H&I* Fires 18 SEP 2007

Happy Anniversary!!!

I saw Greenspan on the Today Show, I believe... and he flat out said that the war was about oil. There was no hesitation in his voice. There was no doubt in my mind that he truly believes that. I have nothing but respect for the man as the Fed Chief.. but this allegation is false, unfounded, and plays right into the hands of those tinfoil hat wearing, anti-war protesting, patchuli smelling, disrespectful, ignorant conspiracy theorists. I halfway expect him to come out with some "proof" that supports the "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy now. jeesh.

I'm having problems believing Abizaid's comments. But as Michael Ledeen alludes, perhaps it explains Abizaid and Casey's attempts to diminish Iran's culpability in the problems we've had in Iraq. My personal conflict is: Do I give Abizaid the benefit of the doubt, and trust his "superior" knowledge and expertise in this regard, or do I look for alternative - and possibly ulterior - motives for his opinion that we can live with a nuclear Iran?

Does it make me a geek, that before clicking Kat's link about rail guns, I read the URL and thought I was going to see a picture of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun Really either would be a cool addition to the Castle. And Happy Anniversary!

Um, yes, Randy, it does. But a rail gun of that nature would be good, too! Though I'd probably have to tap into my neighbor's power, rather than drive my bill up that much. Note to self: Check with the Castle's Resident Mad Scientist, Bad Cat Robot, to see if the mini-rail gun design has advanced at all.

While I don't agree with exactly *everything* in this list about real Army Leaders (you'll know it when you read it)... That is, if you don't remember you read it *here* two years ago. Nice to see they liked the ham and chicken loaf and hiding under the Kevlar references (those were the only things I added to the original list) and it's nice to see that another couple of additions crept in that are almost as funny as mine. Odd -- I found the aviator reference sadly lacking a foundation in reality, but the artillery reference was uncannily accurate -- unlike actual indirect fire itself...

If I can put that reactor I mentioned in the back pasture you should have plenty of power. The mini-railgun has experienced a few design setbacks -- but I'm thinking of repackaging this version as an EMP grenade. I may just skip the solid projectile and framing and go for magnetic containment plasma jets instead.

Happy anniversary to you. Wow two big moments in the same 7 day period. Garry Owen belonged to the 165th United States Infantry a.k.a. "The Fighting 69th" New York before the 7th Cav was born. The Infantry has the prior claim to the tune -- so I don't shudder when I hear it. And didn't the Israeli's try this G.I. Jane thing back at the beginning and find it counterproductive because it caused men to take extra risks to protect the women, perhaps not so much a potential problem now after force fed feminism, and had the surprising effect of making their enemies fight harder so as to not be dishonored by being beaten by a women?

And this thread just proves that nothing on the Internet is new. It's still funny, if you wait long enough. And branch rivalry still lives, despite the victory of the service support branches in virtually eliminating any distinguishing markings on the ACU. Except the Infantry, of course.

Pictures of Smoe Asmuement Cheers

I'm not in agreement with the Classical Values link at all. What happens, or is most likely to happen, when we move away from petroleum? Will the terrs just fade away, or will they use this as another PR weapon to whip up support(Those devil American's convinced you to supply them with oil, to base your economy on the export, and now they don't need you! See, look at the pain and suffering they've caused you! Death to America!)? Seeing the economic facet of the problem is a good thing, but pushing it before all others in almost all situations is einseitigkeit. And that's what I'm seeing him do.

Wow, that's alot to address, however, I believe that your comments and Classical values do intertwine. From my perspective, it has been about oil, but also many other things. Oil is in there. You can't really get away from it. Although, I think you were missing an important aspect of this discussion. "Rich Uncles" who are sending "donations" to the terrorist are barely one facet. The second, that Classical Values is indicating is that Salafist Wahabist evangelical prosletyzing was paid for by Saudi money. While many believe that this was to send the radicalized away from Saudi, I have a different view that coincides with a sort of population conspiracy. That being that the Saudis were looking to offset the ever widening proslytizing and advancement of Shia Islam along with all the "Islamic Revolution". They didn't want to be left out or cornered by their dynastic rivals in Islam so they DID spend a lot of money spreading the word. That word, far away from their control, started getting another message intertwined with it: radicalized Qutb doctrine. Which leads me to the second oil/economic intersection of this reality. Oil fuels the economy literally and the economy fuels the price of oil. For the wahabist to take over any part of the region where, yes, we have oil interests, he has to weaken the United States to the point where we are unable to or un-desiring to provide economic aid, have the economic ability to support military intervention, and further, reduce our economic trade with these nations in order to weaken THEM enough to be taken over. Oil is just one fat part of that economic situation. The more the terrorists or terrorist supporting nations like Iran can ratchet up the war or war rhetoric, the higher the price of oil and the more difficult it is to sustain the economy. It may possibly even go into a recession or depression if it gets bad enough. The west, as a whole, including Europe, was under an oil embargo in the 70's. During this time period, the Arabs were able to press for concessions from the west. Largely from Europe. Even without an embargo, the price of oil can become so prohibitive that our ability to use economic means for the "carrot or stick" method of diplomacy. We'll be unable to assist nations in growing their economy. As Mr. Barnett, whom you are fairly fond of, notes, this keeps the "gap" nations in the "gap" and this is where terrorism grows. What will these nations have to offer their people? And when people are discontented, what do they do? Who will stand in the "gap" if we don't? That is the real story of "oil" here. Prohibitive oil prices or even interdicted oil supplies can literally bring the global economy to a stand still. It is this and only this that can defeat us in any meaningful way or force us to really retreat from our global position. There is nothing militarily they could do nor politically, despite all the concerns about retreating from Iraq or losing in Afghanistan. If we did either of those, it would likely prolong the war and place our economy in serious danger due to the proximity to important oil supplies and the fact that Iraq's 1.6million to 2 million bbls/day taken off the market or routinely interdicted or reduced could cause oil prices to go higher, requiring a different, possibly, much more robust and even longer drawn out war in the future. Of course, the economic pressure from oil is one thing. Over all trade interdiction, as I have noted before, through such areas as the Suez Canal or the straits of Hormuz or even over near Malaysia could be very deadly to our economy and survival. In all of these cases, the owning of oil or a state by terrorists are unnecessary. however, they do understand exactly how they can defeat us over a long term war. They can't kill enough people with their one bomb here or there. They can scare people into unhealthy behaviors. They can't stop all the oil, but they can stop enough to make the price prohibitive. They can't stop all the trade, but they can stop enough to severely damage our economy and that of the globe. Finally, there is the one last aspect of the "war for oil" that is largely ignored. That being, while the terrorist ideology is not completely funded on oil nor are their tactics solely limited to the interdiction of oil, until such a time as we can safely and successfully transition from an oil economy without simultaneously destroying the tenuous economies of other nations, including Saudi Arabia, a land rich with resources that can support an actual Islamic State must be their goal. Whether it is oil or some other resource, it must eventually be able to be considered a legitimate source of income for an Islamic State and it must be able to support all of their ideological, financial and military needs. As Mao noted, a guerrilla army must be able to transform itself into a legitimate army it must be able to hold ground. For this army to turn itself into a legitimate state or country, it must not only hold ground, but be able to govern the area in all things, economic, political and judicial while protecting it. Thus, eventually, these guerrillas have to claim land and have some sort of income, more than from drug money or theft or even millions in donations, in order to maintain control, enforce laws and provide for the economic welfare of all those they wish to govern in the area. If they don't they will be subject to a counter revolution. Ask Mao. Thus, what is the most legitimate resource in the Islamic lands to date? Oil. It is why they are desparate to over throw the Saudis for all their rhetoric about their "un-Islamic" ways. All other resources in other majority Muslim lands are limited in their economic power unless they are taken as a whole. Unless, of course, they turn themselves into the Barbary Pirates and demand tribute for any trade passage (which they might). All in all, it is about oil. Because the world needs it to sustain the economy and because the Islamists need it to eventually support their desired state and because the Islamists know, the way to wreck global economy and weaken states from interfering with their plans is to control, interdict or otherwise force the prices into prohibitive scale. Of course their ideology is about world domination and enforcing extreme Islamic religious adherence. But it doesn't mean they don't care about the oil or that we don't either. Because, at the end of the day, destroyed economies make weak states that can't interfere with their plans and are open for attack and defeat. I know, not as simplistic as Classical Values statement, but that is the way of it.

...then I'd have to pay Bill and Dusty! Instead of claiming us as dependents every Ides of April...

You know, I could almost buy the Christian theory except for the part where, eventually, the Roman emperors became Christians and, in effect, Christianity and it's ideas on rules and morality did become "the" government of the land. The church then acted as a separate state that often gave cover to or even governed from behind the throne of many a king and queen. Yet, even the church eventually had to do "legitimate" business around the world and they needed that money to consolidate their power, pay for protection, build buildings and monuments as a statement of their presence and to administer their defacto kingdom. I am not denying the "how" that you put forward that this happened or the fact that the Islamic Extremists basically doing this wherever they set up camp: de facto state within a state. However, that is not their end state. I don't think that Hezbollah's "end state" is, as you note, to just be the fly in the pie while they enjoy autonomy. They wouldn't keep attacking the Israelis and demanding no peace until there was one unified Palestinian state if that was and Iran, their funding fathers (so to speak), sees the "end state" as a non-existent Israel turned into an Islamic Palestinian state. This "in between" is simply what they are settling for until they can get the next step or until they have been convinced it won't happen. For the Islamists, the end state is the Caliphate. There is nothing "tenuous" about this Caliphate in terms of how they describe it's final state. They envision it as one gigantic nation with many "emirates" or states that make up this gigantic Islamic world. Their strategy to obtain it is, as you note, what we call the "oil spot" theory in the old days of the pre-COIN manual from Petraeus. It is, as you note, to set up a state within a state, committing Jihad or Dawa (proselytizing and conversion) to gain through war or stealth, a dedicated area from which to operate and slowly expand it and its control. However, eventually, the size of such an area, if the goal is achieved, eventually is too big to control, govern or otherwise defend simply on donations from rich uncles. The fact that they have co-opted smuggling of drugs, guns and other goods along with kidnapping to supplement their income is important, but doesn't point to their long term expectations of economic security. It is simple sociological fact that for a nation to exist in any real and solid form, it must have a basis of government, a basis of economy and a basis of defense. Particularly one as large as the Wahabists envision. For any nation to have defense, it must have the money to pay for weapons and guns. In its infancy, it is not objectionable to the public they wish to gain support from or that do support them for them to use illegitimate means to gain this money. but, as mao also noted, eventually, for any movement to be considered legitimate, it must be able to move from "criminal bands" that depend on the people for support or that prey on the people by raiding their limited supplies and be able to deliver "justice" in a fair and, dare I say, judicious, way to move from "criminal" to legitimate. Eventually, if they don't move from that, the people will start seeing them as unwelcome guests, not political and military allies fighting for them (check Anbar; the time length that the guerrillas have in any given area to do so is totally dependent on the area, their exposure, the pressure from the government or outside and any military or political adversaries that can oppose them minus their own treatment of the public; don't swim like fish, get eaten by the shark of public opinion). As for, "they'd be happy if the trade was a goat", that is true in the tribal lands, maybe. But we are talking about a future government that must be able to maintain, as I note, roads, healthcare, education (even if it is madrases) and security. They can't buy that with a goat. They need a legitimate and hardy economy that allows them to purchase what they need from either ideologically comparative nations or, even on the open market. Let's take for instance, Saudi Arabia. If, by some bizarre chance, the wahabist salafist overthrow the Saudi government and attempt to control the population, they will have to deliver services to the people. These people aren't all goat herders living in the desert in tents. There is a fair amount of cosmopolitan Saudi citizens who enjoy fresh water, electricity, gasoline for their cars, tea, sugar and various other goods. Some are basic staples. Plenty of things that are not indigenous to the country or that require outside resources to maintain or improve. Things like steal or PVC piping and factories that can food, etc, etc, etc. Now, how are the extremists going to deliver these goods? For, surely, once they have declared themselves as governing the state, the people will look for them to provide certain things. How will they get these things without money? If Saudi Arabia as a independent state was gone, what economic base would provide the money from the "rich uncles"? they wouldn't have any "rich uncles" without some sort of economy and a recognizable denomination. What form will it be in? Certainly, no one is going to go to the local Hawal money transfer system and transfer a goat? They need an economy and they need some sort of recognizable money to do so. Will they start dealing in gold? Or gems? Print their own? What value will it have unless it has something to compare it to in terms of world market where they would need to buy or trade for such wondrous things as AK-47s and bullets for their warriors or for iron pipes to repair or build new water mains. That's just to name a few. And, while many talk about the willingness of the current takfiri fascists to live in caves (as they were instructed to do by Sayyid Qutb) and suffer all sorts of depravities, again, I don't believe that is their desired end state, for themselves and for their adherents. I don't imagine that all those Islamic folks in Londinistan, enjoying modern conveniences, are imagining themselves doing so either. It all points to, in the end, that an Islamic State still has to have an economic base and ability to trade globally even if it is among their own "emirates". this is more than goat trading. It's oil, rice, flour, silk, minerals, etc, etc, etc and a base denomination. So, interim funding for terrorism vs. end state economic desires are two different things.