Stay or Go?

November 21, 2005
     Should we stay or should we go? In Iraq?

     Neither Jack Murtha, the congressman who set the cable news networks afire this weekend, or Frank Rich, the lead dog on the New York Times Sunday op-ed page, mentioned the word oil once. I only mention it myself because it would be nice if we could have a coherent public discussion about staying or going in Iraq, and you can't do that without talking about the oil of the Middle East.

     But it does illustrate how deep the national denial runs and how foggy the debate gets. Even poor George W. Bush seems to think we're in Iraq in order to turn the people into Jeffersonian democrats, so the only issue for his opponents is whether that is possible or not.

     Maybe we ought to ask: what happens to the oil supply of the Crusader West when none of its representatives maintains a garrison in the Middle East? I use the term Crusader not to be cute, but to remind you how Europe and America are viewed by many people of the Middle East. They don't like us. They have a longstanding beef with us. Some of them would like to punish us.

     America is leading the current crusade because we are the society most desperately addicted to oil, and the Middle East is where two-thirds of the world's remaining oil lies. The one thing that we apparently cannot bring ourselves to talk about is our addiction itself. The commuters whizzing around the edge cities and metroplexes of this land probably got a big charge out of Congressman Murtha's anti-war blast taking over drive-time radio on Friday. I wonder if they thought about how it might affect their commuting.

     This whole spectacle -- both the inept war itself and our debate about it here at home -- is particularly shameful for the official opposition, my party, the Democrats, because we could be talking about the so-called elephant-in-the-room, namely how we live in America and the tragic choices we've made, and the things we might do to change that -- but the party leadership is too brain-dead or craven to do that. As long as we don't, we're going to be wrassling a tarbaby in the Middle East.

    Unless an anti-war opposition has a plan to withdraw from the project of suburban sprawl, we're going to have to keep soldiers in Iraq, if not in the cities, then out in desert bases guarding the oil works and keeping planes ready to fly in case some al-Zarqawi-type maniac mounts a coup in Saudi Arabia. It would certainly be legitimate for the Democratic party to oppose the idea that we can continue to be crippled by car-dependency, or that we ought to keep subsidizing that way of life -- which Vice-president Cheney called "non-negotiable." We'd better negotiate that or somebody else is going to negotiate it for us, and that is exactly what they are doing with IED's in Iraq and elsewhere.

     But without that part of the argument, the debate in congress and on the airwaves is just stupid, because we've left ourselves no real choice.

Comments

[stiffpicken]

murtha did mention the fact that iraqi oil production is down from pre-war levels on meet the press ... but that was about the extent of it. russert did not pursue the comment ... which boggles the mind

[Ivan Raikov]

Jim, while I greatly admire the way you have articulated the destruction wrought by suburban sprawl, I disagree that the way to secure the middle-eastern oil is through war.

Your discussion of the Iraq war here and in _The Long Emergency_ neglects the fact that access to Iraqi oil since 2003 has been sporadic at best, and it is only logical that the insurgents would attack the oil infrastructure. I think that even if the Pentagon and the U.S. government had the most brilliant strategists who had ever lived, they would have still become mired in a guerilla war.

There simply isn't a way to win such a war, and I think the reality is the U.S. will not be able to get to that oil, period. Maybe extensive diplomatic efforts would have worked in the past five years, but it is too late for that now.

[Dave]

JHK
The Dems are not only morally bankrupt, craven and terminally brain dead they are supporting the destruction of Habeus Corpus as evidenced in the recent Senate Bills on detainees co-sponsored by the paragon of the Democratic Leadership Levin. I was a democrate for a long time thinking like the wife of a abusive spouse that I could "change him". I finally woke up and left. You should think about that option so you won't have to say "my party" ever again which gives great pleasure just like it does the poor shlep who has been kicked around by a lout of a husband and says with the relief "I finally left the bum !" Think about it or maybe you need therapy for your separation anxiety.

[kd]

Good point, Jim.
Yes, perhaps the president has been duped, as it were, by his own propaganda. Of course a huge number of American voters have (whether it ever really was the majority remains, I believe, open to debate). But that's changing--or so it seems. What happens now that more & more people are beginning to question not only the war, but the sincerity/veracity of the Bush administration itself? Hopefully the next months will usher in an increasing demand for answers.

The immediate question I hear(whenever the subject of Iraq comes up in conversation) is: How do we get out? What is the plan?

The elephant in the room is going to get noticed, but probably not until it starts to tear down a few walls &/or trample some folks. Until then, people will be driving, shopping for Christmas. Some might wonder about our boys in Iraq. The gung-ho war spirit won't be "catching" anymore, not for a long time.

But the elephant? Not quite yet. Gas prices have come down, holiday shopping has begun.

[george]

I read about a young American soldier who was blinded and lost both hands in Iraq trying to diffuse an American bomb that had malfunctioned. Are we really supposed to advocate continuing this carnage so some people can drive their Cadillac and Mercedes SUVs 40 miles each way to work each day at 70 miles an hour? Has the whole effort to date been worth even this young man's sacrifice, never mind the tens of thousands of others killed and wounded or the billions and billions of dollars wasted?

[aj]

Will it take our hated Pop Culture to bring the oil angle to the masses? The new movie Syriana, which opens this week I think, is a thinly fictionalized account of what's been happening - the jockeying between Saudi royalty, oil company interests, energy traders, and US-China jousting for access to oil. Directed by Stephen Gaghan (Traffic) n the credits it claims to be "suggested by" former CIA agent Robert Baer's book See No Evil.

I still know people -educated, intelligent, creative people - who experience cognitive dissonance on Peak Oil. Some don't drive so they've not been hit with pump price shock yet, but they can't envision a world without all the goodies oil brings - they don't see how oil underpins everything.

In my mind, the definitive Peak Oil documentary has yet to be made - one that explains it clearly, succinctly, and paints a clear picture of the consequences of mismanaging this transition.

[dangerbird]

Kuntsler
Methinks thou doth protest too much. And too much, and too much, and too much. The only one who is really addicted to oil is you. You can't stop talking about it, thinking about it, dreaming about when you can control other's use of it.
As for myself, I'm getting ready to go fill up my tank with the eeeevil fluid, and depart for that modern day clusterf*** of a city called Atlanta. Spending Thanksgiving week at my Dad's house, which is, by the way, in an exurb. Oh will the horrors never cease?! Oh well, its nice to know that I, and my kind, are the center of attention, seeing as how the Iraq war is being waged to secure my family's sprawl lifestyle.
By the way, sarcasm aside. I'll try to keep up with the postings down there, and maybe throw in if I can, but they may not want me to put the word clusterfuck on their computer. Don't get me wrong, they are much more to the left than I am, and they agree with you guys more than they do with me, but they think that they will get spam from porn people if they type in that word. Obbviously not computer whizzes. Is that true? I don't, but then I have a newer computer with more blocking stuff. Obviously I'm no computer expert either.
Any way, you guys give yourself a break and enjoy a few days of the Thanksgiving time. Don't worry about Black Friday. It can take care of itself.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Oh, what is there to be thankful for? How 'bout this. Be thankful that you live in a country where you are free to hate the things that most other people love.
Happy Thanksgiving.

[Weaseldog]

Exactly KD. This isn't anything but chest pounding.

Representatives are trying out things well ahead of the election to see which talking points will resonate.

This is the right time for them to get started. Folks are busy thinking about XMas. The debate is background noise to many people. And over the next year as elections are coming, our representatives have plenty of time to reassure their backers that their public rhetoric is just to win votes, that they won't change a thing.

The war on Iraq was never meant to be won. We didn't go in with enough troops and trained civilians to properly occupy the country. We didn't put Iraqis to work to rebuild their own country. We didn't work to build bridges of understanding. The current crisis is the goal and it's a good situation for many people.

The Iraqi war as intended, has become an industry unto itself. The number of Americans reported as being killed isn't high enough to excite the media. There's billions of dollars every month being sprayed out to contractors for doing unknown things. Halliburton has control of Iraq's oil. And finally the situation isn't getting significantly worse.

Bush and Cheney have secured victory, and this is what it looks like.

If Congress and the Senate were to take a hard stand against Iraq, they'd see their campaign funds dry up in 2008 and their replacements push for a return to what we see today.

We're not leaving Iraq. We won it, we're keeping it.

The other lie about what winning means, democracy and all that, was just a fib. We never intended to win in that fashion. What we see today is victory.

[dangerbird]

Its Christmas Weaseldog. Its not gonna kill you to say it.

[Weaseldog]

Silly Dangerbird. Are you saying that you love wars and enjoy the fact that children have to burned aloive and blown to bits, to keep you motoring?

Have you ever killed anyone yourself, to keep gasoline cheap? Have you ever killed anyone in order to steal their stuff?

Yes, I hate that fact that we have a leadership that bleieves that killing people to steal their oil is a Christian act.

But should I give thanks that there are evil deeds to hate? You say so. I disagree. And though you may love killing people to steal their things, i don't.

[Weaseldog]

Old habit from chemistry classes Dangerbird...

[dangerbird]

Its called sarcasm Weas. I don't believe in that formulation in the least. I think it is crackpot thinking. I'm just having a little fun with the natives who actually believe that this war is about securing cheap oil for the suburbs.
Don't project your pathologies onto me.

[Andy R]

weaseldog,
Your comments are frightening - mostly because they are plausible.
Even if the current situation was not the intention of TPTB, there are enough interested parties to keep it that way.

Now that I think of it, I hope that the current situation IS the intention of those in charge - at least we know where to focus our efforts at change.
Otherwise, it's like fighting the terrorists - no head to aim for, no beast to slay...

[kd]

What do you believe "this war" is about, Dangerbird?

[Mike]

"TPTB"?

[dangerbird]

Empire!!!

[dangerbird]

Mike
TPTB means- The Powers That Be

[Weaseldog]

Ok, Dangerbird, you got me. :)

[Shep]

Kunstler is right. The coming oil shocks will stun ex-burbanites who will be "shocked, shocked" that this rabid military adventurism has stoked anti-Americanism in the middle east to the point that oil may be withheld in the not-to-distant future. Without a supply of 80mbd, this country is toast.

The collapse will come very quickly, and further military interventions will not prevent it.

[Weaseldog]

WWJNFO?

Who Would Jesus Nuke For Oil?

[Weaseldog]

Bubble Boy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112001257_2.html

"I live in a bubble," Bush once said, explaining his anti-tourist tendencies by citing the enormous security and logistical considerations involved in arranging any sightseeing. "That's just life."

[jesus-wont-save-us-from-this-shit]

if you have not yet, check out book
AMERICAN MANIA.

[jorge]

Stiff:

Shouldn't boggle your mind. Nobody will fess up that imperial scramble for oil underscores the Iraqi invasion.

Did anybody read Bob Graham's take on the run up to war? It makes fascinating reading even if the word "oil" is not mentioned anywhere. Succinctly (I'm posting the link here for your reading pleasure) Graham validates the theory that war on Iraq was a foregone conclusion at the very least one year before the actual invasion. Why deviate from the "War on Terror" already under way in Afghanistan? Why divert and distract resources from capturing and killing those responsible for 9/11? Because Iraq sits on invaluable reserves of oil, simple as that. We wanted that oil. Iran was too strong to take on. Saudi was (ambiguously) on our side. Guess who was the ideal candidate?

The link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

Should we leave Iraq? Well, that's interesting as a theoretical question. As a matter of practical reality, I think that the only thing that will motivate us to leave is war weariness or financial bankruptcy. We can't leave Iraq now or in the foreseeable future unless we're willing to kiss all that oil bye-bye. You don't think? Consider this:

1. Iraq is already engaged in a low-grade civil war mediated only by the presence of American troops. As soon as the troops are gone (or substantially reduced) it's going to be real fun and games as Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunnis slug it out in earnest.

2. Nobody mentions Turkey anymore because it is a very, very uncomfortable subject. Turkey is trying to be a good Nation playing nice in order to become an EU member. Realpolitik, neanmoins, has a way of trumping good behavior. Turkey will not tolerate an oil-rich quasi-independent Kurdish state across its border. As soon as serious fracture of the Iraqi "federation" takes place (signals: open takeover of the Kirkuk oilfields by Kurd militias and ouster of Baghdad authorities from Kurdish areas) Turkey will fully send its not inconsiderable troops across the border, EU membership be damned. Bonus: those oilfields might end up under Turkish control. Wildcard: will U.S. marines and soldiers engage long-time ally Turkey in combat?

3. Repeat the federation fracture scenario, now to the south. Shi'ites also sit on a whole bunch of oil. They've been receiving monetary, logistical, military and intelligence support from Iran (item: the torture chambers discovered recently were run by Shi'ite militia). When push comes to shove, I'd bet more than even money that Iran will intervene and help Iraqi Shi'ites to secure oil, territory and eventual control of southern Iraq. Iran's Armed Forces have made the point of noisily parading up and down during the last few months. Do you think they are doing it for their constitutionals? I don't think so. They are sending the overstretched U.S. military a clear message: messing with Iran will be an order of magnitude different than messing with Saddam, just try it, you'll see.

As you can see, leaving Iraq voluntarily is not really an option. It will come to happen as the overextensive armed commitment devours more lives and treasure.

But that's, as they say, another story for another day.

Cheers,

[ross]

So Weaseldog posits that the result we have presently in Iraq is the desired result, that things as they stand in the fertile crescent amount to victory in the minds of the Bushistas. Perhaps. It's a bit too neat and tidy a formulation for my taste. I think the Bushistas are sloppy bunglers, incompetent, and of course, deeply corrrupt.

However, I am, for the moment entertaining this notion that the Bush cadre are masterminds of long term planning and implementation. In that vein, I have to say that save for a very revealing Paul O'Neill like tome, we can not know if the U.S.'s perpetual stalemate in the fertile cresecent is/was the goal all along.

In the meantime, I think we can at least test whether the achievement of " "chaotic stalemate" (for lack of a better term) in Iraq is politically advantageous to the Bushistas. In other words, is stalemate an efficacious, let alone brilliant, political strategy? It's going to take some time to answer that question. Over the next two years, we will see if the legislative agenda, and judicial appointments of the Bushista's go through as they have heretefore.

[Weaseldog]

Good points Jorge.

The US has only one way out of Iraq, and that's to admit defeat.

We could win Iraq by engaging in a massive effort at genocide, but I doubt the US public and it's representatives could ever consider going that far.

We lost this effort from the beginning, by not engaging the Iraqi people in the reconstruction of their own country. We never gave them a voice, a plan, or a role in rebuilding their own country. Instead our efforts went toward building a new Iraqi Aristocracy to rule them.

Whomever does win Iraq, will do so by appealing to the people. Not by suppressing them. This is something the Bush administration doesn't understand or doesn't care about.

So what we have is the best we can hope for. When Rumsfield and Cheney told us the conflict would last decades, they meant it. It's estimated that Iraq has twenty years of life left in the oil fields. By then, Iraq won't be worth fighting over. What oil will be left then, won't be worth a military adventure.

And as was mentioned, pulling out of Iraq could well cause the ME to erupt in anti-US militarism. It could lead to the fall of the House of Saud. Then the Bush family patrons won't have a reason to invest in them anymore.

Our only real option then is to keep feeding American soldiers to the meat grinder, for the next couple of decades and get used to the situation there.