You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...
The French lose a soldier in Afghanistan, in an attack that killed the soldier and wounded many civilians nearby. In other fighting, 75 Taliban and six civilians were killed. The headline? 82 Killed in Afghanistan Violence. True enough. Fair and balanced... but misleading, too. Especially since the public is used to headlines like that from Iraq generally meaning a mass casualty event among civilians from a bomb. The vast bulk of the casualties in Afghanistan were Taliban combatants.
Not to make this blog all preachy since it's Friday, the day of original sin, but... I kind of agree with John Derbyshire over at NRO: Islamaphobiaphobia. I don't think we're at war with Islam. I believe if people freely choose to practice Islam without the threat of death and without infringing on the rights of individuals, that okay by me. Although, the idea that the fermentation of grapes and grains is bad, kind of gets my goat around 'Rita time and the idea that those who wish to leave it should be killed can make me nervous. But, Islam itself?
Robert Spencer is interesting because I have learned a lot about Islam, but I also know that terrorism is a self fulfilling prophesy that doesn't need a religion to make it so.
On another note, vis-a-vis a conversation with Ry re: whether such extremists have something other in mind besides killing people, I believe thiat Victor Davis Hansen is either as brilliant as bloggers here or is reading our stuff:
]What Does Bin Laden Want?]
-Kat
This economic determinism bender around here is making people loopy, methinks. So, in VDH's world, oil at $30/brl didn't allow terrorists and hostile to US ME nations to acquire just about every weapon they wanted then? Bollucks. Didn't allow them to conduct ops pretty much wherever and whenever they wanted? We weren't being 'bankrupted' at $30/brl when it was paying for Iran to buy all kinds of SU and Mig fighters, Syria to buy similar gear, etc.? THis just seems like forcing everything to go thru the funnel of economic determinism(just like Barnett always does).
That, hey, if we were on a different energy economy(say hydrogen) that they wouldn't resort to cyberstrategies if they wanted an economic weapon? Nope. Petrodollars. That's the key. Just follow the money as it explains everything.
Really, this has gone nutty. If it wasn't petroleum it'd be something like Sn(Tin) fueling terrorism and ME nations hostile to the US, giving them the capability to. No resources? Even Afghanistan has found something from which terrs, and the people, are finding ways to make many(in a place most people would otherwise say has no real natural resources). And this utterly ignores a dirty little secret: big nations give foreign aide in situations like this to facilitate this kind of stuff. Hence, wow, oil is soooo damn important in the scheme of things isn't it? I mean, the Sov's couldn't have funded and sent aide to all those countries in the ME and East Asia without all those big petrodollars they were raking in(when they were having trouble keeping their own fuel supply working AND having to import wheat because they listen to farkin' Lysenko). Nah.
Like Bader-Meinhoff wasn't capable of doing their thing, in support of Palestinian terrorist groups at times, on whatever they got from donors and robbing banks(and their thing was trying three times to hit an airliner with an RPG in W. Germany). Aum Shinrykyo? Nah. None of this matters because it all comes down to macro economics.
Never you mind that modern arms were finding there way into the Levant long before there was economic interests there, any economic interests. Place had strategic value to the Ottoman's but economic? BS. It was a money pit for them, but they kept it anyways.
Like the history of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Arabian Peninsula isnt' riddled with wars and invasions before petroleum even really became important globally? And this is between nations like Tsarist Russia and England? Okay, you might say that from the Brit perspective it was about economics(protection thereof), but from the Russian perspective, extending you borders and military into areas of absolutely no economic value for invasions you never planned or executed on British economic interests? Fine. Economics uber-alles. It's the Unified Theory of Warfare.
Like Iran hasn't been able to acquire whatever they wanted (much less Libya) with major and serious embargoes limiting the amount of petroleum they could extract and sell. Yup, petrodollars are weapons and the major reason for why they all have weapons with the capability to conduct operations against the US. Yup. Yup. Hell, our arming of Pakistan(and Turkey) was all about directly securing some vital economic interest too, wasn't it? Couldn't have just been a move to hold the Sov's in place. It's all about economics. The UNified Theory of Warfare. Nope, no other causes, move along, no point in looking because all you have to do is follow the money(says the voice on the phone).
I don't buy Unified Theory of Warfare(i.e. economic determinism). Never have and never will. There's too many reasons for why people go to war(what vital economic interest was there in the Falklands? Was the UK going to run short of wool?). In just about every situation where people claim economics was teh deciding factor the counter factual of 'There was more money to be made by siding with than against' is never explored(Try WW2 without the US embargo against Japan, which doesn't lead to massive rationing and 1/20th of every dollar earned in the US from 1945-1960 being spent to rebuild Europe.). Not buying this thesis of it being predominately about oil, whether it is from Saint VDH or anyone else.
Oh, and for some reason the link isn't working. It comes up with the same URL for me as well when I went to NRO, but sends me to a write email screen with NRO's web address in the to field. Weird.
posted by ry on September 21, 2007 5:57 PM
...sends me to a write email screen with NRO's web address in the to field.
Think it could have something to do with the "mailto:" command at the beginning of the code?
posted by
BillT on September 21, 2007 6:19 PM
One thing, and I'll reply more succinctly promptly, is that Bader Meinhoff was funded by the east German Stasi in no small part.
Further, if the Cold War was not an economic war, why did the Soviets/Communists spend so much time trying influence allies in strategic places? I mean, they were both militarily and economically strategic.
As to your "what if we had a different economy base" question, yes, the answer is, if something else was to take the place of oil, then it too would be a target. You don't just defeat your enemy politically or militarily without also defeating them economically. As long as a nation has access to resources and has the ability to produce the weapons it requires, purchase that which it does not have and pay for the fuel (whether that was mules, horses and feed or steel, oil and diesel fuel) to move its army from one place to the other, it still has the ability to maneuver and fight or simply project power over a greater area.
Talking about oil simplifies the situation down, but, if you recall the other pieces I've written on the subject, strategic interdiction of food, clothing, technology, minerals, etc, etc, etc has the same effect.
In fact, it is simply the modern version of sieging a castle on a global scale. Or, if you will, the cavalry cutting the main army's supply lines.
Such areas, I concluded on review of the map of the ancient "Caliphate" that they wish to establish, includes the Suez Canal, Gibalter, Straits of Hormuz and the Malaysia/Philippines. The Ottoman Empire did not take control of these areas because they simply wanted to spread Islam around the globe, but because, even in their day, it represented the most heavily traded, enduring economic routes that they required to establish and maintain, not only the physical control of their empire, but the financial control.
While I do not doubt that the current Islamist primary goal is to set up an ideological state. However, the massive state they envision, as I previously noted, cannot exist on "donations" and illegal drugs and smuggling forever. We're talking about over a billion subjects who do not all live in caves. Nor can they defend these massive borders with nothing but guerrillas with RPGs and suicide bombers. If they ever hope to obtain this state, they will have to move into legitimate trade, even if it is with people that is not the west.
China, for instance, would demand cold hard currency.
In the end, war has never simply been about politics or massive armies maneuvering to kill each other. It has and always will be the ability of one or the other to defend or obtain the necessary resources. Just because it has changed from a massive army movement to obtain or defend said resources to a massive army rolling around and, one amounts to light cavalry, repeatedly hitting the supply lines.
I agree with you in the interim, the Jihadists don't need to take and control oil or other economic resources vitally important to the west. They don't have to control much land. They can hit us with little stabbing wounds here and there, bleeding us to death over the long run.
Sink a ship in the Suez Canal and find out what happens to our JIT (just in time inventory) economy and that of the globe when ships now have to transit thousands of miles to circumvent Cape Hope. As you once infamously said to me, use a ruler. How many days would it take to transit these routes? How much fuel? What would the price of goods be?
It is why we are fighting "pirates" off of Somalia and in the Straits of Malacca. It is a real danger to our economy. Blow up a freighter in Singapore and see what happens.
That is not to say that in this war, there is not the battle fields of politcs/propaganda or the military front that are important. But, to ignore the economic front because someone links it to oil and it does not fit some ideological paradigm seems to me to leave out an important part of the battle.
It is, in fact, as if you were leaving your supply line and baggage train to be sacked over and over again, pretending it will not effect your army in the field. maybe they can just forage off the land?
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 7:57 PM
Baader-Meinhof sucked. They blew up my officer's club, killing LTC Paul Bloomquist, and scared my mother, who was back in the states burying her father and chewing her fingernails until she found out the "dead officer" wasn't Dad.
[Looks at Ry, reaches for more popcorn.]
No, that had nothing to do with this discussion. Just random neurons firing. But yeah, I remember things like that. It was in interesting time to be a teenager in Frankfurt.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on September 21, 2007 8:31 PM
...to ignore the economic front because someone links it to oil and it does not fit some ideological paradigm seems to me to leave out an important part of the battle.
The problem in a nutshell is that the paradigm-pushers don't see it as part of the battle -- except the one they're fighting to regain the Executive Mansion.
Over the course of the past three years, I have become pretty well convinced that the firm of Reid, Pelosi and Associates are now so blinded by their own rhetoric that they are oblivious to anything that can't be turned into a 10-second talking point aimed at November, 2008.
posted by
BillT on September 21, 2007 9:35 PM
"And this utterly ignores a dirty little secret: big nations give foreign aide in situations like this to facilitate this kind of stuff."-ry
"One thing, and I'll reply more succinctly promptly, is that Bader Meinhoff was funded by the east German Stasi in no small part"-Kat
Gee Kat, I guess I'm an idjit since you didn't notice me mentioning this, huh? I may not be Conrad, but, damn, I'm not skim material neither.
You're also glossing over that the East Germans, much less The USSR, had serious hard currency problems(not to mention the hard core internal fights over whether or not terrorism was acceptable to true Lennist-Marxist thought). Yes, they directly helped terrorists. They were also helped, immensely, and not just Bader-Meinhoff but the entire slew of violent socialists like the Italians had, by 'passing the hat' and informal economic relationships. The IRA is a classic example. The Code Pink issue is another($600K from a charity? That's serious money to terrs.)Renditions to Mexico? HOly Chit that's almost a third of the Mexican economy! Don't try to tell me that charity or the 'Rich Uncle' can't keep a nation afloat when it frickin' already does.
As long as there's a major player someone out there who doesn't like us there'll be something like under the table donations from said major player.
Kat, if you pay attention to what I'm actually saying you'll find I'm faulting the notion that a situation/war is so easily explained by economic factors. Never said that economics has no place, quite the contrary I've said explicitly that it does, but trying to condense everything down to be so easily understood as economics is wrong and one-sided thinking.
"As to your "what if we had a different economy base" question, yes, the answer is, if something else was to take the place of oil, then it too would be a target" I don't think you get what I'm saying or trying to say. I'm not saying that hydrogen would be the target. I'm saying that there's more ways than I can count to make money to support a military or terrorist organization. Tin is utterly unrelated to the manufacture of hydrogen(at least it is in any of the things I've seen in industrial scale production). It's just that I know that there's workable mines of metals out there in the Levant. Maybe not great mines, but there to be used. Then stanous-dollars will become the next big rage(when tin makes very little on the open market) because you'll still find some wackadoo preaching hate and finding ways of buying AKs or whatever on the pittiance that tin makes on the market if directly from a nation-state or from 'Rich Uncle'.
"While I do not doubt that the current Islamist primary goal is to set up an ideological state. However, the massive state they envision, as I previously noted, cannot exist on "donations" and illegal drugs and smuggling forever."
What I think you're missing is that they largely don't care about material things the way you and I do. Buy pharmaceuticals? Why, Allah provides(granted this is a gross oversimplification, but I think you get the point). They'd be utterly comfortable with the currency of the realm being salt. It is because of what they want to become that makes it so. They want a medieval state---why else do they ban satellite dishes, cut off people's heads for being materialistic and reading about ideas other than those proscribed---and a medieval state does not require modern economies.
I'm thnking of this very much like the French Force de Frappe(SP? Proll'y it is me after all). The concept of minimal deterrence that is embodied by that miniscule nuclear force. A few guys with fertilizer bombs is apparently enough to drive off some nations(Spain, and England appears headed that way) and influence politics such that they can be left to do as they please. Look at what that Nonpartisan guy wrote. Hey, to him 3000 dead isn't enough of a reason to worry about it, besides, it's easier to just end involvement there and 'firewall it off'. He's not alone as you found with the Code Pink lady and a busload of other jackalopes. IF they have their way the bin-Laden's might actually get their way.
Which would leave the neo-Caliphate with what? And economy based on hectares, goats, and gold, right? They don't need an economy like you're thinking. They don't want to be a nation state. They don't want to trade with us much if at all. They don't want the trappings of a modern nation state as it is anathema to the very idea that put them on the path to war in the first place. Modernity and the neo-Caliphate are diametric ideas. Ergo, I don't think you can try to push them into the classic nation-state mold economically. They wish to be other. Legitimate trade does NOT mean having to trade outside their own boundaries or using a unit of measure they don't choose, which is something that seems to be the intended inference.
They don't have to defend their borders in the classical way. They don't need destroyers, airplanes, tanks, and a large professional army of infantry. They can achieve that by the threat of crazies blowing themselves up in the invader's country while simply hanging on with guerilla -esque tactics on the home front. This might be an over-simplification of 4th and 5th GW thought, but that's kind of where it leads. Yes, they can defend themselves with suiciders, they're doing a decent job of succeeding in Iraq right now(if poll numbers mean anything, or that the Dems are going ape trying to end our involvement means anything).
The idea that they need a real economy does not apply to bin-Laden and his follower, but it does for Iran. As would China, but that's because of what they wish to be. THey're flowing somewhat from a Western idea of what a state is. The Chinese aren't guided by a religion with a godhead atop it gifting things out to the faithful. Iran straddles the line of being a trully modern state and a nut-job theocracy. I don't quite grasp how they get around contradictions and paradoxes, but they do. But the bin-Ladens of the world don't want a nation-state like we think of it. They want other, and therefor the rules are totally different.
"In the end, war has never simply been about politics or massive armies maneuvering to kill each other. It has and always will be the ability of one or the other to defend or obtain the necessary resources."
No, war is *sometimes* this. reducing war's cause to one variable, or one constant primary variable with a distant second set of others, is not being realistic. It isn't dealing with reality or history. Even use of the caveat 'modern war...' doesn't do it either. There's too many wars with too many reasons to ascribe it just to resources, in the modern era(the Falklands being the mere tip of the iceberg on that). Sorry, but that's just too video gamey. Doesn't take into account the wide variety of reasons people do what they do.
I never said that economic warfare wasn't real or an element that shouldn't be considered. BUt defining everything in terms of whether it hurts economy or not is wrong. Sure, they could close the Suez, Panama, and many other shipping choke points. It would hurt. That they haven't tells me that they think of things far differently than in terms of dollars and cents, trade, and other factors you've listed. I can see China doing that(particularly in Panama, or Suez after they've got the oil pipeline from Siberia contract in hand and built.). They I can see using that type of weapon---matter of fact they do think of that (Unresctricted Warfare being the book that largely lays out how they do think about war outside of just blue on red.).
Defining it all, having economics as the sole factor, that just seems so wrong. Ideology or no, it just doesn't explain it all. And, when I found out what Greenspan actually said, I agreed with him(stabilizing the flow of oil by invading Iraq was a good thing, a peripheral thing, but still a good thing, as it reduced threat to the global economy. But it was peripheral. At least that's how I've taken the subsequent things he's said in relation to that.). Other factors matter, and in some instance far more than economics, in war or the decisions to go to war and how to fight said war. Reducing it to about resources is the way of the game designers at Blizzard(economics) or Nintendo(moral). It just doesn't apply to all cases well enough. It's like crystal field theory that it's got so many exceptions to it that it no longer works as a theory to explain the phenomenon.
posted by ry on September 21, 2007 9:45 PM
I'm going to get to your longwinded answer in a second, but I would point out that even Hanson did not say that the Islamist motivation was only oil or economy.
Speaking of skimming, did you read it?
and yeah, I said I would answer your long answer with a long answer and that was a quick off the cuff. Thus, you are correct, I skimmed.
So sue me. ;)
Stand by for fire.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 10:04 PM
"The problem in a nutshell is that the paradigm-pushers don't see it as part of the battle -- except the one they're fighting to regain the Executive Mansion."
Now why couldn't I have said that. That's largely what I'm really trying to say. Economic determinism isn't sufficient to explain it all. And yes, I did read VDH's article(though only once). He trotted out the theory of the day that if we weren't paying Suadi princes, or Iranian Iyatollahs, petrodollars at $80/brl that bin-Laden wouldn't really exist and we wouldn't have to worry about being 'bankrupted'. Which is flawed because terrs attacked us long before petrodollars were really an issue for their financing from the ME. It's trying to make it all about foreign oil again. Stuuuuped in my opinion. (Particularly because, I, as a former chemist, have never heard anyone say where we're supposed to get feedstock for just about anything synthetic we make, from pharmaceuticals to plastics. So, fine, we use some other energy source other than fossil, we're still going to be buying large volumes of the stuff so people can lather on Oil-of-Olay or take their Viagra. So neener-neener on ending dependence on foreign petroleum.). ED is emblematic of a 'silver bullet' approach to me, and I don't go for that.
What I'm seeing is this: a stressing of economic factors as primary and others as far distant secondary factors. That isn't the case as far as I'm concerned, I could be wrong, but definitely isn't the case generally. Each case is different. There is no Unified Theory of Warfare and Its Causes(which was the point of bringing up Kagan's book).
Thus, you are correct, I skimmed.
So sue me. ;)
Stand by for fire.
This is why I can put up with this over here. 200minutes writing stuff, thinking people are pissed off, taking it very seriously, and then you get the so sue me with smiley face. Chit, I'm thinking I'm taking this way to seriously for a Friday night.
posted by ry on September 21, 2007 10:26 PM
I mean, the Sov's couldn't have funded and sent aide to all those countries in the ME and East Asia without all those big petrodollars they were raking in(when they were having trouble keeping their own fuel supply working AND having to import wheat because they listen to farkin' Lysenko). Nah.
Yes. Look at Russia today and where it's economic interests lie and, in fact, their very survival. Oil, natural gas and ports for import and export. I noted previously that Russia historically has attempted aggressive expansion for the very purpose of economic security and improvement. Even Peter the Great knew this. Although, it was obviously not oil at the time. Trade goods were more closely associated with agriculture since the industrial age had not occured yet, but it was definitely the same issue.
Today, it is simply oil as the economic base. Russians then and now understood that, without resources, the ability to trade and a strong economy, the ability to hold together their empire, to patrol and protect their borders, would be devastated. In fact, they would fall apart as a nation, as they eventually did when the ruble crashed and burned and the USSR was no more.
Of course, ideology fueled "movements", but as long as the state held the economic power and that economic power was just enough to maintain the population or control it, it held the power of authority (military and police), the state remained intact. See also Stalin's engineered famines and starvations to control the population while simultaneously giving much money and resources to his "loyal" districts. Or, Saddam keeping the Shia in economic straights while providing same resources and money to "loyalists".
Or, the poor Sunni tribes in Anbar who had little to offer beyond their ability to smuggle in goods and lookouts in a far flung desert. They enjoyed "autonomy" in as much as he did not interfere with their underground economy so long as they continued to perform their limited duties. If they did not, he could have easily crushed them by cutting off their smuggling routes and driving them from their lands as he did the Shia.
Or, my most recent favorite, why did the Sunni turn on AQ in Iraq? Was it simply because they were cruel and inhumane, ideological nutjobs? Or, was it because they began killing the sheiks when they began complaining and fighting with the AQ who were trying to cut them out as the middleman in their smuggling rings so they could limit their cash exposure (a cash crunch both Zarqawi and Zawahiri discussed) and, of course, the possibility of being outed for money.
And the anbar sheiks suddenly are loved by the Shia central government who are now cognizant of the fact that they will not be able to hold the Sunni to their second class status in revenge for their years of servitude because they just found a 100bn bbl reserve of oil in the desert? And now the Shia government is afraid that, if they go federalist, they won't get much of a share of the revenues and they won't be able to economically control these pesky nomads.
accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed
And they do that because they are "comfortable", economically. They are surviving and that survival is less costly in a cost to benefit ration than the actual battle.
But lets look at little more closely at our own revolution. Stamp Act. Boston Tea Party. No taxation without representation. Major Complaints Among the Founding Fathers:
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
In many ways, this was about the survival of the people and their freedom, yet without the freedom of trade or commerce, their survival and advancement was limited and they could never entertain the idea of demanding the power of legislature and representatives without the power of wealth which would make them partners in the kingdom. Without economic power, there is no political power.
Stand by for additions.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 10:37 PM
Now why couldn't I have said that.
Mebbe, when you can, the marquee will read "The Home of Two of Jonah's Military Guys +1 +Gollum"
posted by
John of Argghhh! on September 21, 2007 10:39 PM
So, fine, we use some other energy source other than fossil, we're still going to be buying large volumes of the stuff so people can lather on Oil-of-Olay or take their Viagra. So neener-neener on ending dependence on foreign petroleum
Yeah, actually, I have been arguing that for an eternity with the "disengage" crowd. It would really suck if they went to the hospital and couldn't get that all important blood transfusion because their were not IV catheters made from oil by products.
yeah..I will argue passionately, but, I will tell you when I am "mad". Ask Owen if he ever comes back. LOL
continuing.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 10:43 PM
That, hey, if we were on a different energy economy(say hydrogen) that they wouldn't resort to cyberstrategies if they wanted an economic weapon? Nope. Petrodollars. That's the key. Just follow the money as it explains everything.
As noted, I did not say that oil was the only method of economic warfare or for their own economic survivability, just that, today, oil is the base of economy just as agriculture and mining were once the base or spices, gold, etc. It is ever changing.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 10:52 PM
Levant long before there was economic interests there, any economic interests. Place had strategic value to the Ottoman's but economic? BS. It was a money pit for them, but they kept it anyways.
Okay...I think you should retract that one. Acre? how many ports does the "Levant" have? Trade routes? Why did the Romans want it so long ago? Cause they wanted to own a carppy piece of desert with brown people who kept revolting for the purpose of training their legions for much more important battles?
How about Salt? You know, once upon a time, salt was the basis of economy? No refrigeration meant long term survivability depended on salting and storing food stuffs? Among other things.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 10:57 PM
There's too many reasons for why people go to war(what vital economic interest was there in the Falklands? Was the UK going to run short of wool?).
Now you're slipping into the "paradigm of singularity" as if the Falklands were in a vacuum.
We are talking about a multitude of things, somethings which you sometimes allude to in "why wars begin" tied up with "pride" and "honor" etc, but don't get down to brass tacks.
Why won't the Chinese let Taiwan have their independence (aside from the economic strategic point in the China Sea)? You said it was "pride" or something. It is really about power. If a nation let's their lands and assetts be annexed without complaint or prior organization, they appear weak. Weak nations are open to attack by their much stronger opponents who, in turn, would like nothing better than to abscond with their LAND and RESOURCES.
The non-vacuum you ignored was the expansion of communism into South America supported by the Soviets which would eventually interfere with the greater trade Britain realized among the South American nations. They needed to appear capable of defending their trade and nominal economic allies so the USSR and their ideological adherents down in the jungles wouldn't get to uppity.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 11:04 PM
You're also glossing over that the East Germans, much less The USSR, had serious hard currency problems(not to mention the hard core internal fights over whether or not terrorism was acceptable to true Lennist-Marxist thought).
yes, they did have hard currency problems. What did the East German's want from West Germany? Ideological unity? Why did Hitler want Alsace-Lorraine?
Look, when you view a country's territory, you are viewing their economic survival. Lack of water, minerals or arable land for agriculture determines their survivability as well as their ability to develop goods for trade and improve the economy. No economy, no military to defend the land. No land, no country.
Not forgetting of course, that we were at economic war with them our free trade and supply side economics trumped any controlled prices economy any day. They simply could not compete. East German's wanted the economic power of the West. Read the history. First thing East German's wanted when the wall came down? Unified currency.
If the USSR could implant and support ideological partners that would willingly place price controls on their goods and benefit, the more they could support, the more they had access too without competing with the US.
However, at the bottom, there was the choice between low range price control that limited the possibility of economic growth for the country and individuals vs. the possibility of a growing "supply and demand" trade that, in the end, was much more steady as a growth economy, providing wealth to individuals and thus power. Who, by the way, funded the counter communist guerrillas besides the US in these nations? Wealthy and middle class business men.
Read 'em and weep.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 11:23 PM
In just about every situation where people claim economics was teh deciding factor the counter factual of 'There was more money to be made by siding with than against' is never explored(Try WW2 without the US embargo against Japan, which doesn't lead to massive rationing and 1/20th of every dollar earned in the US from 1945-1960 being spent to rebuild Europe.).
You are so short visioned. Why do you think everything is about the short term? And who said the decisions always make sense?
Look at the Japanese historically. when they first open up trade to the west, what happens to them? Their entire class and economic system is turned upside down. The middle class businessman begins to rise against a privileged samurai class. Japan began to experience the industrial age while simultaneously experiencing a crisis of identity. They believed, as do these current nut jobs, that their identity was being crushed by the west and their inability to compete. They believed they were superior in every way. Except one: trade.
We owned the trade in the area and we were not about to share it with some little island nation that, less than a hundred years previous, did not know what a frigate looked like, much less how to advance trade beyond the China sea.
Not to mention, it really hadn't been that long since the great depression. We were equally struggling to expand, improve and secure our economic survival.
Of course we looked negatively on their attempts to expand into that territory aggressively and subsequently embargoed their oil. NOt to mention, mister I can only see one slice of history at a time, Japan and Germany already had economic and diplomatic ties. Germany was busy selling weapons and providing military officers to Japan while simultaneously sucking up Alsace-Lorrain, Poland and Austria. You think we were interested in making an economic pact with the folks who were nominal allies of the folks starting to chew up Europe?
come on Ry...give me something else.
This was about long term survivability on our part as well as the near future. We had hit our frontiers and had no where else to go right before the big bust unless open trade allowed us to compete with other nations for economy. Imperial Japan, Fascist Germany and communist Russia...we had to start drawing the line somewhere or we would be cooked.
I always think about when people say "we could have been speaking German", not just because Germany could attack us, but because they would have become the major economic player in the world. Whoever that is, whatever their language, it becomes the language of the world.
Once upon a time it was French and Italian, then it was British English and now it is American English. In the long run, it was not cheaper to play ball with any of them.
posted by
kat-missouri on September 21, 2007 11:42 PM
I am basically talking to myself, but I did promise a nice long response to Ry. I didn't want him to think I was "skimming".
They were also helped, immensely, and not just Bader-Meinhoff but the entire slew of violent socialists like the Italians had, by 'passing the hat' and informal economic relationships. The IRA is a classic example. The Code Pink issue is another($600K from a charity? That's serious money to terrs.)Renditions to Mexico? HOly Chit that's almost a third of the Mexican economy! Don't try to tell me that charity or the 'Rich Uncle
