The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

If you Americans or Canadians still have any doubts about what Zenda said, print up the article and ask any foreigner about it - you will probably be as astonished as I was at their response: they are not shocked when you tell them, as a matter of fact, they look at you more like, "duh! Everyone knows that!"

There is a "well, duh" aspect to the idea that oil is strategically important. I think maybe even that in order to keep economic stability the US would engage in a war. The issue is that if that were true, there are better targets than Iraq strategically to provide the US oil. It might make more sense if the US was interested in keeping Europe from an economic meltdown, therefore ergo the Western democracies as a whole. The oil in the middle east, frankly, is too far away from the US to be useful directly. I would rather we put Mr. Chavez out of the oil business. But, by having the middle east supply the needs of Eurasia, it reduces the price of the commodity world wide. That helps the US (and world) economy. I think if you want to really understand geopolitics and oil, then research the history of Saudi Arabia. You will understand why Britain and the US often stand shoulder to shoulder, and why economically, Saudi Arabia is the worlds most important trading partner. The truth of petroleum economics is that Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil in the world, and the US is the largest consumer of oil in the world. Without the Saudi wealth and power of oil, Wahabism would be a backwater Islamic sect practiced by nomads and some fixed poor settlements around the Persian Gulf. The US as the largest consumer of oil has a lot of influence in from whom we will buy the oil, thus making or breaking economies. The oil monopolies, like OPEC, and OECD have the option of embargo or lowering production rates to control prices, or try to devastate an economy (like the 70's OPEC embargo).

Edit: As an after thought here, consider the US position on Saudi Arabia AND Israel. Isn't it convenient that we are poised as the protector of both the seat of Islam, and the seat of Judaism? We probably helped (at least indirectly) supply the Israeli's with nukes, and another power in the middle east close to having nukes is... drum roll please... the Saudi's! Yeah, yeah, we all know about Iran... But, check out the Saudi program. Anyway, I find the balance of power that the US wields between Saudi Arabia, and Israel a very interesting geo-political phenomena. Then, consider who is helping Iran get nukes and ballistic missles... Russia, North Korea, China... So, the Cold War proxy fighting is over... or is it?

The Zenda article errs in many ways by making mostly unsubstantiated claims about the importance of trade deficits, national debt, and replacing the gold standard for an oil standard (strategic petroleum reserves). The article is really based on some truth, which I've mentioned above, the importance of petroleum as a strategic mineral to the world (and the world economy). Much of the rest of it is Chomskyesque drivel which replaces logic with intellectualism. If you can't dazzle us with brilliance, then at least baffle us with bull excrement.

For example, the article concludes with "However, the rate is held in shape artificially, like by the hoarding of the central banks in China, Japan, Taiwan and other countries. Because these hoardings mean an impoverishment of these countries and because the US speeds up the debt building indefinitely, there will be a moment that these central banks have to stop hoarding dollars. So the question is not IF the dollar collapses, but WHEN. Because traders are misled by the apparently healthy dollar rate, many still accept these IOU’s, which nestle like green cancer cells in all economies of the world. The result is ineluctable. All infected banks, enterprises and economies will be dragged along the day the demand for dollars sags and the US empire collapses."

This is ludicrous economic thinking and obviously wishful thinking ("collapse of the US Empire") on the part of Rudo de Ruijter(an "independent" journalist from the Netherlands). He also believes the US faked 9/11. Yes, there are idiots all over the world. They are not isolated, as some Eurotrash would want you to believe, in the red states of the US.

The strength of the US economy is established by our GNP and GDP, and what Rudo de Ruijter does not do is show you the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Also, trade imbalance becomes more meaningless as more and more US industries diversify abroad. I don't know many large US companies that do not have foreign subsidiaries that offset the dollars weakness within that companies bottom line. What hurts the economy is sudden unpredictable change. A weak dollar means that US goods are cheaper to everyone in the world, and even people in the US are better off buying domestic products. A weak dollar is good for US manufacturers, and hurts foreign companies seeking to sell products in the US. That Toyota just got really expensive, but the GM looks like a better buy now. A good site on understanding the value of a dollar.

National Debt, and deficit spending is a political issue with which we need to wrestle down. Debt vs GDP You can see we are better off than we were post WWII, but much worse off than we were during the 1980's. You can see the inherent power struggle between Dems and Reps in their approach to deficit spending. The three options are 1) spend less, 2) raise more taxes, or 3) borrow. #1 and #2 have higher political consequences, so the default for both is #3. What does this have to do with Petroleum? Nothing.

So Meat, I would not be so easily swayed by the "common" vilification of the US by your foreign visitors. The trashing of "neo-con" ideologies, and the Bush-Cheney oil war are common beliefs outside the US. Look deeper and discover the truth.

The truth lies in protecting "The Kindom". The truth lies in having a place outside of "The Kingdom" to house US military bases and spying operations. We are probably not there to promote democracy, or necessarily stop the spread of WMD's. We are there because Iraq moved from friendly to enemy and aligned itself with the people who are against the US and our strategic interests (one of which is cheap oil). We are there because the UN failed. We are there, because it was possible for us to take it from Saddam (a despot) with little loss of life. Even though there has been an insurgency which has claimed unnecessary lives, the price for taking Iraq has been small. That was the gist of my original post. Compare the price and value of taking of the strategically important "Iraq" with the strategically meaningless taking of Rome, or Iwo Jima in WWII. Yes, it is somewhat apples to oranges to compare tactical step stone battles to wars, but I'm just trying to make a point about comparative costs. Now, the sticky part of Iraq is having an exit strategy that leaves Iraq as a place that is "friendly" to our(e.g. Saudi, European) interests.