I saw Thomas Friedman talk last night. He was great. He talked about 9/11 and the Iraq war and explained why he supported it - 52% for, 49% against. Incidentially, I heard Bill Maher on Fresh Air yesterday and he said that he was 49% for, 51% against the Iraq war.
Anyways, the part of the talk that interested me the most was one of Friedman's concepts that he says can bring peace and harmony to the Middle East - Geo Green. If we can reduce our dependency on oil, not just in the Middle East but in Venezuela, Russia, et al, then we can bring down prices and keep the oil tsars from having all the power. It will force development among the rest of the population and foster legitimate governements instead of dictators with unlimited funds.
Great idea, but as much as I am an environmentalist, I think it will be a looooong time before people in the US to equate their need for a Hummer with tyrannical reign in the Middle East.
Posted by dahl at February 9, 2005 9:45 AM
I opposed the war entirely, once I put enough thought into it to figure out that every reason the administration was giving applied moreso to Iran. Pretty clear from the start that they weren't being on the level.
As for reducing the price and our dependence on oil, the obvious approach I see is a gas tax or oil import fee, ideally with the proceeds going to fund research and development in alternate energies. And we need to get rid of the stupid zoning rules that result in suburbs where you are forced to drive anywhere to get anything done. There's no need to separate commercial from residential.
Of course, that goes against the vested interests supporting the Bush administration, so I'm not holding my breath (and it's one of many reasons why I think campaign finance is such a big key).
Friedman was actually against the war for the same reasons, but the reason he was overall for the war was because he hopes it will help affect the politics in the rest of the region. Elections seem successful there, and if they continue to be, then people in other contries may demand democratic elections - in his words, it will create a context of democracy. He was against the way the administration went about the war, but his hopes for democracy won over those feelings.
Yeah, I don't read Friedman, but I read enough conservative blogs to know the neocon argument. I do think it's a valid line of reasoning. But I don't believe Bush is really a neocon any more than he's really a Keynesian. As I've often observed, Bush used Keynesian arguments claiming his tax cut would spur demand to fight the recession -- but he pitched the same tax cut during the boom as a supply-side tax cut which wouldn't be inflationary. A supply-side tax cut to fight a CapEx recession!?
Coupled with his apparent seeking of the path of least political resistance in regards to other policies, such as the steel tariffs and Medicare, I don't and still don't believe he will commit enough American resources to ensure success in Iraq. And the relatively low troop levels for the occupation (compared to the ratio in places like Bosnia) seems further evidence of that, along with his complete lack of support for any policies that would reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.