Topic: Iraq
America's Only Solution To The War In Iraq An explanation as the to the only route for the United State's termination of intervention in Iraq.by Christopher Espinal
(Conservative)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
What a hotly debated topic; it's so sensitive of an issue, that it remains a mere impossibility to debate in a civilized manner. Liberals screaming from my left, "Stop lying.stop the War!" and the new Right Wing constituency aggressively labeling war critics "un-American." In this blog post, I hope to be respectful in my commentary of the Iraq War, simultaneously tackling the facts of the situation.
Firstly, we must understand that when we hear the language of Republican officials, there's always a missing piece of information. In the first Presidential debate Senator John McCain, the closest supporter of the Bush Iraq Policy, mentioned his reasons for such supporting. The most important comment being "we have vital interests there" You may ask, what are those vital interests? My answer to that question is black gold.
Looking at McCain's comment and the numerous other statements made by top political officials of the Bush Administration, they always fail to provide the American Public with the full answer: we are in the Middle East to protect our oil interests. Even one member of the new political right, Michelle Malkin, once stated that the Bush Administration should admit to its intentions of protecting oil supply.
This position on the war issue will cause much frustration as Americans "send their children to die for a commodity." Of course this statement can only serve rhetoric more that it can reality.
One must understand that oil serves the United States as an important economic lever. Whenever oil prices significantly rise, our economy faces contractions, cutting jobs and increasing business expenditures, hurting profits, thus hurting growth. People should recognize it as an economic tool as powerful as monetary and fiscal policy. It hurts all sectors, of course affecting some more than others. President George W. Bush made a great move by cutting taxes, and offering gas rebate checks so that our economy, making up for the high costs of energy, could continue moving in the right direction. Had taxes remained at their previous levels, our economy would have remained in the bear market position of job instability, all due to rising energy costs.
In matter of fact George Bush's taxes helped get our economy back in shape producing hundreds of thousands of jobs within months of enactment. This move also demonstrates the power of the Laffer curve, an economic concept aimed at maximizing government revenues. His strong economic policy reduced the deficit by over 1% of GDP in 2004, greatly exceeding most pessimistic projections, all despite rising energy costs.
President Bush made the right move in terms of fiscal policy, accommodating drastic interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve Board to make up for potential economic contractions caused by energy costs. This only shows the power of energy to our country. Without keeping the most industrialized nation moving in the right direction with energy resources, it cannot function. We remain the largest consumer of oil in the world and our energy demands worsen by the day. We import 66% of our energy resources, making us extremely dependant on the energy situation abroad. That number, according to experts from the Rand Corporation, Exxon Mobile, and the Department of Energy, will increase to unstable levels if not properly addressed. That's assuming if levels aren't unstable already!
However, we need to put all of this information of energy in context to the Middle East. This region is currently our most unstable source of oil. Most people think that Exxon Mobile is a dominant force in the energy sector but they provide the US with nowhere near as much energy as Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In matter of fact the private sector accounts for approximately 4% of world oil reserves. Up-to-date information from the Department of Energy, as of August 31, 2007, suggests that our major contributors from the Middle East provide us with 19.25% of our energy imports, the top three of those countries being Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. This number deserves a lot of attention. Oil that we import from European countries may also come from the Middle East pushing the stated value a bit higher.
You may believe that terrorism is the reason why we were in Iraq. We went to Afghanistan for terrorism, but we pursued Iraq for the sake of stability in the Middle East. 19.25% or more of our oil depends on it. If Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, as Russian intelligence suggested, they could've greatly disrupted the power structure in the Middle East. If granted this power, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, could've manipulated adversaries such as Iran, a Shiite dominated country, and Israel, a Jewish sovereign nation. Such disruption of power would lead to instability in the Middle East and problems for our energy resources, as Saddam would have done his best to export his Islamic revolution killing more Shiites and threatening Israel's sovereignty. It is no doubt that the Iraq War is tough, since we are trying to institute democracy in a nation of Islamists hoping to gain power, but for the sake of maintaining the Middle Eastern power structure, one can argue for its necessity.
But of course Russian intelligence was faulty. No such WMD's existed and now we must deal with the mess of Iraq. The real mess is not terrorism in Iraq. Iran presents much more of a problem now that they will continue their Uranium enrichment program in pursuit of WMD's. They also continue to fund extremism against the US occupation. Our CIA intelligence proved that several explosives and other deadly weaponry used by terrorists belong to Iran. For years the Khomeini administrations of Iran have also tried to export their Islamic revolution. If US troops pull out of the Middle East, then Iran will expand its borders into Shiite Iraq. They will most certainly threaten the strong hold of Israel, and more importantly, our greatest energy exporter Saudi Arabia.
If Iran were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, they will threaten one of our greatest exporters of oil, Saudi Arabia. Why? Saudi Arabia remains a Sunni dominated society and stands out as a strong symbol of the Islamic world, containing two of the holiest Islamic sites. One can see why Iran's supreme leader intends to spread its Islamic revolution to Saudi Arabia. They will also have the power to manipulate Saudi Arabia's oil distribution against the Western World: the society symbolizing a threat to the Islamic world and its religious fundamentals. Thus, Iran represents a threat to our national security and sovereignty.
Let's not forget the other Middle Eastern conflicts such as that between Turkey and the Kurds of Northern Iraq. Pulling out will allow Turkey to invade the Kurdish territories. All in all, civil unrest will happen if we decide to significantly reduce troops, not just for Iraq, but for the entire Middle East. That means, almost 20% of our oil supply and 50% of the world's oil reserves will remain in the middle of the entire Near Eastern Conflict.
All this information doesn't mean that there isn't a solution for our problems. However, one must understand that the world economy currently depends on the stability of the Middle East. If we are to pull out of the Middle East we need to make sure that our energy supply meets the demand to maintain our economy. If you think that we can just pick other countries to trade with, a report states that 90% of nations rich in oil resources will within the next two years erupt into civil war. Independence from foreign energy is thus a must for the United States and countries abroad.
Obviously, the solution to our situation is to be independent from foreign energy resources. If we really plan to pull out of Iraq we need to figure out a way to acquire other resources. If you're thinking of energies such as ethanol and biomass fuels, sorry but it's not a viable solution because it currently makes up only 3% of world energy production. We consume as of 2006 35% of the produced energy in the world where as China, the next biggest consumer, uses 14.5%.
What if we were to find an alternative energy source for transportationthen we will be in great shape since it accounts for 69% of our energy consumption in the United States. Technologies like those of hybrid cars can't solve this problem since the number of individuals driving will increase with time according to projections by several sources. We are rather far behind in our technologies that can help us with energy independence. Oil is the most accessible and most abundant of the cleaner and profitable energy resources in the world. It is stated that about one trillion dollars in research will be necessary for us to get access to new stable oil reserves and construction of alternative energy technologies. That is about the price of the war in Iraq. If you think that we should have placed that money in research instead of going to war think again, because an assumption that government or a few corporations will produce those technologies within tight time constraints is rather nave. The probability that the government will achieve this goal is much smaller than we may think. It's the same reason why it was a smarter choice to go into Iraq during that time.
Politicians, including Presidential Candidates, have urged that the US pull out of Iraq. They also urge continued research in alternative energies. Their plans will lead them to borrow additional billions of dollars to fund research or they will arrive at the realization that they can't leave Iraq. Just keep in mind that ever since the Carter Administration during the 1970's the same ideas were brought up. Jimmy Carter proposed national backing in developing technologies to slash overbearing dependence on foreign oil, ideas then pursued on and on by different Presidents again all never accomplished.
Barack Obama will argue that the US government in general doesn't have much enthusiasm for actually achieving goals. The government ever since the Carter Administration emphasized energy concerns and also committed time and money to achieving the same goals. Obama believes that he can change such culture of inactivity in Washington. He may very well stimulate enthusiasm but this job cannot be accomplished by the government within the time that he will pull out of Iraq. At least, as stated before, the probability that government will achieve such a goal in such tight time constraints is much too small. Losing the stability of 50% of the world's oil reserves is much too detrimental to the world economy.
However, say a candidate were to allow markets to deal with the research. Markets, by nature produce innovation and advance intelligence. It is a facet of business to expand by innovation. Competition pushes innovation much faster. All businesses want to produce the best innovations for profit. The incentive exists all the time for businesses to invent. It is at the core of capitalism, not at the core of government. Lack of competition will certainly slow down innovation. Even if the government gives money to big corporations a lack of competition still exists. The few players will remain few and will not succumb to the pressure that unfettered, and true free markets exhibit. This is truth, not rhetoric. The invisible hand excels at innovation.
The point is that the probability that free markets will produce the very technologies for energy independence, a requisite of pulling the United States out of the Middle East is much higher relative to that of government. The freer markets are, the higher the probability a technology will enter the scenes. There are several ways to increase competition within free markets. Most people believe our main tool is to lower taxes. Don't be fooled because barriers to entry will stop the "little guys" from pursuing their own entrepreneurial interests no matter how small their tax rate. However, other ways to increase competition exists such as eliminating licensing restrictions, caps, processing fees, and other regulatory hassles. The more steps it takes to establish a business, the less people will take those steps. Hernando de Soto demonstrates this concept by comparing societies that have huge bureaucratic establishments in his highly appraised book The Mystery of Capital. For example, to acquire land in Egypt requires approximately 70 bureaucratic steps, which may take years to complete. Countries exist that have more stringent restrictions. That is why lack of development occurs in Egypt and why technological innovation will slow down in the United States. It also shows why just cutting taxes does no more good than raising them in terms of producing really advanced technology.
Of course, special interests, or highly organized single interest organizations, and lobbying corporations, will not allow such change in our government. They will always empower the same people with the same lack of knowledge: the John McCains and Hillary Clintons who swear that ethanol remains our only answer to this question. I get depressed when I read about Public Choice theory because what special interests do for this nation don't always further The Republic's longevity.
Sometimes I wonder: when will death be at the doorstep of today's Roman Empire?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2007 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, December 6, 2007
Last modified: Thursday, December 6, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Christopher Espinal only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Christopher Espinal is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Let my say first that I disagree with many of your economic statements in your article. But as the article was primarily about the war in Iraq, let me say that oil is indeed a major reason for the war and for us to keep military bases forever in the Middle East.
The USA could easily, in a number of years, provide all the energy that we required and at prices below those which we now must pay for it in terms of oil. The two primary ways to do this is first nuclear and second to open up all areas in the US to drilling for both gas and oil. Yes, and especially in Alaska.
Let me give all some shocking numbers that I remember, but only in gereral terms since I read this years ago, about the TRUE cost of our oil and gasoline in this country. If you include in the price of oil all of the military expenditures [no human costs which are high also] we are now paying well over $200 per barrel of oil and the cost of gas at the pump would be well over $5 per gallon. These are just approximate and could well be higher if a proper new calculation was done using today's actual figures.
The major difference is that the total cost are distributed as those with the power wish. If these were the actual costs then the war would be called off tomorrow.
Another important, and I think the primary, reason for the US's interventionist foreign policy is an overwelming desire by many in politics to control the entire world with their ideas with them in control of course. This is in essence a global fascist policy.
This explains why we bombed the crap out of Serbia as they had no oil for us to steal, and why we would bomb Iran even though 40% of all oil may be cut off for a long time as it is shipped through the Persian Gulf which can easily be blocked by Iran.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-06 06:46:42
Welcome to the Nolan Chart, Chris! We're very glad to have you here, and I look forward to seeing more articles from you in the future.
I'd like to make a suggestion regarding your article, and then I will add some comments about it.
First, my suggestion. You didn't document anything. You made a lot of claims about what is happening, and you cited a lot of statistics, but you didn't document any of your sources. How do you reasonably expect readers to be able to evaluate your claims rationally and soberly if you don't tell us how you know what you claim you know? This is my biggest complaint about so many people in government and in the major media. Most of the time, they don't document their claims. They just make them over and over again, so that they acquire propagandist "truth" through the repetition. And on those rare occasions where they do cite sources, the sources are typically (not always) difficult or even impossible to track down. I'd like to see you help to reverse this trend by documenting your sources...all of them...when you claim specific facts in your articles. I and other columnists on this site make it a point to just that, and I invite you to do the same.
OK, with that off my chest, let me get on to some commentary on your presentation. First, I dispute your claim that Bush's "strong economic policy reduced the deficit by over 1% of GDP in 2004, greatly exceeding most pessimistic projections, all despite rising energy costs." In fact, it was Bush himself who had been running extraordinarily high deficits, record deficits in fact, in order to fund his Iraqi adventure. Yes, the deficit was reduced slightly in 2004, but that's not a victory. It's a further defeat. We have been bleeding so much red ink under Bush's leadership that anything less than a balanced budget simply adds fuel to the budgetary fire that is destroying our country and undermining the dollar. Bear in mind that Bush's deficits have more than doubled the national debt during his term in office. No other president in history has yielded as much red ink as "W" has. Calling his economic leadership "strong" is like calling Enron "responsible." Also, bear in mind that the hidden inflation of M3, which the government no longer reports because they claim it is "unnecessary" is still being tracked by private sources (financial institutions and the like) who peg it at roughly 13% annually. The link shows one source that provides that number, but there are actually many others you can find if you search Google. 13% is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The real estate market decline and sub-prime mortgage scandal are merely the first steps in what I expect will be a series of catastrophic events.
You also wrote: "You may believe that terrorism is the reason why we were in Iraq." Gee, I wonder why we think that? Could it be because that's what the Bush administration has been telling us over and over and over again?
You also wrote: "Obviously, the solution to our situation is to be independent from foreign energy resources. If we really plan to pull out of Iraq we need to figure out a way to acquire other resources." Do your homework a little better, and you'll discover that we have all the oil we need, virtually untapped, in the Gulf of Mexico. Also, while others might disagree, I think we should be turning more to nuclear power.
But ultimately, even if these options didn't exist, it really doesn't matter. The point is that our government should not be fighting for oil in the Middle East in the first place!
In case you hadn't noticed, when you fight, the cost of oil goes up. When you rattle sabres, the cost of oil goes up. When you threaten other countries, the cost of oil goes up.
When you stop fighting, the cost comes back down. When you back off your threats, the cost of oil comes down. When you stop rattling sabres, the cost of oil comes down.
There's plenty of oil, and the sheiks have no intention of stopping us from buying it. They will do all they can to drive the price up, but the reality is that the oil cartel is a lot less effective at controlling the price of oil than they would like us to believe. It's such a huge market, and there are so many players with so many different agendas that it's one of the few markets that are almost impossible to control in a sustained manner. The market forces are too strong in that market. This is why our best policy is to stop making war, to stop threatening war, and to stop being warlike. It's why peacetime is always good for oil prices and availability.
Finally, I would point out that there is one presidential candidate who is calling for our withdrawal from Iraq without simultaneously calling for the Federal government to pump billions of dollars into alternative energy development. That candidate's name is Ron Paul.
WMD were found. The liberal media only covered the story for a day or two, than they dropped it like a led balloon cause it didn't quite fit their "Bush lied" template.
Notice how you don't hear any chants any more from the Left "Where's the WMD, where's the WMD"? Even the liberal media never talks about it any more. Cause they know, once they mention it, they'll have to address the issue of the 500 missiles laden with sarin and mustard gas that were found 2 years ago in a warehouse in the desert.
And they don't want to be forced to go down that road, cause that cache was just the tip of the iceberg. That's a Pandora's box that the liberals just do not want to open, cause they know that there's a lot more WMD there.
Better for them just to drop the issue altogether.
You way overestimate oil as the reason for going into Iraq, and way underestimate humanitarian concerns. Bush and many of us who supported the War in Iraq, did so primarly to liberate the Kurds in Kurdistan, and also to free the rest of the Iraqi people from the Terrors of Saddam Hussein.
The Top reason for going to War in Iraq, was the liberation of the Kurds, and to get rid of the Monster Saddam Hussein.
This is a man who worshipped Hitler, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people, over 200,000 of them Kurds.
Your article has a lot of points going on. Don't take this as "jump on the conservative" day. I just want to put my two cents in on the Bush tax cuts.
Yes, they did have a short term stimulus effect. You can stimulate an economy by lowering taxes, or increasing government spending. However, the Congress and the White House did both! What that does is raise the national debt to its current level of ((Link Edited For Length)) $9 trillion dollars.
A growing economy might be able to lower debt at the same time as decreasing taxes--only if spending is halted or decreased. Instead, the government is living on a very fat credit card. It makes the Republicans look like the keepers of big government.
Although I benefitted from the tax cut, I would have preferred a spending cut first, so we don't have to have our kids taking care of our interest on the debt.
Since many of the others before me have chimed in on some of the points that I would also argue, I will limit my comment to the war in Iraq.
You stated: "...Pulling out will allow Turkey to invade the Kurdish territories. All in all, civil unrest will happen if we decide to significantly reduce troops, not just for Iraq, but for the entire Middle East..."
My counterpoint to that would be that staying in, and attacking Iran, while also continuing conflicts in other regions, would cause our troops to be fighting on multiple fronts. They would be surrounded, and the factor of a common enemy would eventually fall into place. This is the type of inefective warfare that eventually caused Hitler to be defeated by the Allies, and it is a situation that we cannot win nor can we afford. Not to mention the loss of support we would receive from our current allies (who are already starting to lose confidence in the U.S., and our relationships would fall apart). Word War Three would evenually be the U.S. vs. the rest of the world.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-06 15:54:35
Those damn evil liberals just know how to clam up when all the WMD's are found, don't they?
Teehee. Being an idealogue sure makes one say some pretty silly things.
One of the silliest notions about Iraq that I've heard is that if "we pull out", something will happen...
What do people who think like that do about having sex?
I mean, are you forever inserted in your breaking of the cherry day?
There is no law or physical limit as to why the US, along with a coalition of other nations, can't simply return to Iraq after pulling out. I mean really. Tell Turkey to stay out. Tell Iran to sit on their hands. Tell them all we are pulling out now, and if you don't behave, we will simply return. Gee, now why didn't anyone else think of that?
Hey dumbass, we are pulling out of Iraq. Bush has announced that 5,000 Troops will be home by Christmas. The Pentagon is planning on halving the Iraqi Force by the Summer. That's amazingly speedy. Could you imagine that being done in WWII after we defeated the Germans? Hell, took us 4 years to get the Troops home back then.
The only question now is how will all the Anti-War Liberals and Anti-War Libertarians react to the returning soldiers and Marines? Will they spit on them, or will they join the parades glorifying their enormous victory over Saddam Hussein?
Kind of an embarrassing situation for all the Anti-War activists. They were so wrong on everything: "Hundreds of thousands of body bags needed for Bush's War," "NO WMD," and "the War in Iraq is a disaster," and how about this Golden Oldie - "the Iraqis can never handle democracy."
Instead of dropping pointless attacks, and contradicting yourself, why don't you sit back, think and have an actual discussion. If you want anyone to take you seriously then don't use words like "dumbass" in your arguements.
The 5,000 troops that will be home by Christmas? The number is actually 3,500: "The White House says withdrawals are already underway, with about 3,500 combat troops coming home before Christmas and another 18,000 expected to leave Iraq by early next year." - BaltimoreSun
"As of mid-November 2006, there were approximately 152,000 US troops deployed to Iraq." US Forces Order of Battle
Just in case you don't want to do the work yourself, here is some quick math for you. And I'll even use your skewed number for this:
5000 / 152,000 = .023(number rounded off to the thousandth) .023 x 100 = 2.3 That is 2.3% for Christmas. 152,000 - 5,000 = 147,000. 18,000 / 147,000 = .122. .122 x 100 = 12.2. That's 12.2% of the troops home in 2008. All in all 15.13% of our troops will be home next year. Not such a big number when you break it down, huh?
Please show us the articles that show where the WMD's were found. I'm willing to bet that most of the weapons say Made in U.S.A. And when the troops come home I will welcome them with open arms... Why do you think we want them home? Because we care about Iraq forming a wonderful Democracy? No, because we care about OUR troops!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.