Astonishingly Energy-Inefficient, War

(((Oil, Iraq, Energy security, How we're spending so incredibly much more on the Iraq War than on developing renewable energy.)))

Okay, either we're out to make the world safe for democracy, or we were really concerned about oil.* Let's leave aside the problems with the first view, for a moment, and focus on the second. Even if both of these are factors, the truth is that there are much, much better ways to think about long-term energy needs than to worry about, what, being cut off or blackmailed by Saddam Hussein?

This graph makes it, well, graphic. We should throw in some figures on health expenditures and on income support.

*Or it was because Saddam was such an evil tyrant (unlike Kim Jong Il, who remains comfortably in power), or it was because there were terrorists there (well, there weren't, but there are now), or it was because, well, Saddam was the guy who tried to kill his dad).

That's a "Fresh" Rating on RottenTomatoes

From Meteor Blades's DailyKos Diary:

Data from the respected British marketing research firm Opinion Research Business, indicate that as many as 1,220,580 Iraqis have died as a result of the war and occupation of Iraq since March 2003.

A representative sample of 1,461 adults 18 or older answered this question:

"Q: How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e, as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof."

Results:

None - 78%
One - 16%
Two - 5%
Three - 1%
Four or more - 0.002%

As a friend notes, "But every last corpse was at least free from Saddam's tyranny."

tags technorati : Iraq, Iraq Deaths

"Arab-Israeli Tensions" Go Back to . . . Nebuchadnezzar?

At first this just seemed a funny, but stupid little mistake, but the more I thought about it, the more problematic it became. In the middle of an article about an interesting little find in Biblical archaeology—an actual dated receipt for a payment to the temple in Babylon—our author drops in a bizarre zinger, the sort of thing you would expect out of a high school or college term paper.

During the course of this struggle [between the Babylonians and the Egyptians], Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem. Zedekiah, a Babylonian-appointed king of Judah, later rebelled, which led to yet another Jerusalem siege [by the Babylonians] in 587-586 B.C., during which a large segment of the population was deported. Arab-Israeli tensions in the region have continued until the present day.

Wait a second . . . where are the Arabs in this story, again? Babylonians are not Arabs, and it's the Babylonians the Israelites (NB: not Israelis) are fighting. Not even the Egyptians are Arabs.

That's right: there are no Arabs in this story.

But maybe she meant Muslim-Israeli rather than Arab-Israeli? Well, sorry, but we're some 1200 years before Muhammad, so there were no Muslims, either.

No, what's happening is that our author anachronistically projects the very modern "Arab-Israeli conflict," which already problematically labels all Middle-Eastern Muslims "Arab," back onto the ancient world in order to establish a continuity that doesn't exist. Now, why would she do that? Two reasons, I think.

Here's one. The article continues:

In fact, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein made links between himself and King Nebuchadnezzar in speeches and by use of billboards that showed Hussein shaking hands with a drawing of the ancient king, according to Aaron Brody, assistant professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion and director of the Badè Museum.

"Nebuchadnezzar vanquished surrounding nations, so Hussein wanted to draw parallels with his own reign and that of the former Mesopotamian leader," Brody told Discovery News.

So, much the same way many modern leaders attempt to establish continuities between themselves and some ancient culture, especially some ancient leader, Saddam was working to show how he's a modern Nebuchadnezzar, the great Babylonian (not Arab) king. And our author continues to help him—however, I'm going to guess, unwittingly—by throwing in the phrase "Arab-Israeli tensions" with reference to the Babylonian conquest of the Israelite kingdom.

But this leads to the second part of what's going on here. Hooking Saddam up with Nebuchadnezzar suits her purposes because it also hooks up the modern state of Israel with the ancient kingdom of Israel, and indeed appears to establish that the roots of the modern conflict go all the way back to ancient Israel, which was already, 2700 years ago, defending itself from hostile "Arab" neighbors wanting to "push her into the sea." It reinforces the modern understanding of Biblical mythology, that Israel was on the land in the beginning and so the establishment of the modern state of Israel is only re-establishing what was there a long time ago. At the same time, it conveniently ignores the Biblical story of the Hebrews conquering Canaan (=Palestine), so the Bible in fact never claims that the Israelites were always and originally living in the disputed territory. It claims, rather differently, that God gave it to his people, the Israelites, and helped them conquer it. So, in order to buy that, you have to believe that the Bible is, in fact, historically accurate, and, further, that its historical accuracy includes certain statements by a certain God, in whom you will also have to believe.

Now, at the end of the day, I'm guessing that the author of this article wasn't even really thinking about what she was saying in terms of the ways it reinforces all the wrong ideas about Arabs, Muslims, the state of Israel, and the (poorly-named) Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm guessing it was a ham-fisted transition to the story of Saddam trying to deploy ancient Babylonian history as part of his self-aggrandizement campaign. But it's damaging nonetheless. It's bad writing, but it's even worse politics, so why not work just a little bit harder and avoid both?

tags technorati : Bible, Archaeology, Israel, Iraq, Discovery, Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar

Update on Iran in Latin America

The Guardian enjoyed the same irony I did regarding the past "relationship" between the Sandinistas and the Islamic Republic, but they note that Iran really got involved in Latin America by way of Chavez.

Venezuela's radical left-wing president, Hugo Chávez, opened Latin America to Iran by signing multiple accords with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including bilateral deals on oil, tractors and bicycles.

"The Chávez-Ahmadinejad relationship is what drives Iran's role in Latin America, which is fundamentally geopolitical rather than economic," said Michael Shifter, of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue thinktank.

Mr Chávez has billed the accords as an "axis of unity" against the US, which he terms the "empire", and has encouraged allies such as Mr Ortega to follow suit.

So, basically, all the America-haters are ganging up on America, despite their ideological differences. And so I go back to Zizek, from April 2003.

What I'm really afraid of is that when we left-wingers ask, "is America aware that in this way they are only creating new tensions?" they miss the point. What if the aim is to introduce instability to the entire region and then to brutally impose some kind of universalized emergency state or new order? But even if the U.S. is consciously counting on the global disorder, it will not be able to control it. My only hope is that American interventions will give rise to some kind of resistance. My big hope - as an atheist, praying night and day for it - is that the resistance in the Middle East will not be simply kidnapped by the so-called fundamentalists. That this resistance will have at least secular socialist wing. And I think there is a fair chance at it. Look at Iran. There is hope.

OK, so much for the hope for Iran. But he's only wrong about Iran because he's right about everything else. Unfortunately, the universalized emergency state starts at home . . .

tags technorati : Politics, Iran, Nicaragua, Zizek, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Ortega

What Does 'Moderate' Mean, Again?

US doing an arms deal with Saudi Arabia:

The officials said the arms deal aimed to bolster the militaries of the Sunni Arab states as part of a strategy to counter what it sees as a growing threat posed by Iran in the region.

"The role of the Sunni Arab neighbours is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbours are with you," a senior State Department official told the New York Times on Friday.

Um, so "moderate" means "Sunni"? Am I the only one who sees a problem, here?

And here's the best part, we take the $20Bn we get selling weapons to the homeland of one of the most conservative versions of Islam in the world (Wahabbism), a country for whom the Qur'an and the Sunna comprise the constitution, and give it to Israel in the form of military aid.

Genius. More brilliant, even, than selling arms to Iran and funneling the proceeds to "freedom fighters" in central America, where running the sale through Israel was necessary as icing on the cake.

tags technorati : Saudi Arabia | Arms Sales | Arab Moderates

You Were Doing a Heckuva Job in Iraq, Rummie

Rumsfeld told to back off. This made all kinds of sense in the face of Democratic control of Congress and possibly even of the Senate. And it will clearly lead to deep changes in the handling of the Iraq war.

But as William Arkin points out, it ain't gonna be no picnic for Dems:

In the ways of Washington, Democrats in the House will hold high-profile hearings to prove their point and punctuate their displeasure with the administration. It will be a tricky balancing act for them: Renewed accountability and oversight on the one hand to distinguish themselves from the rubber stamp; not appearing to be floundering and without a plan on the other.

One of the reasons this is a problem, of course, is that it goofy Dems helped get us into this situation in the first place. Arkin concludes:

I know that this election is just a warm up for 2008, and I know that cooperation and resolution is a long shot given the prize to come. But as much as I am tickled by the rejection of the extremism of Cheney and Rumsfeld, I also hope that the election will serve as a repudiation of those who think or argue that national security is just a political instrument.

The conspiracy crowd was wrong about an Iran October surprise or some other Rovian bombshell that would turn the tide: The truth is that wars are not deviously being planned and that the Iraq war wasn't a devious conspiracy. It was as much a product of visionless Democrats who supported it.

Time to get vision.

Civil Wars: The Good and The Bad

Civil war in Iraq: bad.

Civil war in Palestine: good.

[T]he U.S. administration is also certain that the sanctions against Hamas will inevitably result in a violent confrontation between Hamas and Fatah, and in such a scenario, they would prefer to strengthen the "good guys" headed by Abbas.

Because democracy is good . . . except when it's not. Whose idea was it, again, to rush the Palestinians to parliamentary elections?

How About, "Don't Stray Too Far from the Course"?

Apparently, W and his advisors have finally decided to kick Bush pere's election motto to the curb, admitting that "stay the course" conveys the wrong idea, specifically, that the US is not "adapting to conditions on the ground."

It turns out that US soldiers do in fact aim their weapons at insurgents wherever the insurgents are.

So, we're not "staying the course" in Iraq. We're just staying in Iraq. See? All better.

Congress Should Spend More Time on (not in) Sex Rings

Paul Krugman's column tomorrow (via Kos) deploys some interesting statistics on testimony compelled by Congress: "Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib."

Of course, this makes perfect sense when you recall that, as Christopher Shays pointed out the other day, that Abu Ghraib was just a sex ring . . . um, what exactly is a "sex ring"? Well, what does Shays say?

Shays defended his comments yesterday, saying he doesn't doubt that there has been torture at other prisons, but not at Abu Ghraib.

"I mean, I was only talking about Abu Ghraib. I mean, I'm sure there was torture at other prisons, but our TWELVE HOURS of testimony didn't uncover incontrovertible proof of torture or murder at Abu Ghraib. So there wasn't any."

So what was it, then?

"I saw probably 600 pictures of really gross, perverted stuff," Shays said. "The bottom line was it was sex. . . . It wasn't primarily about torture."

Because, you know, sex is never "primarily about torture." Sex is never about power. Sex is never about abusing people, degrading people, humiliating people, or coercing people (Mark Foley will confirm). It's just sex. You know. Sex. And perverts, they do perverted sex. In rings. Big rings, small rings, cock rings. Rings.

Note to President Bush: They Only Threaten their own People

Remember when the Clinton White House gave in to blackmail and made an agreement with North Korea, instead of calling Kim Jong Il the Axis of Evil-ite he really is? Pres. Bush was bold enough and principled enough to do this, but he has not gone far enough: we should just call KJI, "Dr. Evil." In any case, Bush was not so foolish as to actually do anything about North Korean nukes, because first we needed to make sure that Iraq couldn't use the WMDs they had stockpiled. But it turns out there were no stockpiles in Iraq. So this time, Bush having learned from his mistakes, the White House will first make certain that Iran and North Korea actually have nukes before a US invasion.

And that policy sure seems to be working. There's one possible glitch, though: they'll have to deal with the fact that NK's nukes look about as dangerous as Iraq's nuclear arsenal at the time of the Second Gulf War. The Economist helpfully points this out, even while failing to appreciate the subtle underlying genius of the Bush strategy.

"Meanwhile, the administration of President George Bush, though occasionally sounding tough, allowed the six-party talks to drift, its mind on challenges elsewhere, notably Iraq."

Nunh-uh. The Economist did not just say that. Iraq a distraction? See? They clearly don't get it. But in spite of this lapse on the part of the editors, they do spot a real potential obstacle to the Bush plan.

In the near term, North Korea's nuclear capabilities are more likely to pose a greater risk to North Koreans than to the neighbours. [ . . . ] The bombs, however, are fairly crude—in the underground test, the nuclear reaction was probably triggered by a large conventional charge. [ . . . ] So the immediate threats from North Korea's new capability come from radioactive leaks into the atmosphere and North Korea's groundwater. [ . . . ]

The action will now move to the UN Security Council. Australia has already said it will advocate tougher UN sanctions against North Korea, blocking North Korean funds and limiting the ability of North Koreans to travel.

For now, it looks like the immediate threats from NK's nuclear capabilities are only to NK civilians: radioactive leaks and UN sanctions, which are also sure to hurt NK civilians more than KJI. We learned that from Iraq, too (remember the children Madeleine Albright said it was worth killing?). Surely, this will also be the case in Iran, except that Iran's technology is probably better than NK's.

If we're going to get the war(s) going, it needs to be clear that their nuclear efforts threaten us. We've got Iran tied to terrorism, so we can say that they may arm terrorists to attack the US. OK, Iran: check.

North Korea, however . . . what are they going to do? Bomb the ROK into the stone age one hundred times instead of ten? Their pathetic missile tests and 1kiloton nuke test don't even rate, yet. The Bush White House should heed the wisdom of The Economist: KJI needs some technology transfer if he's going to become dangerous enough to rate an invasion. He also needs hooked up with some quality terrorist organizations.

There's time, though. We don't want to invade NK and Iran at the same time, not because Our Mighty Military couldn't handle it, of course, but because the political benefits of wars need to be stretched out over time. Why get one war bump for two wars when you can get one war bump for each if you time it right?

But they need to get on the stick in case something goes wrong with Iran. Always good to have a Plan B.