Now we begin the interminable policing of the world's largest reserves of oil.
Which, I would say, was the long-term goal of our involvement there
Max Schadenfreude
October 24, 2007 12:52 PM
NOW we begin the policing of the the world's largest reserves of oil? Actually, I think we've been doing that for generations.
Actually, Iraq does not have the largest reserve; it's #4.
Question: What country should do the policing? Venezuela?
Will
October 24, 2007 1:16 PM
NOW we begin the policing of the the world's largest reserves of oil? Actually, I think we've been doing that for generations.
Yes, I agree. That was a poor choice of words on my part. If the violence in Iraq has in fact decreased, then the US's ongoing policing of the regionwith the worlds largest reserves of oil will simply continue in a less violent way. The enormous expense continues unabated.
Actually, Iraq does not have the largest reserve; it's #4.
Yes depending on who's doing the accounting, you could be right on that one fine point. But all the experts agree that the region - Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, et al - are sitting atop the world's largest reserves of oil. Dick Cheney put it this way, and he's dead right:
"We're there (Iraq) because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."
And you ask, sarcastically, "What country should do the policing? Venezuela?"
Obviously those whose economies would falter first with the loss of cheap oil will do the policing. Europe is decades ahead of us in energy policy. Perhaps that's why the "coalition" in Iraq is essentially the US. We're the biggest oil addicts around.
DavidTC
October 24, 2007 3:56 PM
Don't get too excited about this. Violence in Iraq drops hugely every summer. You simply cannot hold a war in that heat. And last June was a absurdly violent month, so dropping from it back to normallish levels is not 'progress', it means the 'regress' wasn't as bad as it looked in June.
Of course, that's US casualties, and the article is talking about Iraq violence in general, but I think the principle is demonstrated.
Violence is on a constant, somewhat slow, upward spiral in Iraq. Sometimes it zags down and everyone gets happy, sometimes it zigs up and everyone gets upset, but people need to stop thinking month to month, especially as seasonal variations trivially drown out the changes. But the actual fact is that violence is slowly but surely getting worse. Compare almost any 12-month period with an earlier 12-month period and it becomes blindly obvious. Or any month with a year previous.
It's a football game where they're scoring one and half touchdowns for every one of ours. Cheering our touchdowns and booing theirs isn't going to change the fact we're behind by seventy points and the game is almost over.
And, incidentally, it is almost over. The question isn't really what people think it is. It's not 'Can we justify leaving them?', it's 'Can we actually accomplish anything before our military snaps in half?', which will happen somewhere about a year from now.
rebeccat
October 24, 2007 7:22 PM
Good Lord, people! I would bet dimes to dollars that pretty much no one here has bothered reading anything by anyone who's actually um, you know, ON THE GROUND right now! Educate yourself before you go spouting nonsense about what the Iraqi's think and cooked numbers. Right now, this thread does nothing but re-inforce the notion that liberals are so attached to losing that they would rather see that happen than have things turn out well.
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Sign Up: Receive Crunchy Con in your in-box every day
Now we begin the interminable policing of the world's largest reserves of oil.
Which, I would say, was the long-term goal of our involvement there
NOW we begin the policing of the the world's largest reserves of oil? Actually, I think we've been doing that for generations.
Actually, Iraq does not have the largest reserve; it's #4.
Question: What country should do the policing? Venezuela?
NOW we begin the policing of the the world's largest reserves of oil? Actually, I think we've been doing that for generations.
Yes, I agree. That was a poor choice of words on my part. If the violence in Iraq has in fact decreased, then the US's ongoing policing of the regionwith the worlds largest reserves of oil will simply continue in a less violent way. The enormous expense continues unabated.
Actually, Iraq does not have the largest reserve; it's #4.
Yes depending on who's doing the accounting, you could be right on that one fine point. But all the experts agree that the region - Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, et al - are sitting atop the world's largest reserves of oil. Dick Cheney put it this way, and he's dead right:
"We're there (Iraq) because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."
And you ask, sarcastically, "What country should do the policing? Venezuela?"
Obviously those whose economies would falter first with the loss of cheap oil will do the policing. Europe is decades ahead of us in energy policy. Perhaps that's why the "coalition" in Iraq is essentially the US. We're the biggest oil addicts around.
Don't get too excited about this. Violence in Iraq drops hugely every summer. You simply cannot hold a war in that heat. And last June was a absurdly violent month, so dropping from it back to normallish levels is not 'progress', it means the 'regress' wasn't as bad as it looked in June.
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
(Note that graph is oddly misleading with the blue line. Ignore it, look at the amount of gray if you want to compare.)
Of course, that's US casualties, and the article is talking about Iraq violence in general, but I think the principle is demonstrated.
Violence is on a constant, somewhat slow, upward spiral in Iraq. Sometimes it zags down and everyone gets happy, sometimes it zigs up and everyone gets upset, but people need to stop thinking month to month, especially as seasonal variations trivially drown out the changes. But the actual fact is that violence is slowly but surely getting worse. Compare almost any 12-month period with an earlier 12-month period and it becomes blindly obvious. Or any month with a year previous.
It's a football game where they're scoring one and half touchdowns for every one of ours. Cheering our touchdowns and booing theirs isn't going to change the fact we're behind by seventy points and the game is almost over.
And, incidentally, it is almost over. The question isn't really what people think it is. It's not 'Can we justify leaving them?', it's 'Can we actually accomplish anything before our military snaps in half?', which will happen somewhere about a year from now.
Good Lord, people! I would bet dimes to dollars that pretty much no one here has bothered reading anything by anyone who's actually um, you know, ON THE GROUND right now! Educate yourself before you go spouting nonsense about what the Iraqi's think and cooked numbers. Right now, this thread does nothing but re-inforce the notion that liberals are so attached to losing that they would rather see that happen than have things turn out well.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.