Kevin Drum: The Left's Newest Heretic

Either Kevin Drum didn't think of the broader implications of this item, has decided to break ranks with the Left, or, more likely, has betrayed the dirty little secret behind Liberal opposition to the war in Iraq. It's political and little else. Luttwak didn't quite state things the way Drum presents, but the links are there to explore that debate. I'll pick up my point at bottom.

DOES THE MIDDLE EAST MATTER?....Edward Luttwak asks, "Why are middle east experts so unfailingly wrong?" I've often wondered the same thing! He proposes three fundamental mistakes that underlie their unfailing wrongness:

"Arab-Israeli catastrophism": the idea that we're continually on the brink of an explosion in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"The Mussolini syndrome": the idea that Middle Eastern countries actually pose a serious military threat to the rest of us.

The "malleability" mistake: the idea that there's anything we can do to effect change in Islamic culture.

Luttwak's advice: the hell with them. Just leave the Middle East alone and direct our attention to areas of the world that actually matter.

This below:

Still, Luttwak is probably right that the oil will keep flowing — more or less — through thick and thin. Cyclical violence aside, they need our money as much as we need their oil. So in the end, all that's left is nuclear and biological weapons. If you believe those don't pose a serious threat over the next few decades, then Luttwak is probably right that we could ignore the Middle East if we wanted to. But if you believe they do pose a threat, then figuring out a way to reduce Arab resentment of the West suddenly seems pretty important. The big question is: how?

Nuclear and biological weapons? What nuclear and biological weapons, or genuine threat of same exists in the Middle East, Kevin? Iran assures us they only want nuclear power for peaceful use. Iraq ... well, do you even want to go there? I thought there was no WMD threat in Iraq, Kevin. Do tell, what have I missed? Or are you simply conjuring this threat to America up out of whole cloth, the way the Left always insists the Right has been doing all along?

And as for, how to reduce Arab resentment of the West? You mean, as in talk, the way we did with North Korea until one day the weapons miraculously just ... emerged from the ground?

Thank you for re-affirming my faith in the Iraq War, Kevin. I do hope for a negotiated settlement as regards many issues in the Middle East - but I am not for appeasement. That is the process of making people who threaten you ... like you, first, then hoping they one day disarm. I prefer negotiation and the best way to negotiate is from a position of strength. De-fanging Iraq and, if need be, Iran, is precisely what we should be doing. Then, with leverage, not flowers, we may one day hope to get something akin to what we want - a peaceful arrangement with the Middle East.

Until then, it makes absolutely no sense to allow what you have now admitted is a wolf at the door to sharpen its fangs. That is folly, not diplomacy. And you should have thought about it before you admitted to seeing the Middle East as such a serious threat to America's National Security. That's precisely what the Iraq War has been all about from the start.

Comments

[southdakotaboy]

The idea of just leaving might have worked at the begining if we had just gone in taken baghdad and declared victory. Yes Sadam would have been left alive, but the wolves would have smelled blood and it would have worked. They would have killed each other off,or at least left themselves so weak as to be no threat. Once we decided to stay it has become imperitive that we win.

[Zifnab]

No, no, Dan. They moved the nukes in Iraq to Syria. Or was it Lebanon. Oh, that's right, they were given to Osama Bin Laden himself right after Saddam French-kissed his super-best-friend good-bye the day before we invaded.

And if Iran is so dangerous, why does Dick Cheney's favorite company keep
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3908753.stm
doing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html
business with them?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752

"Until then, it makes absolutely no sense to allow what you have now admitted is a wolf at the door to sharpen its fangs. That is folly, not diplomacy."

No, Dan. It's business, pure and simple. This President is in the Middle East to make money. And he's been making it hand-over-fist at the taxpayer's expense and with the blood of our military.

Kevin Drum pretty much nails it with "they need our money as much as we need their oil." The invasion of Iraq was nothing but a ploy to grab up oil on the cheap. It failed, miserably, which is why the Republican Congress has to shovel money at Big Oil to keep them happy in the meantime. But if we stopped needing oil, the Middle East would be no more dangerous than Pakistan, nukes and all.

[Hard Right]

Zif, thanks for proving how mentally handicapped you are with that post. Too bad the left thinks just like you do. That's why your kind cannot be trusted to protect America.

Your mentality can only be described as willfully blind/suicidal.

[Dan Riehl]

"The invasion of Iraq was nothing but a ploy to grab up oil"

I understand your being concerned about "oil," ZiffyLube. But, please, spare me the tired and worn war for oil silliness. Noone listens to that failed argument except for possibly Miss FLo's third grade class. Sadly she was tasked with teaching the retards again this year.

[Terry Gain]

Dan

Liberating 58 million Muslims from tyranny should have caused Muslims to embrace America. Unfortunately the leftards who control the MSM portrayed what was noble as evil. It will take some time for people in the middle east and here to understand that America's intentions are noble. The failure to grasp the truth is hardly surprising given that those who control the message (the MSM) are leftists and therefore can't be trusted to accurately report anything. Eventually people in the middle east will get it even before the leftards in America catch on.

Here's a cut and paste of important reporting from Roggio. This might help some of your trolls get a clue.
----
As of last September, the leadership of 25 of the 31 Anbari tribes were cooperating with the government under the aegis of the Anbar Salvation Council, while six folded under the black banner of al Qaeda in Iraq's Islamic State. Two of the other original sinister six tribes are the Albu Issa and the al-Zuba'a, however both tribes are split in their support. Elements of the Albu Issa have battled against al Qaeda in and around Fallujah. The Zuba'a were split and elements fought al Qaeda after the assassination against Sheikh Thahir al-Dhari, a tribal leader, and the attempt against Salam al-Zubaie, one of Iraq's two Deputy Prime Ministers.

The Albu Fahd tribe is a member of the Dulaimi Confederation, the largest and most powerful grouping in Iraq. We noted the shift in the Albu Fahd tribe was occurring in March, and reported that Mohammed Mahmoud Latif (aka Mahmoud al-Fahdawi) is a leader of the Anbar Salvation Council. Latif/al-Fahdawi was described by Azzaman in early March as a "chieftain of the powerful Dulaimi tribe" and "head of Dulaimis in Tarmiya, Dhaloiya, Balad and Taji, some of the most violent areas in Iraq, [who was] reported to have ordered his tribesmen to wage war on Qaeda."

Al-Fahdawi's efforts seem to be snowballing in Diyala province. Yesterday, two Diyala tribes, the Karki and Shimouri, "signed a peace agreement at the home of the Mujema tribal leader in Diyala province, Monday," and "promised to 'consolidate and unify to battle all insurgents that penetrate among [their] tribes.'” Seven other tribes announced joining the Anbar Salvation Council in late April. The Anbar Salvation Council's national political movement, the Iraqi Awakening, is set to meet in Baghdad in May. And most surprisingly, the Adhamiya Awakening has been established in the troubled Baghdad neighborhood to fight against al Qaeda.
----

[ET]

Here's a question for the WMD conspiracy theorists out there: if Bush used the WMD threat to willfully deceive the American people into a war for cheap oil, why didn't he complete the vast conspiracy and PLANT some there when we found none?

[Terry Gain]

Zifnab

War for oil? The U. S. has taken stolen exactly zero ounces of Iraqi oil -and how could they? Why do you put your ignorance and stupidity on display for all to see? Is your real name Rosie or Alec?

[Terry Gain]

Oh ET, how unfair.

[Dan Riehl]

ET - Please refain from explicit references to logical thought. I hate it when their heads explode and I have to wash down the blog.

[ec1009]

ET SAYS,
"Here's a question for the WMD conspiracy theorists out there: if Bush used the WMD threat to willfully deceive the American people into a war [only a willfully ignorant fool believes otherwise] for cheap oil, why didn't he complete the vast conspiracy and PLANT some there when we found none? [While our president is a world class craven liar and arrogant opportunist, no person can credibly claim that he is competant.] Have a nice day.

[Terry Gain]

"no person can credibly claim that he is competant.] Have a nice day".ec1009

Hey Dummycrat, if you can't spell, at least be competent enough to use Spell Check.

[darcy_lane]

Yeah, I read the post then was going to comment but I guess some people beat me, the reason, Luttwacko, we can't ignore the Mid East is the oil. Its the elephant in the room. We need it, they got it, and we can't let things get out of hand over there.

[ET]

ec1009: You Da Man!

Thanks for exposing the lunacy of the left...you truly believe bush is smart enough to singlehandedly pull off this vast conspiracy, then condradict yourself by concluding that he was too stupid to complete the ruse.

Just the answer I expected from one of you leftards, but really...not even nowings or calvin fell into the trap! You must be especially dense, even for a liberal.

Have a shitty day.

[Phoenix]

har... Great thread. :)

Why didn't he 'plant' some nukes in the desert?

"Quickly, Snidely....get these newculer things over there. Wait 'til after dark. Oh...and bring back some 'o that liquid gold."

[Shannon Love]

I thought there was no WMD threat in Iraq, Kevin. Do tell, what have I missed?

At the risk of stirring up an old debate, I would point out that the Dueffler report determined that Hussien could have created blistering agents within a matter of hours and could have resumed nerve gas production within three week. He retained the two critical components he needed to produce chemical weapons at will: technical talent and money. Had he decided to carry out a massive chemical weapons attack he could have done so at anytime of his choosing. Saying there was no WMD threat in Iraq is a childish simplification.

If regimes or sub-national groups in the region ever come to view mass causality terrorist attacks as a means to power then there is enough technical talent in the middle east to create at least chemical weapons.

The true danger poised by instability in the middle east is the sudden interruption of oil from the region. Such an interruption would only inconvenience the developed West but it be devastating to most of the third world. We can afford to pay a lot for oil but they cannot. The "energy crisis" of the 70's caused horrible suffering and death in the world's poorest regions. We really don't want to see that happen again.

It's not just about us.

[Roger]

Shannon Love makes an excellent point, IMO. The blood for oil thing is such a stale cliche, inasmuch as only about 20 percent of our oil comes from the mid east. Who is our biggest supplier of oil? Gasp--its the Canadians! It is NOT about oil for the US; if the price of oil gets high enough we have a lot of oil in oil shale and sands; its about oil for the WORLD--Oil is a world wide commodity--not a Hallilburton invention. When the price of oil rises because the mid east supplies decline, it is the world that suffers. This strategic consideration seems to always get lost in the idiotic meme "blood for oil."

[Dave From Rochester]

The anti-war WMD argument seems to be premised on the idea that History starts in, say, 2001. Sadaam had and used chemical warfare agents and had a very active nuclear weapons program that was discovered only after someone who knew about ir revealed its presence. And, as was nicely pointed out by the Senate select committee (or the 911 Commission, I don't recall which), Iraq was seeking yellow cake in Africa. The UN was perplexed and disturbed by the unaccounted for WMD. There is no question that Sadaam had them; the question is, where are they now.

[M. Simon]

I don't know. I'm a neocon and it looks like a war for oil to me. Who controls it. Who gets the procedes.

However, it is not about taking other people's oil. Which is what the leftys think. In Iraq the Iraqi peole (and not Saddam or his terrorist buddies) are benefitting from the oil.

[Dan Riehl]

"I'm a neocon and it looks like a war for oil to me>

Your point is correct, but in that sense, the oil more represents a nation's wealth, than a world commodity.You could make the same case that the Cold War was fought to give populations the access to capial in the form of USSR resources previously locked up and controlled by the ruling party.

[Roger]

M simon and Dan Riehl: I dont think the positions you outline are incompatible; it's fundamentally what some call the "level of analysis" problem. Oil is all of the above: a (perhaps right now the) most important) world commodity; it's a foundation for national wealth and influence; and it's a major political issue internal to iraqi politics. And the calculus regarding oil, was, I am sure, one element in the administration's decision to go to war because such decisions are invariably based on a lot more than one factor.

[Phoenix]

All this talk about oil and how third-world countries would suffer if the source were messed up..... That is not why we went into Iraq. We had no presence in the Middle East at a time - 9/11 - when it's clear that our security now depends on a base of operations in the Middle East where there are a few nuked-up countries that would like to kill Americans. Iraq is strategically located, it was ripe for taking down, and we figured the WMD thing for real........... Israel is our ally and she's totally unprotected and under constant threat by the area. ... We have bases all over the world in areas we have deemed hot spots for our protection. The U.S. policy of preventative measures has been going on since the Cold War. Get our bases where they can pre-empt a strike and/or help our allies. Iraq has dual purpose now. We have what we need there to watch out for Iran, Syria, and any other country that may harbor terrorists, and we can protect Israel. The best thing that could come out of the Bush Doctrine is for Iraq to flourish as a democracy and to be seen as something to envy by surrounding countries that oppress their people and maintain old hatreds for the west. Iraq the Model. So much good can come from success there. And last but not least.... the Iraqis deserve a break after Saddam.

This is all neocon philosophy. Prevent future problems. And never let us be as complacently stupid as we were on 9/10.

[Qwinn]

A slight problem for the "No Blood For Oil" crowd:

"Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

Oops. Quick, we need another meme, stat!

Oh wait, no we don't. This came out a month ago, and no one knows about it, and we can keep having long threads like this discussing the subject without anyone mentioning it. Media bias? What media bias?

Qwinn

[M. Simon]

Qwinn,

As I said it was never about direct control of the oil. It was about "free flow" (according to market forces) and who gets the dough.

BTW I also agree with Roger and Love. The analysis' I look at is not one dimensional. However, one can't dismiss the oil question out of hand. WW2 in large measure was about the control of oil. Our first oil war.

As a commercial power our interest is in the economic advancement of our customers. So in a sense the Cold War was about freeing dead capital from the Soviet embrace. We now have tens of millions of new customers in Poland, Hungary, the Czechs, etc.

Oil is an economic choke point. The economic advance of our customers depends on it. Which is one good reason for American protection of the lines of supply aside from all the very good political and moral reasons. I'm not an oil only kind of guy. I'm a neocon.

[Simmering]

YES! It is blood for oil, and must attack Canada NOW! Yet we'll be sneaky (get Cheney on the phone!) and position our goals as:
1) Righting the wrongs within the Canadian Football League (God didn't intend for 110 yard field and 20 yard end zones)
2) The promotion of fine Kentucky Bourbon. (We need to save the Canucks from that foul Rye Canadian whiskey)

Sure, the battle will be long and hard. We'll need language specialist to help us understand why the icy heathens can't pronounce "ou" without it sounding like an long o.

After we subdue the Northern Hun, we should expect infighting amongst the various groups. Western provinces conservatives will piss on Toronto liberals. The Quebec French will be in a snit because...well they are French! Its in their genetic make up and you can not force them to change. We'll even have to ask the question is it right to force our democratic values on a people who for generation only want to spit in our eye. Oh the horror! I shudder.

But it is worth it, I tell you. Where's ol' Dick? We need to saddle up and GET THAT OIL!

[John F. MacMichael]

Edward Luttwak is not someone who is worth listening to. Why do I say this? Well, shortly after the end of the first Gulf War, The New Republic published an article surveying the various pundits whose prewar forecasts had proven spectacularly wrong. One of these was Mr. Luttwak. He had publicly predicted that we would suffer massive casualties (100,000+) if we went to war against Iraq.

Now, I would not write him off just for being wrong about this. Plenty of others were predicting (some hoping) that the effete Americans would be slaughtered in the desert by Saddam's battle-hardened legions.

However, when the TNR writers called Mr. Luttwak see what he had to say about being so utterly off the mark, he claimed that he had not really believed in the dire forecast he had made. Rather, he said, he had been opposed to war (for various reasons) and made these claims of impending doom to try to prevent it.

Well, this leaves us with two alternatives: (1), Mr. Luttwak was telling the truth after the war to The New Republic. Which means he was willing to lie before the war (on a subject that he was supposed to be an expert on) in order to influence public policy. Or, (2), rather than admit he was wrong before the war, he lied to salve his ego and reputation.

Either way, he has shown himself a liar. And a liar is never worth listening to.

[Californio]

ARgggh! That is their arch devio-osity at work! They "act" unable to manage things... but it is all an act, a ruse, a sham!!!!! They are secretly manipulating everything everywhere with the cooperation of the aliens housed in Area 59 1/2. Area 54 is another ruse, man!!! What most people don't realize is that Chimpy McBu$hCo has actually re-engineered every drop of petroleum on the face of the earth so that it has nano-RTF transmitters that allow them to track us all!!!! But not ME! My tin-foil hat prevents them from beaming their hypno-rays into my head. Rosie O'Donnell USED to know about this - but they bought her off with HER NEW SHOW!!!!! Zoinks Scooby!!!

[Jim C.]

"While our president is a world class craven liar and arrogant opportunist, no person can credibly claim that he is competant. Have a nice day."

Posted by: ec1009 | Thursday, May 03, 2007 at 07:01 PM

So Cheney and Rove and Wolfowitz are Bush's evil genius puppeteers, but they didn't think to plant the WMDs, either? Have a nice day.

[TomB]

"No, Dan. It's business, pure and simple. This President is in the Middle East to make money. And he's been making it hand-over-fist at the taxpayer's expense and with the blood of our military."

Zif, perhaps you can tell us exactly how Bush is making that money?

And I'd like to reiterate the question that has been asked repeatedly, and never answered:

"Here's a question for the WMD conspiracy theorists out there: if Bush used the WMD threat to willfully deceive the American people into a war for cheap oil, why didn't he complete the vast conspiracy and PLANT some there when we found none?"

I've asked that question over and over again on numerous forums and have NEVER gotten an answer.