The U.S. should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and concentrate on pressuring the Pakistani government into finding and turning over bin Laden.
Both candidates in the U.S. presidential election have bought the questionable argument that the war in Afghanistan needs to be salvaged for the “war on terror” to succeed. On top of that, to accomplish this rescue, they both have called for an Iraq-like surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan beyond the 8,000 more that President Bush is planning to inject into the country next year. McCain then goes even farther and says, “Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq, that's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.”
Of course, Obama has never condemned the U.S strategy in Iraq, but has merely correctly stated that the surge was only one of many factors that lowered the violence there. In fact, during 2005, the U.S. had as many troops in Iraq as it did during the 2007/2008 surge and violence increased. So even Obama might be giving too much credit to the higher U.S. troop levels.
The reality is that the violence was mainly reduced in Iraq by the separation of warring ethno-sectarian groups due to prior ethnic cleansing and the U.S. negotiating with and paying off its enemies not to fight. If this latter, somewhat embarrassing, strategy is what McCain has in mind for Afghanistan, it may not be as effective there. In Iraq, the U.S. paid off secular Sunni guerrillas, who were fighting mainly because the U.S. occupier had disbanded the Iraq military and threw them out of jobs. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and their Islamist fellow travelers are religious zealots who will not be so easily bribed. After all, in Iraq, the U.S. did not attempt to co-opt the similarly zealous al Qaeda in Iraq using bribery.
Afghanistan is also a harder nut to crack than Iraq for other reasons. To succeed, guerrillas need a sanctuary and outside material and financial support. Although the Iranians were providing some support to the Shi’a militias in Iraq, the U.S. pressured Sunni neighbors of Iraq to cut off the provision of support and sanctuary for Iraq’s Sunni insurgents — for the most part the United States’ main adversary. In Afghanistan, the now well-equipped Taliban is likely being supported by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI), a long-time ally of the group despite billions in U.S. assistance slathered on the Pakistani government. Furthermore, the untamed Pakistani tribal areas provide a sanctuary for the Taliban so that fighters from the group can cross into Afghanistan, attack, and then retreat to the sanctuary. U.S. air strikes and occasional incursions on the ground into Pakistan to target these Taliban sanctuaries have been limited because of their unpopularity with the Pakistani population, which puts pressure on the Pakistani government to protest to the U.S. loudly.
The Taliban and other Islamist fighters also have better sanctuaries within Afghanistan than within Iraq. Afghanistan’s rough terrain has sheltered many guerrilla movements over the years. In contrast, Iraq is fairly flat, although the guerrillas do get some cover by blending into urban areas.
Finally, the failed U.S. war on drugs back home does not undermine the war effort in Iraq the way it does in Afghanistan. The poppies for 90 percent of the world’s heroin come from Afghanistan, and the U.S. government feels, for domestic consumption, that it needs to do something about it. Unfortunately, Afghan farmers can make nowhere near the money off substitute crops the U.S. offers them to get them to give up poppy cultivation. Even worse, drug eradication programs have driven these farmers into the hands of the Taliban.
The U.S. effort in Afghanistan has experienced mission creep from getting Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders to nation-building to drug interdiction. Yet bin Laden was never in Iraq and is probably no longer in Afghanistan. He is likely to be in Pakistan. So why is the U.S. engaged in futile and counterproductive nation-building operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and Pakistan precisely because Muslim populations hate non-Muslim occupation of Muslims lands.
Paying off the Taliban not to fight probably won’t work, and the Afghan war likely cannot be salvaged. The U.S. should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and concentrate on pressuring the Pakistani government into finding and turning over bin Laden.
First published by the Independent Institute. Republished with permission.
As usual more drivel! Please check your facts, then go to the War College so you can hone your battlefield management skills which appear to be lacking. Idiot.
Mickey G, if you actually want to be taken seriously, instead of making your own idiotic and empty comments, offer your suggestions as to which facts you feel are incorrect and also exhibit your obviously superior battlefield management skills. Until you do then you are just a ridiculous, blathering simpleton. This site is called the INTELLECTUAL Conservative. You have shown yourself to be nothing even close to intellectual….which is typical of many so-called conservatives.
omgucbs,
Mr. Evland has been answered many times and his faulty arguments amply deconstructed. Evland is a hit-&-run poster, who never bothers to answer our critiques directly. If you will bother yourself to read the many comments to his IC articles (click on the: ‘Read more articles by Ivan Eland’ above), you will see this is true. Mickey, like most of us, is simply exhausted answering the same drivel endlessly repeated and uninterested in giving credence his anti-Bush, anti-conservative spleen once again. If you wish to be taken seriously, you too need to do some due diligence on this matter, and not simply jump to the defense of an unrepentant ideologue who happens to share an opinion.
For example, his claim the surge had little or no effect on reducing the violence in Iraq and that the violence has increased over what it was before is patently false. Statistics show violence declined sharply with the Surge (to less than 1/3 what it was for several months prior to the surge) and has remained low. The fact there has been a recent uptick in two remote provinces does not make Evland’s argument valid, it only means there are pockets of hate that need mopping up. Nobody is saying Iraq is over, but that is a far cry from what Evland implies (that the Surge did not work and that Iraq is just as bad as it was before the Surge). Some things Evland says are provably untrue. The fact they are regurgitated on the front page of the New York Times does not make them true … just believed by people who don’t or won’t filter out the NYT bias.
This is just one of his many misconstructions, but a glaring one. There are others, but, like Mickey, I am tired of pointing them out to Evland and those who rush to his defense without bothering to get their ‘facts’ anywhere but the liberal media.
The author writes, “Obama has never condemned the U.S. Strategy in Iraq…” Oh, really?
From Obama’s website: “Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” Hmm, sounds like a condmenation to me.
Mickey, you are right about the author. Omgucbs wouldn’t know intellectual if it bit him in the butt.
Well, at least when referencing Afghanistan Eland modifies his standard template to refer to the unjust war on drugs instead of the unjust theft of Iraqi oil. It’s nice to see he at least has the cognizance to modify his irrational ranting to suit the particular geographical region. And he threw in a reference to Obama so we can tell this a recently written article instead of a pre-typed script. If we do end up being successful in Afhganistan, keep your eye out in case a propaganda minister position opens up.
Bob,
As I am new to the site I have never seen Eland’s previous posts and don’t care to read them. I have not the time , energy, nor desire to try to read up on why Mickey doesn’t like Eland. If Mickey, you and so many others feel this way about his opinions, IGNORE them. Mickey’s ignorant and immature rant only proves my point. If he was intellectual in any sense of the word he would no longer comment. As many conservatives do, however, he resorts to immature name calling when faced with an opposing point of view. Now, at least you Bob, have mentioned at least one fact you believe to be inaccurate. That is the intellectual way of engaging in discourse. Thank you. As to rushing to Elands defense, that is a misconception on your part. I did not defend in any way, only pointed out Mickey’s ignorant method of trying to make a point.
The real problem is that we never should have gone into Iraq, especially when we did. This conversation should not be taking place. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. We should have stuck with Afghanistan and Bin Laden. Now thanks to this ridiculous regime our military has taken needless casualties, is over extended, and has put a financial strain on the country, that we all obviously love, that we may never recover from.
As for your “liberal” media…..please back that up with provable facts….until then don’t use that ridiculous excuse. Also when you truly deconstruct it conservatism = greed. Period.
Great job of spouting talking points without being constrained by facts. By the way greed is good, lack of greed = unmotivated
unmotivated = hanger on wanting someone else to support them
omgucbs,
This comment section is for people who disagree AND agree with the author and other commenters. That’s what is known as debate: People with opposing ideas interacting with each other. It’s what thinking, sensible people do here.
So, if you don’t like people disagreeing with you, omgucbs, you’ve found the wrong place to comment. Of course, that makes you a typical leftist, can’t tolerate dissent.
As to the liberal media, it would be too extensive to cite perhaps thousands of blatant examples. I will steer you to http://newsbusters.org, a website that chronicles the never-ending leftist bias of the MSM.
Here’s one example to whet your appetite: Mark Foley, (R) Florida, resigned from the senate a while back after sending questionable e-mails to young male pages. Foley dominated MSM coverage leading up to the 2006 election.
His replacement, Tim Mahoney (D), had numerous affairs with women after pledging that he would restore morality to the office which was sullied by his predecessor. As of now, the MSM have not covered this story.
By the way, it seems that Republicans pay to dress their women ($150,00 wardrobe for Sarah Palin), while Democrats pay for undressing women ($121,000 for Mahoney to pay off his mistress).
omgucbs, it’s up to you to find the truth, and you ain’t getting it from the MSM.
omgucbs,
Are you familiar with the term “irony”? Typical of your stripe, you spend half a paragraph calling names in order to voice your objection to name calling, and then put your ignorance on shining display with a braindead quip oversimplifying an entire political philosophy to fit the caricature that you wish it to be, and then bow out believing yourself to have taken the moral high ground. You may have a better time of things at http://www.codepink4peace.org . Homogeneity of stupidity seems to suit your style, and I think you’ll find that much more accommodating.
Mickey: As I’ve said before, irony is often lost on the ironic. “I have never seen Eland’s previous posts and don’t care to read them,” seems to sum it up nicely. Why let actually knowing what you’re talking about get in the way of actually talking about it.
Phil, as you may have guessed I have become tired of arm chair types attempting to spout their sure way to handle military situations. Eland is so far out there I did let my aggravation show.
Mickey: I’m behind you — keep it up. I ebb and flow on whether to respond to idiocy or just let it slide. But some idiocy demands a response! Have a good weekend.
Phil
omgucbs ,
On Rant
You admit not having “the time, energy, nor desire” to investigate Mickey’s charges. How then are you to judge his is ‘rant’?
Rant: intransitive verb 1: to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2: to scold vehemently; transitive verb: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion – Merriam-Webster Online
Bombast: pretentious inflated speech or writing – Merriam-Webster Online
Mickey said “As usual more drivel! Please check your facts, then go to the War College so you can hone your battlefield management skills which appear to be lacking. Idiot.”
To which you replied “Mickey’s ignorant and immature rant only proves my point. If he was intellectual in any sense of the word he would no longer comment. As many conservatives do, however, he resorts to immature name calling when faced with an opposing point of view. – omgucbs
To accuse Mickey of ‘rant’, his comment ought to fit the definition of rant more than superficially. Rant, like tantrum, implies an unfounded outrage, so to make this accusation you must know the outrage to be without foundation. His comment was indeed “excited and declamatory”, but not excessively so given the divorced-from-reality article to which it refers. I agree Mickey was a little ‘noisy’ in his denunciation of Eland, but not greatly so, and certainly no noisier than your own word capitalization (“IGNORE” – a written shout) was intended to scold and suppress. In Mickey’s case, he used an exclamation (!) to indicate irritation. Would you say his display of irritation was somehow louder than your scold/shout? Would you have registered his irritation from the word ‘drivel’ alone, or would you have read it as a dismissive statement as I did from knowing Eland better. Of the two, Mickey’s exclamation-punctuation was necessary to communicate irritation. Your word capitalization only serves to demonstrate you are no less immune to passion than those you accuse of rant. Finally, he calls Eland an idiot, which is an accolade Eland is determined to earn through multiply posting the same drivel without ever checking his facts or coming into the open as you have done to face criticism. Mickey’s comment, therefore, does not rise to the level of rant per this first definition, and no more than did your reproach of him.
As to the second definition for rant, he does scold Eland, but, again, is less than vehement as would befit a rant. Finally, to imply his comment was ‘bombastic’ requires it contain elements of inflated pretentious writing; which it does not. So, on every level, you misrepresent Mickey’s comment as rant when, at worst, it is an irritated dismissal of a pest.
On Immature Name Calling
You said “As many conservatives do, however, he resorts to immature name calling when faced with an opposing point of view” and “This site is called the INTELLECTUAL Conservative. You have shown yourself to be nothing even close to intellectual … which is typical of many so-called conservatives.”
That is a pretty broad brush with which to tar conservatives. Have you visited any liberal sites lately to experience the “immature name calling” that goes on there? Would you recognize it as such if you did, or do you think that name-calling somehow justified? How about the level of ‘intellectual’ debate? I read a great many sources, some as conservative as this one, but also mainstream and not-so-mainstream liberal sites with some regularity. What passes for debate at liberal sites (even the better ones) rarely rises to the level of challenged assumptions, historical examination, media critiques that are more than superficial, or the sufferance of diverse views. The amount of immature name calling (and humorless to boot) at those sites is much worse than anything you will find in these pages. And those are just the ones we can stomach.
I live deep in liberal country among people who become unhinged at the mere mention of conservative talking points; so I do know something of the difference in civility as between conservatives and liberals. Liberals get to opine endlessly against war, Bush, the ‘racism’ of conservatives, chauvinism, the evils of school-choice, the virtues of medical murder, the equating of Christians with Muslim terrorists, and similar rubbish; but let a conservative point out liberal exaggerations or unfounded generalities and he will be instantly seized on as predatory pervert. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been ganged up on, shouted down, and vilified by otherwise decent, rational liberals while introducing contrarian views into these ruminations (e.g., our public schools are less successful than proclaimed, can’t tax our way to prosperity, war may not be the answer but sometimes it finds us anyway, if affirmative action is pulling us further apart why are we still pushing it forward, &c).
Why do liberals think they have a monopoly on civility while promoting ideas like ‘Fairness Doctrine’, speech codes, outlawing public expressions of religion, brainwashing other people’s kids, reparations, and confiscations; and endlessly maligning conservatives about whom they know nothing? Think hard about social gatherings or water-cooler conversations you’ve overheard. Unless you live somewhere liberals are the rarity, conversation will be limited to what liberals deem seemly. If conservatives enter the fray at all, they will be careful to mask the strength of their conservatism (one reason liberals know conservatives more as bogeymen than actual people). How many liberals do you know who feel they have to hide their liberalism else suffer endless derision? Some of these ‘polite’ liberals I am related to by marriage, but most are people I work with and suffer their arrogance in silence knowing one of us must be the more disciplined else the relation suffers. Some of these polite liberals have control of our kids, and abuse that trust with which to silence dissent; all the while prattling on about encouraging ‘parental involvement’ (note: conservatives need not apply). I nearly choked, recently, on seeing the latest liberal bumper sticker (the one proclaiming “Choose Civility”) just as the [alleged] liberal driver came dangerously close to sideswiping me while forcing her way into my lane. Because I honked (hoping to draw her attention to the fact I occupied the lane she was elbowing), she gave me the finger and went her merry way. How do I know she was a liberal? Her other bumper-sticker says ‘Vote Obama’.
Last Thanksgiving, my liberal brother-in-law, started popping off about ‘Bush lies and crimes against humanity’, my sister nodding sagely in agreement. My ever ready to please and entertain eldest brother chimed in with his repertoire of anti-Bush jokes to which my brother-in-law’s brother added a few of his own. The kids at the table thought it was a hoot, and tried to match their elders’ disrespect for a President. While this went on, I, my mother, and two other brothers sat in uncomfortably stony silence. Finally, I spoke up about the rudeness and inappropriateness of what was going on (I could also have mentioned it gives the kids the idea it is okay to slander) and that their anti-Bush charges were over-the-top. They were uniformly shocked at my reaction and could not fathom I’d object; despite they saw our disapproval on our faces well before I spoke up. I tell you this not to make you think ill of my family (lovely people other than politics), but to make a point about the cultural bias open to any form of liberalism but poisoned against any mention of conservativism. In fact, they are some of the least offensive liberals I know, the few with whom I can have real political dialogues without being made a pariah. My brother-in-law’s brother and I finished the evening in deep debate of these anti-Bush convictions and agreed to disagree. The rest of the family made up by watching football.
Your ‘immature name calling’ remark brands you with the same brush with which you paint conservatives. It shows me you are predisposed to regard conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. This is a common attitude among liberals because you have been taught from the cradle to equate conservatism with fascism, rednecks, mental aberration, and low-intellect. This is bogeyman with which to frighten small children and self-convince the inbred. Do you really think of conservatives that way, or do you recognize the enormity of such allegations? If so, you have never taken the time to examine your own assumptions, both those you have regarding conservatives and those you have of liberals and liberalism. How much do you really know of us: who we are, how we think, the ideology we espouse, and how it is both the same and different philosophy which liberals regard as uniquely theirs? We live on the same streets as you and share the same day-to-day concerns. We work side-by-side you never suspecting we disagree with your political philosophy; despite which you seek our advice on numerous other things for which you do not think us inferior. A disproportionate number of conservatives are professionals, business people, and workers established in their trade. We are as well read as any liberal, and, some of us, better read because disinclined to waste our time on tripe. Many of us are lapsed-liberals, which is to say we still have our core liberalism intact but reject the socialism that hijacked the liberal namesake. Many of us thought ourselves liberal in our youth, and if you look at the demographics of liberals versus conservatives will find liberalism skewed heavily toward the very young (i.e., less mature). As we age, we learn from mistakes, become more independent, less inclined to collectivism, and less moved by appeals to passion and demands of endless change. In essence, we become more conservative. This is not universally true, because I have known some really old liberals stuck in youthful radicalism; yet even they tone it down and, to that extent, can be accused of conservatism. It doesn’t mean we’ve lost our passion, it means we are less swayed by passion. Some of us were apolitical in our youth, but have turned political in response to the radicalism of liberals blithely eviscerating our freedoms in the conviction socialism somehow ensures freedom or provides other benefits without debasing freedom. And some of us have always been conservative, just not the conservatism you have been taught to despise.
“… one fact you believe to be inaccurate”
How does one “believe a fact to be inaccurate”? If it is a fact, then it is not subject to opinion; and, conversely, if subject to opinion, not fact. The reduction in violence in Iraq subsequent to the Surge is factual; it is Eland’s claims of an alternate reality with which to explain away the Surge that are un-factual. The guy is desperately grasping at any straw he can to not credit Bush with a success, and determined fighting is never an answer. Eland is a pacifist of the highest order; convinced war is evil with or without justification. He’s the kind of pacifist who, unsatisfied to sacrifice himself for principle, must sacrifice others to the same principle. The Surge’s impact on Iraqi violence has been independently measured and re-measured. It has been analyzed as to causes and there is absolutely no doubt the Surge is to blame for this success. It has been challenged by the media and think-tanks until they have run out of excuses for denial. Even Obama, however much it pains him, has been forced to admit the Surge’s success. Only the tin-hat folks over at Huffington Post and Mr. Eland are still rutting about in the tea leaves looking for things to credit other than the Surge. All the things Eland credits were there well before the Surge and had no impact on decreasing the violence whatsoever. Can Eland really believe the Iraqi people suddenly favored the government over the terrorists where before they favored terrorists? Or, is it more likely they were held hostage to and gave lip-service to terrorists because their government was too weak to protect them? Only when the Surge took hold in Iraq were the things Eland attributes capable of contributing to the general de-escalation. Without the Surge, we’d still be arguing about going or staying while leaving it to the Iraqis and terrorists to fight over scraps. The Surge was not the whole solution, but was crucial to the solution. It gave the troops and Iraqi government the strength and breathing space they needed to assure the Iraqi people the government was back in charge. Once that happened, the people were able to let down their guard against each other; denying terrorists the wedge they need in order to operate.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911
“The real problem is that we never should have gone into Iraq, especially when we did.”
I am not sure why you think timing has anything to do with going into Iraq or that there is no connection between Iraq and fighting terrorism, other than to tell me you buy into and regurgitate the liberal back-story of the war. If Iraq has terrorist links or strategic value in fighting terrorism, then timing is strictly a tactical question. Otherwise, it is smokescreen. Saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is like saying England had nothing to do with the slavery it exported to its colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries. If Iraq was not as great a danger as was believed, it was also far from innocent. The problem in fighting terrorism is not which rogue to fight, but which rogue represents the most immanent threat. In 2002, that was generally thought by all to be Iraq (you libs thought so too). Iraq was unfinished business that had to be finished before confronting other rogues. Iran was also mentioned as part of the ‘axis of evil’, and remains such. Will we one day speak of Iran as maligned as Iraq despite the support we know Iran gives Hezbollah? Will history be revised (yet again) such that Hezbollah was never a terrorist organization and so that Iran could not possibly have supported terrorism? Where does this after-the-fact rehabilitation stop? Or, is this really about discrediting ‘warmongers’ whenever possible, but only after they’ve gotten your chestnuts out of the fire?
I too was initially uncertain Iraq was the right or next place to prosecute this war, but I have since come to understand the reasons and approve them. The main reason I disagreed with Iraq was it seemed unlikely we could settle the Sunni/Shia problem there. Later, I realized it’s the same problem wherever we engage because terrorists thrive precisely along these fracture lines. Like socialists, they operate by creating or exploiting divisions, and driving them wider to get leverage. So, if you’re holding out for a perfect place to engage terrorists, forget it. You’ll never beat them that way. They also don’t stick to one place; they scurry across borders and disappearing into cracks when threatened. If anything, we need to push our erstwhile allies harder to clean out these nests or let us do it.
Regardless whether Iraq was the right or wrong theater to fight terror, we are there and must finish. To do otherwise creates the very ‘crime against the Iraqi people’ of which liberals are so fond of charging Bush and the war’s supporters. The question now is do we then take it to the next level or break it off and slither home.
If we went into Iran or Pakistan instead of Iraq, I am certain we’d be having the same argument. If we’d stuck to Afghanistan, as you argue we should have, you’d now be carping bin Laden is no longer there (and never was), and we were wrong to invade (indeed, the argument is being made now that there’s trouble in Afghanistan again). You have to start somewhere, and Iraq was as good a place as any and better than most. Iraq is strategically situated near the jugular vein of radical-Islam (Saudi Arabia), it also sits astride the other long-time anti-Israeli terrorist player – Syria, Iraq is more accessible than Iran or Pakistan for our purposes, Saddam held out when Bush warned the many Muslim despots to either be with us or against us, and U.S. presence there discourages terrorist activity both here and in the critical oil region. For these and other reasons, Iraq was dictated as much by strategy as guilt; and, of the two, strategy takes precedence in war. It does no good going after the vilest first if the result is you make headway nowhere. There is no way to fight a war (even a just war) without getting your hands a little dirty. So, if you mean to wage war and win, then stop carping about being perfect and just get on with the job. The sooner it is done, the less we’ll all suffer; and that includes Iraqis and Afghans.
Re Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else currently costing the U.S. money it actually does not have:
When do you finally acknowledge that you’re out of money for war? When do you finally say, “Maybe there is another way to fight?” I refer of course to economic sanctions. If the U.S. isn’t going to import poppy plant products then why bother with Afghanistan? As for why Iraq is still even being considered worthy of time, the U.S. has known since the 70s (for crying out loud) that the area in Middle East is unstable. Go on an oil diet and make do without, if that’s what must be done, until you find another supplier or create your own.
Just leave the idiots on the other side of the planet alone. Fighting IN their countries is not really defending your own and with all the fiscal problems at home, isn’t it about time to pull back and stop?
AMAI,
I would love to leave the idiots on the other side of the planet alone, but it may be too late to pull back. The question is: will they leave us alone? Can they? Will they leave our friends and family in the region and in Europe alone? Will they desist in the scramble for weapons of mass destruction with which to bully each other and threaten anyone who gets in their way? Will they continue to threaten the world’s energy supplies or wield them as global threat?
You say “go on an oil diet”, but have you considered the economic repercussions of that policy. 43% of our energy still comes from oil, half of which we import. Another 23% comes from natural gas, some of it imported. Renewable energy accounts for less than 6% with an ultimate potential (barring multiple major technology breakthroughs) of less than 20% assuming we freeze consumption (unlikely). We have lots of coal, but our own idiots are dead set against expanding its use. Even small forced curtailments in this consumption sends shockwaves through our economy; which only the blindest of politicians are determined to ignore, so don’t hold your breath expecting (or wanting) this to happen. Tax disincentives do not significantly impact consumption and only serve to engross government at our expense. Consider how small an impact the recent high gasoline prices and electricity hikes have had on our driving habits and what that implies. With every household in America doing its level best to cut down on personal consumption (combining trips, carpooling, vacationing locally, &c), we managed to trim a triffling 4.5% off energy use. Many people traded their SUVs in for high MPG sedans, minis and hybrids. It was enough to bring prices back down, but I expect this will see-saw awhile yet. As prices fall, discipline relaxes; sending prices right back up. Suppliers also respond to demand in ways that are out of sync with behavior, compounding the volatility. That leaves rationing as the only viable means of enforcing curtailment (if curtailment you are determined to have, which I am not). The last time we tried that, the economy was in a shambles and stayed that way.
Despite what people think, we are not energy hogs, we are energy transformers. We transform energy into products people need and want. Energy that sits in the ground doing no useful work is worthless. We feed a quarter of the planet on what we grow and our commercial exports are high-end stuff that both consume energy and reduce world energy consumption per capita. Our products enhance quality of life over that of bare subsistence; sending knowledge, skills, medical wonders, tooling, advanced materials, disease control, efficiency, comforts, and arts around the globe. In our own country in the last few decades, we’ve cut our per capita power consumption in half. Where oil was 60% of consumption, it is now 43% and falling. Despite such conservation and innovation, our overall consumption continues to grow. Why … because we’re energy addicts? No, because we’re the world’s engine of growth and because our own population is growing. In the last few weeks, you’ve had a taste of what happens when the great economic engine stumbles. That was for reasons other than oil, but a sudden curtailment of energy that does not compensate to sustain output has much the same effect, except the recovery takes far longer. This is one of those ‘unintended consequences’ we keep talking about.
Energy is the engine of our economy without which the whole thing collapses. We are in no danger of running out of energy because our planet is awash in it, but high grade energy readily converted to useful, transportable form is less abundant. 40 minutes of sunlight a day is enough energy to supply our wants a whole year, if we could but convert it. We have sufficient coal to sustain us 200+years and nuclear fuels capable of 5,000 to 10,000 years of steady growth. So energy, per se, is not the issue. However, it takes decades to transform an energy infrastructure measured in quadrillions of Btu’s per year from fossil to non-fossil, from dependence to independence’; and it is this transition primarily dictating our policy now.
Supposing we fully ‘domesticize’ our energy sources, getting there still presents some problems. First of all, how do you suppose the rest of the energy market will react to a client who turns rogue on them? We now import 58% of our oil, 25% of our natural gas, and 86% of liquefied gas and propane. We also both import and export coal to get the right mix for our power-plants to meet stringent pollution standards (not all coal is suitable). As we increase domestic production, our foreign suppliers become competitors who reduce output to keep the market price stable. They may even decide to short production to drive the price of crude higher, thereby keeping total profits stable. Their economies are far less dependent on oil than ours, so fluctuations have less effect on them and they can afford to play the game longer. As they control the margin through excess (i.e., trim) capacity, this gives them the strategic as well as tactical advantage. The overall impact on our economy would be to drive pump prices higher, despite any reduction in direct dependence. As long as foreigners control our excess crude capacity, that will remain true. To get out of that bind we’d have either to become excess producers ourselves or take physical and political control of their oil; which the rest of the world isn’t about to stand for. As we’re unlikely to become excess producers anytime soon, I don’t see the overall situation changing in my lifetime.
We tend to view all this as American exploitation of the Middle-east for oil, but exploitation cuts both ways. Too great a dependence on or concentration into a few hands becomes a knife at our throat. So, we depend on the good will of the very culture now threatening our very way of life; a culture proposing to attack, infiltrate, and supplant ours with its own. We cannot address this cultural threat through isolationism as that undermines our energy supply, we cannot address energy supply through domestic realignment without sending shockwaves through the energy market, and we cannot directly confront terrorists without also confronting our energy partners fostering the fundamentalism at the root of terror. Where does that leave us? We must change the game so that our energy partners understand what is at stake, support us, and wean their culture off terrorism as the favored means of cultural assertion.
As much as we’d like to turn the clock back and take a fresh run at things, we cannot. We have to go from where we are.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/energybasics101.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm?periodType=Annual&startYear=2004&startMonth=1&endYear=2008&endMonth=12&tableNumber=9
“By the way greed is good, lack of greed = unmotivated
unmotivated = hanger on wanting someone else to support them”
Wow….as I said, not intellectual in any way. I am far from greedy yet I work 60-70 hrs a week….typically work 27-29 days per month. To me that sounds rather motivated. I work helping educate inner city youth, trying to get them back up to speed so they can be as successful as they can. I do not do it for the money and am not motivated by material goods. I am motivated by a desire to do what I can to make our country, society, and the world the best place it can be. Your statement is ignorant, shortsighted, and selfish….and proves my point. Conservatism is basically people trying to justify and rationalize selfishness and greed. Proof society has not grown or progressed in 10000 years.
Also, was Christ unmotivated? Gandhi?, Sister Theresa? Volunteers of any sort? Red Cross workers? should I go on with more examples that reveal your logic to be flawed?
“it’s up to you to find the truth, and you ain’t getting it from the MSM.”
especially if its from FOX news
” “I have never seen Eland’s previous posts and don’t care to read them,” seems to sum it up nicely. Why let actually knowing what you’re talking about get in the way of actually talking about it.”
as usual, all have missed the point. I, in no way, in my original post was commenting on Eland, only on the typical way of discourse taken by so many conservatives. As for me engaging in what some may call the same tactics…..when in Rome my friends.
“As much as we’d like to turn the clock back and take a fresh run at things, we cannot. We have to go from where we are.”
Unfortunately very true. However if we don’t look at the past and see the glaring errors in judgement that have occured we are destined for more of the same.
Omgucbs, I share your sentiment in that greed should not be justified. Along those lines, neither does envy. If you were to choose between the lesser of two evils, which of these suits you more?
Anderson,
Neither….why must I choose between just those two? There is no such thing as black and white, as much as many people would have us believe that there is.
But to play your little game….I would say greed. I am greedy for more time. Time to spend with my loved ones. Time to spend enjoying this wonderful planet we live on. Time to spend on becoming a better more enlightened human being. Unfortunately, in this day and age, time = money….basically everything = money. So, yes, I am greedy.
omgucbs,
Again, being called ignorant by someone who admittedly refuses to inform himself as to the history of the writings of the author to which he is responding is rather vacuous. Your attitude in this regard is the very definition of “ignorant” – that definition being:
“lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact” (www.dictionary.com)
Do not expect your criticism to be taken seriously when it is as base and uninformed as the subject you are supposed to be criticizing. Merely calling someone (or some group, as it were) the same name a multitude of times does not make your irrational ranting any more effective as a criticism. Your childish caricaturism of conservatism is irrelevant to your original argument (we pseudo-intellectual, greedy cornservativeives call that a “red herring fallacy”) and not worthy of serious treatment. Instead, let me bring the discussion down to your level of discourse: liberalism = stupidity. Case closed. And if you disagree, I’ll call you stupid again. So there!
Omgucbs
Well, golly gee aren’t you the virtuous humbug. Give yourself a big ole pat on the back for all the good deeds you does for free. To hear you tell it, you’d think only school teachers and liberals ever give back anything besides money. Lot’s of us money-grubbing, redneck capitalists give of our time, even when it’s not called charity. Don’t you think professionals put in extra hours mentoring young people in the skills of our trade, some of whom will bypass us on the way up? How many do you suspect lead Boy Scout troops, are Big Brothers, or help with church functions? I’ve done my time in the trenches shepherding kids with mental disabilities. Admittedly, my own boy was one of them; but that did not lessen my compassion. Each of us gives back as the opportunity presents itself. Your defamation of us was way below the belt, and if you had any real character, you’d apologize immediately.
Regarding “… greed should not be justified”.
No one is justifying greed. Greed is neither good or evil, productive or counter-productive. Greed is nothing more than an emotion we all share, and those who pretend otherwise are fools or fakes. Do we, now, have to justify our private emotions and sensations? We justify behaviors, not feelings (at least, that’s the theory). It is what we do with greed that makes it a force for good or evil, for productivity or ruination. No one contends the greed of a thief is bad, but that does not make all greed bad. Some synonyms for greed are: hunger, acquisitiveness, desire, want, longing, appetite, and passion. You told us you have a passion for teaching, is that then evil or good? What if, in your passion to teach, you teach useless, baseless, ignorant ideas or against a student’s desire to remain ignorant? How about the hungry vagrant? Is it now his fault he wants something that does not yet belong to him, or is only wrong when he prefers to steal rather than beg or earn?
What bothers me is what qualifies as greed. Do the paltry deferred earnings I get on my 401K (now in the toilet) qualify as greed, or must my earnings per share exceed some arbitrarily chosen number? To the bum standing at the traffic light with his hand out to every passerby in better physical shape than I (disguised by rags), mine is greed while his is … what … virtue? Naturally, he’s all for the redistribution of my ‘good fortune’! I, on the other hand, only count it as greed when it is stolen or a cheat. To me, it is the bum who never works a day in his life (and with no intention of ever working), who makes half as much in a day pandering as I do working, who is the greedy one.
As for your ‘work regimen’ Omgucbs, I work all those hours and more. I keep a large industrial plant operating year round. I take very few days off (never more than two in a row) and typically work 80-90 hour weeks (Saturdays and Sundays included), 52-weeks a year and am on call at all hours. I am salaried, like you, so I don’t get any extra compensation for that. Does that make me more virtuous than you, or still more foolish? If you are a public school teacher, you get the whole summer off (though you may have a side job). If a college instructor, the work may be more year round, but is still less mentally taxing than it is just exhausting (I was a university tech-assistant once, so I know something of the inefficiency and BS on campus). Something I learned a long time ago is that working hard does not make you a great worker, working smart does. I know lots of people who put in long hours but seem to accomplish very little. There are others who seem to do little yet accomplish much. Which do you suppose are the better workers? Which do you suppose rise to the top and get the big rewards? You may accuse them of greed and their compensation unfair. I, on the other hand, try to emulate them. I work long hours only because I’m hyper and can’t sit still very long. I do get a lot more done than most people both because I work long hours and with some efficiency.
The thing I have observed (at close range, because my wife is a teacher), is that teachers, as a class, aren’t terribly efficient. They think they are and think their work sublimely important, and can’t fathom why they aren’t held in greater esteem and compensated accordingly. They are inefficient, mainly, for two reasons a) they are discouraged from teaching any way but the ‘right way’ and b) teaching attracts an awful lot of mediocre people who nonetheless want to be regarded for what they do. I know you will dispute this, but ask yourself what would happen if you decided to, say, teach alternates to evolution or challenge your students to defend affirmative-action? You can’t and you’d face a school-board hearing if you did. So, okay, we know teachers lack much independence in what they can teach; so if you don’t agree with the curriculum, you’re up against a wall. If you do, you can claim “No problem” and deny there’s any censorship to what you teach. The point I make here is that, efficient or not, you are straight-jacketed teaching your students how to not think because to do otherwise means challenging the system whether or not you agree with it. (P.S. it doesn’t count if you set up the challenge in such away they can only reach a fixed conclusion).
As for the mediocrity, while teachers are extraordinarily busy running after their charges, committed to teaching a curriculum, and spending countless personal hours preparing lessons according to fixed formats they can’t adequately explain, few ever take the time to question what they are doing makes sense; whether what they teach has value or the rote methods they have been drilled in are the best means for turning out humans equipped to succeed. An awful lot of teachers go into the profession because that is what they decided they can do while still in high school. They are bright enough to get into college, but intimidated by more demanding callings; especially professions for which there is real accountability. They balk at the very outset, and that sets a pattern. I see a real ego problem in a great many teachers, which they masque with anti-judgmental nonsense (teachers can be very judgmental). Instead of concentrating on the basics and subjects for which they have actual mastery (most teachers have only mastered teaching methods), they are swept up in political agendas and in turning out carbon-copy droids incapable of thinking outside liberal programming. This despite endless self-congratulations they teach every child to excel and act individually. I have met only a few teachers who admit the truth of their profession, and most that do have gone on to other things. They leave not because they no longer think teaching worthy, they leave because they aren’t really allowed to teach. The ones who stay are the ones willing to work under those conditions.
Imagine you had a doctor or an engineer who worked under such conditions and is complacent enough to do so. The doctor knows a better, safer method of performing a surgery, but the method is unapproved and probably won’t get approved because powerful interests stand to lose something by it. A group of engineers is charged with building a city transportation system and are eager to begin; but, because of political agendas, the powers that be force them to build it through the worst part of town where crime will shut it down, people it was intended to help are left stranded, and the parking problem it was supposed to alleviate is still with us. Management wastes many months of a fixed schedule arguing over routing and subsidized fee schedules to satisfy a number of interest groups, none of whom add anything to the finished product but who vie with each other for control. The engineers, themselves, are pulled into these sessions, made to defend their plans, and forced to join factions. Finally, the engineers are told to get it done in the remaining time and leave it to others to correct the many defects this causes. None of the defects are ever addressed until the problems become too severe to ignore. Along the way, the really competent engineers realize this is a waste of their time and talent, and leave to take on jobs where they can shine. The mediocre engineers stay believing they can fix the commuter-train-to-nowhere and convinced they are ‘making a difference’.
What I just described is what happens when politics, not market forces or some other diffuse force directs an effort. I do know some good and great teachers, but these are the exception. One thing great teachers don’t do is act the virtuous bigot the way you’ve been doing. Great teachers live their profession, warts and all; and they find ways to teach around the road blocks, not defend them territorially. You’ve made a lot of noise about how you want to debate and deplore low behaviors. However, this last entry of yours reeks of bile against conservatives so low you should feel some embarrassment. If you want to debate, then debate. I don’t care if you slip a little into unconscious bashing, but if you are going to disparage the low-road, then don’t spend so much time there.
Omgucbs,
If you call conservatism greed, then you must call liberalism envy. Anything that seeks to take from those who have something you do not is envy no matter how you look at it. If many atrocities have been done in the name of religion, far worse atrocities have been done in the name of fairness.
Bob: By working 80 hours a week you are selfishly denying another individual a 40 hour a week job. By making more money than the average guy on the line, you are unfairly perpetuating the “have-not” status of the less fortunate of the world. Have you no shame?
You are the poster boy for much needed “change” in this country — a typical example of a dedicated, hard working, over-achieving greed-monger who deliberately tries to better himself and his family at the direct expense of those unwilling to put in the same effort. This simply cannot be tolerated in a world where the abstract, politically-infused notion of “fairness” is the sole criteria for judging all actions.
President Obama will soon correct your wicked ways!
Phillip,
No doubt, but then he’d cause a sudden 50% drop in the economy on which he and the whole liberal welfare establishment depends.