyptian, Bahraini, Tunisian, Jordanian, Saudi, Yemeni, Sudanese, Iranian, Tibetan, Burmese, and similar human rights activists that the US is too busy building a better life for its citizens to consider interfering in their countries' internal affairs?

We've all come to disdain financial chatter and market noise.  I propose that much of what passes for foreign policy debate is no different: a mish-mash of subjective and incoherent jabber intended to sound good today but never to be revisited later to see if it stands the test of time.

Another ringing endorsement for physical gold, this time from Libya.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/588ce75a-53e4 ... z1HGfs2GWN

Here's an encapsulated summary of what a thorough discussion of the Libyan situation should sound like.

http://www.breitbart.tv/kucinich-slams- ... -rhetoric/

moda0306 wrote: I don't want to get in a straw man game where we're simply pointing out the dumbest arguments of the other side and try to act like we just won an argument. 

That's the toughest thing about these discussions.  It's very difficult to quesiton people, even if you are genuinely curious, because things so heated so quickly. 

TBV wrote: Another ringing endorsement for physical gold, this time from Libya.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/588ce75a-53e4 ... z1HGfs2GWN

This whole image of Qaddafi as a gold bug is amusing.  Does this mean that Libya is the only participant in this conflict that can afford to finance her own war spending?  Looks like China is footing the bill for everyone else.

In fact, this whole situation has grown bizarre.  The President has stuck the country into war without Congressional authorization (something he said should never ever be done.)  He then immediately jetted off on vacation.

Meanwhile somewhere in his lair near the field of battle, Qaddafi sits on a heaping pile of gold doubloons surrounded by busty Ukrainian nurses.

I don't know what the end to this weird story will be.  If I were writing the screenplay, in the last scene Barack Obama would beat Qaddafi to death with his Nobel Peace Prize.

Lone Wolf wrote: I don't know what the end to this weird story will be.  If I were writing the screenplay, in the last scene Barack Obama would beat Qaddafi to death with his Nobel Peace Prize.

Perhaps they could do a cage match a la Thunderdome.  That would provide a pretext for them to each be wearing leather chaps.

MediumTex wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote: I don't know what the end to this weird story will be.  If I were writing the screenplay, in the last scene Barack Obama would beat Qaddafi to death with his Nobel Peace Prize.

Perhaps they could do a cage match a la Thunderdome.  That would provide a pretext for them to each be wearing leather chaps.

Oh my goodness.  If the project could snag Tina Turner, this whole thread would need to be moved to the "Variable Portfolio" and re-titled "Opportunity to Invest in the Best Movie Ever".

Lone Wolf wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote: I don't know what the end to this weird story will be.  If I were writing the screenplay, in the last scene Barack Obama would beat Qaddafi to death with his Nobel Peace Prize.

Perhaps they could do a cage match a la Thunderdome.  That would provide a pretext for them to each be wearing leather chaps.

Oh my goodness.  If the project could snag Tina Turner, this whole thread would need to be moved to the "Variable Portfolio" and re-titled "Opportunity to Invest in the Best Movie Ever".

Mad Barack: Beyond No-Fly Zone Dome

Lone Wolf wrote:
Meanwhile somewhere in his lair near the field of battle, Qaddafi sits on a heaping pile of gold doubloons surrounded by busty Ukrainian nurses.

I don't know what the end to this weird story will be.  If I were writing the screenplay, in the last scene Barack Obama would beat Qaddafi to death with his Nobel Peace Prize.

The sequel with Kim Jong-il practically writes itself. I do hope that you can find a role for the Ukrainian nurses.