And each time the mideast crisis heats up a little, the price of oil shoots up and the Muslim nations get more billions of dollars. Since they are being paid handsomely for each crisis, there are many crises.

On top of that, the radical Muslims see this God-given oil as a sign that they are supposed to wage war against the West. And secular types like Saddam Hussein just see it as a way to pay for arms.

Foreign oil wouldn't be a problem if the Muslims didn't have all that oil revenue to make trouble with. It's not getting the oil that's hurting the US, it's paying the Muslims. So we should stop paying them.

Seizing the oil fields will permit us to invigorate the world economy by lowering oil prices for everyone. It's the only solution that is not a temporary, stop-gap solution.

Neither the Muslim masses nor their dictators have earned the right to be wealthy off the creativity of the West. (Not that the masses are actually very wealthy, except in parts of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). It's only a fetishistic attachment to private property that induces the "Liberal" West to subsidize the Islamic Jihad.

Progressives the world over must support the internationalization of world oil supplies.

Posted at September 8, 2006 7:35 AM in response to Public’s top national security concern: oil

The key question is "What to do now?".

For Israelis, it is probably to replace the Olmert government. Whether you blame their inept execution or their decision to launch air attacks in the first place, he is objectively not competent at his job. If the IDF was not, as some say, in a state of military readiness, then it was not competent to escalate as a response to Hezbollah's Acts of War. One could argue that Israel should simply have taken counter-hostages, as it did with Hamas and the kidnapping of Galid Shalit.

For the Lebanese, the next thing to do is to assure their security by disarming Hezbollah. That is the only way to guarantee there will be no further Israeli military action. Nasrallah's competence should also be called into question and he should be replaced. His decisions brought great pain to Lebanon.

Posted at August 30, 2006 11:40 AM in response to Incompetence and Israel

Where the 1938 analogy breaks down most severely is that nowadays the West is paying Iran and even Syria to foment a crisis. The hotter the crisis, the higher the price of oil, the more money Iran (and even Syria) makes. You would think that the free-enterprisers in the White House would have a better response to a market for trouble.

Most countries, especially Muslim countries, make trouble only in proportion to their oil wealth. This clearly applies to Venezuala, Iran and Saddam's Iraq. It for now does not apply to Indonesia and only somewhat to Saudi Arabia.

In 1938 the Axis was not financially supported by its enemies.

Posted at August 24, 2006 2:24 PM in response to Analogies

I think it's great that the Iranians made a statement about helping find the 9/11 plotters. How much help did they provide?

So, "Years" from now, when Iran has nukes, do you think they'll give a few to Hamas or Hezbollah? How about slipping some into an oil tanker? Do you really want to give them the chance?

Optimists have been wrongly predicting the fall of the Mullahs since they took over in 1979.

So your 3 points don't stand up too well. And I can't be a neocon because I'm not a conservative, new or old.

Posted at August 24, 2006 1:49 PM in response to Analogies

Arab rejectionism has a history of over 50 years and you'll have to look it up yourself. Start by reading the 'Hamas Charter'. Here's a a link. Nasrallah's constant references to Israel as a 'Temporary State'. The famous declaration of 'No negotiation, no recognition, no peace' of the Arab League. Interpret all that in light of the murder of Israel's Olympic atheletes and the murder of cripple Leon Klinghoffer just because he was a Jew. Rockets continued to rain on Israel from Gaza even after it gave up the territory.

As far as the Islamicization of the West, read Qutb or bin Laden or Nasrallah. Interpret that stuff in light of all the various terrorist attacks and the many decade history of the Iranian Ayatolla regime.

This is real war. It's not conventional war, but it's becoming a clash of civilizations. I don't think there's a lack of "Understanding" or problems of "Hysteria".

Sure there are lots of Muslims that want no part of Jihad. But the violence is immensely popular among the Arab and Persian masses.

Here's something to read that will shed some light on the problem: An article by Matthias Küntzel. Let me know what you think.

If you're right and there is no war then there billions of dollars to be saved and other problems to be dealt with. But I don't think you're right.

Posted at August 24, 2006 1:38 PM in response to Analogies

All historical analogies are weak. But if analogies are of no value then learning history has no value either. Cohen says that 1938 is "instructive" and I think that's fair. But that's all trivial.

But the central problem is that the Islamists and Syria will not give up their goal of destroying the nation of Israel, and something must be done about that. And the Islamists in particular will not give up their goal of bringing down Western civilization, or at least Islamicizing it. And something must be done about that too.

The Terror War by Islamic radicals has merged with the Arab-Israeli dispute. Maybe it was always one and the same.

The development of nuclear technology by the suicide cult leading Iran puts a timetable on things that means we cannot simply wait for the current leadership to die off.

Understanding the Middle East through the lens of George W Bush is simply failing to understand the Middle East.

The ideas of "Appeasement", of giving territory away without a peace treaty, of endless negotiations, look more and more like a dangerous path. In this respect the analogy to 1938 has some teeth. 1938 is seen as a time when the UK chose the short-term comfortable solution over the harder path, to it's eventual regret, and I (and Cohen) believe that the same temptation faces us today.

The problems with the Cohen column are trivial by comparison with the real problems in the Middle East. And they were not created by George W Bush.

If Matt Y or somebody has a real argument that there is something we can afford give to Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, and Hamas that will stop the conflict then that would be a real contribution. Show us how appeasing them will really work. But tooting of about analogies and the Cohen column are not exactly helpful.

To be clear, it's Matt's blog, and if he wants to write about analogies, similes or even the relationship between gerunds and adverbs, he has the right. But that's not why we read his blog.

Posted at August 22, 2006 11:53 AM in response to Analogies

The obvious connection between the Iranian nukes and Lebanon is that Hezbollah rockets could someday be used to launch nukes at Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and so on. Pushing back and regulating Hezbollah makes that harder for the Iranians.

The relationship between the Palestinian kidnappings and the Hezbollah kidnappings is that one occurred just before the other and statements were made in mutual support.

The counterpunch article referred to relies on the idea that the first confused press reports of an event are more to be trusted than later reports after more investigation.

Posted at August 19, 2006 12:10 PM in response to And This War Was For . . . What?

The Lebanese radars had already been in use to attack that Israeli ship . While those radars were hit, others could have been used for other anti-Israeli purposes. Hezbollah also has radios and computers. Email is now militarily significant, and can be encrypted.

Posted at August 19, 2006 12:00 PM in response to And This War Was For . . . What?

Your information is useful.

When I wrote their wouldn't be any Lebanese civilians I was indulging in hyperbole to make a point. That is, if Israel wanted to depopulate Lebanon it could have done a more thorough job of it. With or without nukes. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Posted at August 19, 2006 11:53 AM in response to And This War Was For . . . What?

If what was meant was logistical targets such as bridges and runways then what is the relevance of the term "High Moral Ground"?

Posted at August 18, 2006 8:06 AM in response to And This War Was For . . . What?