I don't think the "war for oil" argument holds water.  Absolutely nothing that has happened since the invasion of Iraq supports the "war for oil" theory.  Prices have tripled (with no end in sight), the economy as a result has been shredded, foreign firms are getting the contracts, and we've got more than enough oil here at home (Green River Formation may have over 1 trillion barrels of oil) and in Canada and Mexico to last a century or more.  Finally, alternative technologies are maturing at a rate that will obsolete oil long before we ever come close to running out of it.


This is not "life or death" as far as oil is concerned.  And, if you could somehow convince me that it were "life or death", I'd say that you've got a pretty good reason for going to war.  In other words, if oil is so important and our only hope at survival is to go to war, then by all means go to war.  From a moral perspective it is perfectly acceptable as it is a matter of survival.

Nevertheless, there is no use debating it because nobody will change their minds.  Iran is not going to be attacked.  Period.  The only thing that changes this is some major development (like Iran perhaps testing a weapon, or overtly using their military to kill our servicemembers).  Since neither of those things will happen, everyone needs to relax.

The purpose of this post was to examine the possibility that relations between the two countries may move in a positive direction.  Though we would not be engaging Iran any more than we engage Cuba, it is at the very least a step in the right direction.  Furthermore, the article outlines the mindset of those that are pushing for this new interests section - "to demonstrate U.S. goodwill to the Iranian people even while tensions between the governments run high."  This is an indication of shifting attitudes towards Iran, and perhaps the beginning of a clear strategy to create an atmosphere of cooperation between our two countries.

US may open diplomatic outpost in Iran

The Bush administration is considering setting up a diplomatic outpost in Iran in what would mark a dramatic official U.S. return to the country nearly 30 years after the American embassy was overrun and the two nations severed relations.

I was somewhat surprised to read this tonight and thought it was worthy of discussion.  I have long been a big supporter of restoring a relationship with Iran in order to ease tensions and perhaps get a little "Quid Pro Quo".  It seems like we have been neglecting an essential group of people in the Middle East for many years, and the US would be well served to put its best face forward here. 

I found this snippet particularly interesting, and promising:

William Burns, the officials said, is eager to demonstrate U.S. goodwill to the Iranian people even while tensions between the governments run high amid speculation that either the United States or Israel may use military force against Iran's nuclear facilities.

This is an important concept to grasp.  We have an opportunity to get some support from the Iranian people.  I'm not talking about sparking some bloody coup or anything like that, but rather just some common ground on which to build.  I think it is possible that in the next few years, we could see sweeping changes in Iran if we attempt to repair the damage that has been done to our image.  It is a delicate process as the article states we don't want to be seen as "endorsing" the Iranian government, but we need to dispell the myth that we are the "Great Satan".  This gives the Iranian leadership one less rallying call and may well provide us with some positive results in the future.  But even if we have to swallow the bitter pill of dealing with the Iranian government, it is not out of the question that we may be able to convince them to work with us in Iraq (which they are not currently doing).  It won't be easy, but it may be worth the reward.

I think Coalition forces are trying to do that, but we know even sitting here that it is not always easy to distinguish friend from foe in Afghanistan.  Policing may of course help, but it seems like we would need a huge increase in forces to substantially cut down on money changing hands between farmers and the Taliban.

I think the solution is the elimination of the poppy fields (or at least a massive effort in cutting them down).  The question I have is whether the Taliban will resort to intimidating farmers to pay taxes on perfectly legal and legitimate crops.  Is there any real difference in taking money from a guy growing vegitables instead of poppies?

I'm really interested to know if switching to a legal crop would make the Taliban's job more difficult (since you would theoretically cut out criminal middlemen). 

Right on realityman, I think we see eye-to-eye on this topic.  Hamas makes it easy on those of us who are realists.  If you've ever read "On War" by Clausewitz (one of my all time favorite works), there is an interesting quote that you may find useful when debating:

"The degree of force that must be used against the enemy depends on the scale of political demands on either side. . . .  But they seldom are fully known.  Since in war too small an effort can result not just in failure, but in positive harm, each side is driven to outdo the other, which sets up an interaction."

When the "political demands" of Hamas include the erradication of Israel, Clausewitz in his timeless and infinite wisdom would certainly approve of an unrestricted action by the Israelis.  The sooner the world realizes this, the sooner we can move on.

If you would rather not read my nonsense and just jump right in, I've posed the question at the bottom!

I haven't really debated this with anyone and as such I am not up-to-speed on the latest news about the subject.  But over the last few days I have stumbled upon a few pieces of news (on TV, radio, or Internet) that talk a bit about the Afghan poppy crop and how eliminating it would be a huge gain for Coalition forces working to stabilize the country.

It is my understanding that the Taliban tax the poppy farmers, some sources like the UN say up to 10% on a crop that adds $3 billion annually to Afghanistan's economy.  That is $300,000,000 per year in taxes levied by the Taliban.  Of course, it is unlikely that they actually get ALL of that money, but even extremely conservative estimates (1% would be $30,000,000) is a huge chunk of money.  It is not a stretch to believe that the vast majority of this money is being used to finance Taliban militancy in the country.

But of course there is this piece of information that also requires a second look:

This suggests to me that wiping our the poppy fields will not eliminate Taliban taxation (no doubt through intimidation) on Afghan farmers.  While legal crops may not be as lucrative, the Taliban wants its money and will certainly require farmers to pay up, or else.  In other words, poppies or no poppies, Agriculture in general will continue to reluctantly finance the Taliban.

I have been convinced over the last few years (from my general understanding of the topic) that it would be best for Coalition forces to eliminate the poppy fields and provide the farmers with money and equipment so that they are able to make a living.  In fact, an incentive should be offered to sweeten the deal and attempt to gain favor with Afghan farmers.  I've also heard that transporting the crops to market is still a problem which seems to indicate that investments in infrastructure would also help increase the farmer's take.  Perhaps a grant program to provide vehicles to unemployed city-dwellers (for transporting agricultural items to the cities) would help to get people employed.

My question is if would make much difference.  I'm particularly interested in Ahk's perspective (as it is my understanding he served there) but of course all opinions are welcome. 

Would eliminating Afghan poppy fields help to cripple the Taliban?  And if so, how should we go about it?

I don't expect anyone to catch on any time soon either.  It is a rotten predicament in which Israel finds itself.  I wonder what would happen if Israel came out publically and stated, "no more cease-fires" and demanded that a long-term written cessation of hostilities was signed by Hamas in return for Israel's guarantee that it would not engage in offensive operations in Gaza.  Then, part of that agreement would state that if Hamas attacks, Israel reserves the legal right and moral responsibility to erradicate Hamas from Gaza.  Of course, such a military action would result in countless thousands of deaths, but it is really starting to become time to up the ante. 

This has gone on long enough, and since Israel is the only side capable of initiating a major action, it is the only side that can cause sweeping changes.  Otherwise, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah will continue to snap at Israel like a rabid Chihuahua.

It is getting old, incredibly frustrating, and the dog grows bolder and more violent with each attack.  It is time to rear back and kick the Chihuahua.  Of course the world will gasp with horror, and wonder how Israel could do such a thing.  But after the little animal hobbles off to die in a ditch, the world will forget about it and we can get on with our lives.

Cease-fires serve Israel in no way tactically, it is purely a strategic (public relations) issue for Israel to accept because to decline a cease fire brings the cries of the International Community.  This is why I have reluctantly taken the position that Israel should NEVER accept a cease-fire from Hamas unless that cease-fire serves Israel's larger strategic objective of eliminating Hamas once and for all.  The cease-fires are used to regroup, resupply, and rearm.  We have seen a massive increase in violence in Afghanistan after the Pakistani's decided on a cease-fire with Taliban militants in their own country.  This is a tried and true tactic for militant groups.  They have to catch their breath more often than organized armies and without an air force or a navy, their difficulties to keep well-supplied are certainly amplified.

I guess the world community hasn't quite caught on to this scheme by militant groups.  Cease-fires are nothing more than time-outs.  Militant groups are given a tremendous advantage when granted a cease-fire, and have no intention on making it permanent.

Tragedy..........but accidents happen.

Same can be said about the cop that shoots the suspect in a dark ally who was reaching for his wallet..........I imagine we are pretty much on the same side here.  I certainly understand the grey area in which we can find ourselves.

Depends on the context I suppose.  If the 7-year old has a Grenade, shoot that little bastard.

Thus the difficulty when dealing with illegal combatants.  I keep seeing stuff like, "nobody had ever heard of him......he wasn't a high-value target".  The problem I have with this is that most suicide bombers and attackers are not high-value targets to begin with.  They are the grunts and it is likely that the first time they ever resort to violence is when they kill 25 people in one of their suicide operations.  The planners and high-value targets aren't on the battlefield - they're usually hiding somewhere giving orders.  So my first problem with the article is the premise that because nobody ever heard of one of these guys that he is thus innocent.  I don't buy it and I have little reason to take the detainee's word for it.  Indeed, I'm beginning to think the military is getting it right for the most part.  Prisoners that they release are going on to fight again (and become suicide bombers):

Ex-Guantánamo detainee became suicide bomber in Iraq, U.S. says
http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2008/05/08/africa/gitmo.php

If these are the guys the military deems non-threatening and releasable, I'd rather they stop releasing people!  The point is that just because the detainees don't appear on anyone's high-value target list - it doesn't mean they are innocent.  The idea that the detainees word is somehow proof of American wrongdoing is to me no longer valid (see above article).  Deception is at the top of the list of perfected tactics by our enemies.  Unfortunately, this makes believing anyone in a detention facility very difficult.


All of this being said however, I do NOT agree with torture of any detainee.  Harsh interogation procedures I can live with (like sleep deprivation and endless hours of awful music).  This is not torture.  There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (and some tangible evidence) that the best technique for acquiring information is to be kind and build trust between the detainee and interogators.  I am not an expert on this, and indeed there are some people that know information that will not be made to talk just because we are nice to them.  But even for these people, there has to be a limit.  I would imagine that any time-critical information that most of these guys know is long expired by the time we're able to "break" them with any torture.  

It is important that we have a clear line separating legal methods from illegal methods.  We also have to remember that counter-terrorism in the 21st century is a new and incredibly complex issue.  We don't have manuals for how to extract information from people who are very happy to die.  We also have just recently learned that one person can kill hundreds or thousands of people without much trouble.  This is not a simple "let them stand trial and treat them like Americans" sort of game we're playing.  This is new territory and the rules are at best guidelines at this point.  To top things off, our enemy is notorious for not following rules and this gives them some advantages, especially when they learn to use our own rules and reluctance for brutality against us.

Nevertheless, we will win against terrorism, that is an absolute certainty.  How we do it is now the question.  I would like to see that my grandchildren's textbooks hold the US in high regard when it comes to dealing with terrorism in the 21st century.  It should not be a blemish on America's record, but rather an example of why this is the greatest nation on Earth.  It will be very fulfilling to look back and say we had every reason to be vicious and brutal to our enemies but instead we stuck to our core beliefs as Americans and Christians and were able to face absolute evil and disregard for life with honor and respect for the rule of law.  When we win, that is how we should be remembered as doing it.

Charles, I think what Fred was trying to say was that the surge has been a success and that the critics were wrong in assuming it would just lead to more American deaths without any improvement (correct me if I am wrong Fred).

I think a case can easily be made that the situation in Iraq is improving.  Last month was the least deadly for American troops since the war began.  This is a positive result.  The tougher case to make is whether the situation has improved enough to feel that we are "out of the woods" so-to-speak.  The lack of significant political progress is incredibly frustrating, but there are signs that the violence is beginning to subside and that a good-faith reconciliation can take place in the near future.

Iraq has been horrifically difficult to pacify and I think this has to do with a weaker sense of national pride than in other states where American occupation has been successful (like Germany and Japan).  It seems to me like Iraqis are Iraqis second, but Shiite and Sunni first.  Maybe this isn't the case, but this is how it appears.  And sometimes, when people have been fostering pent-up anger for so long, it takes bloodletting before an equilibrium is reached.  I'm hoping that we are close to that equilibrium and that we will see some dramatic improvement in Iraq soon. 

[sarcasm]
The pro-Israeli lobbyist is obviously well-versed in Al Qaeda's motives and understands that Israel is really at the crux of this whole terrorism thing........ blowing up Muslims in front of the Danish Embassy in Pakistan is proof in the pudding that without Israel, Al Qaeda would have no reason to attack..........
[/sarcasm]

You might be right.  I know that diseases and illnesses linked to obesity can be far more serious and there can be far more of them than with cigarette smoking.  It just seems like we are charting a dangerous course by attempting to preclude people from work if they chose to live an unhealthy, or potentially unhealthy lifestyle.

Yep, this is definitely a slippery slope.  I can't stand cigarettes either, but this is way overboard. 

Your analogy against the disabled may not be entirely appropriate since they may not have had any way of avoiding their disability, but what about people who are obese?  Could the county just stop hiring fat people because they have greater risks of diabetes and heart disease and other expensive medical problems?  I can't see where that would be appropriate.

Or what about people who skydive or enjoy some other potentially hazardous pass-time.  Could the county say, "we don't want to risk having to pay for your care if you get hurt, so you don't need to apply."  Or maybe one day we won't be able to apply if we are sexually active.  After all, what county would want to pay for treatment for the clap?

I know these seem ridiculous, but they aren't that far removed from banning smokers from working.

I think neue is right, this was a jab at Jimmy Carter.  I don't think Obama was meant as the target here, maybe I am wrong.

What Bush says isn't completely ridiculous in terms of terrorist groups, but it isn't particularly useful when dealing with nations.  I don't have a problem with the US policy not to negotiate with terrorist groups.  I don't want to negotiate with Al Qaeda and I don't think we ever should.  Hezbollah and Hamas in my opinion fall into the same category. 

The problem is when you use that logic to dismiss negotiations with other nations.  I am well aware that Iran is far from innocent and they should be made to feel consequences for sponsoring terrorism.  However, Iranian leaders in my mind have other things to worry about, like running a nation and being held accountable by the people.  This gives us leverage in a negotiation and also makes them more likely to respond favorably.  We negotiated with the Soviets, and they were a far greater threat than the Iranians.  They were also indirectly responsible for FAR more American deaths than Iran.

It seems to me like Obama has the right idea in regards to Iran.  At some point, a line has to be drawn.  I am OK with negotiations with Iran, but that does not mean that I would be in favor of negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda (just to name a few).