RE: San Francisco Anti-War Protest

Subject: Too much from a complete stranger about war
Date: 3/13/2003 5:03pm

Jennifer,

I think it's a mistake to presume that Peter Ferrara's argument is the end-all in the Iraq war debate, but I don't believe that most anti-war activists really understand the argument concerning oil, and he only adresses the simplistic argument of any war being about oil. In one respect, you, and Ferrara are correct: it's not directly about the oil. As Ferrera argues, control of the oil supply isn't an issue, at this point there's more than enough to buy (Ferrera's subtextual implication of liberals as communists, is a cheap shot, and somewhat offensive, however). What it is, in some respects, about, though, is control of the money from the oil supply. A little bit of history is in order.

For most of Iraq's history, it's been under the control of a foreign power, even when it supposedly wasn't. It was only in the 1960's & 70's that Iraq was able to gain control of the monetary proceeds from its oil supply (before the Ba'athist revolution, England, France, and the US controlled the company that drilled for oil in Iraq (the name eludes me momentarily, it was something like the Iraqi Petroleum Corporation), and it supplied only around 3% of the oil profits to the Iraqi people, who were mostly living in poverty). After Iraq seized control of its oil supply, the government started reinvesting all of the profits into its country, and the standard of living increased by leaps and bounds. In fact, Iraq was on track to become a first world nation before the Iran/Iraq War.

Some interesting sidenotes: Iraq called for the creation of OPEC in response to US dictates on oil production in Kuwait and other countries. Kuwait was arbitrarily carved out from Iraq when Iraq was still controlled by the British (this was done as they were abdicating control of Iraq to an arabic royal family), and ruthlessly purged of Iraqi nationalists by the British.

I guess a lot of the above sounds a little bit too removed from the current situation, but bear in mind that the US is happy with the regime in Saudi Arabia that tortures and kills its population (and spawns most fundamental islamists), and the people who control the oil profits (the House of Saud) interestingly does most of their banking with American banks. Surprisingly, the US has traditionally supported regimes that are just as nasty as Saddam if they are willing to, essentially, do its bidding. Neither is this really about the democratization of Iraq, as our government is hostile towards Venezuala and its democratically elected president Hugo Chavez (I'm not saying Chavez isn't a nice guy, but he was elected with the popular vote, has yet to torture anybody (that I've heard of), and has released the people responsible for the coup attempts (and assasinations of him) in the interest of preserving the peace. In fact, he's yet to do anything that is contrary to the Venezualan constitution). I don't want to get too far into the Venezualan debate: I only want to use it as an example of what our government is and is not willing to tolerate.

Additionally, Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company (which is still giving him about a million bucks a year, by the way), is in line to get a nice, fat check to help rebuild Iraq (they also helped rebuild Iraq the last time we destroyed it, as well as constructed facilities to help produce those precursor chemicals that can be converted to chemical weapons).

I'm leaving a lot out, and I haven't really shaped this into a coherent argument, but my point is simple: I think the war is about money (and power), and, thusly, is about oil only as far as you relate oil to money. The problem, as I see it, is that people don't want to look at the argument in such a complex manner, because either they're stupid, or are just look for, as I said above, zingy and pithy one-liners. Anyway, there is just too many shady-looking things going on for me to be supportive of any war in Iraq, even though I want to see Saddam Hussein deposed. I think we'd be just as well working on a high-impact strategy of containment that would allow the sanctions to end (and prevent people from starving), and saving the money we're using to both buy UN votes and execute a war for the current domestic issues we face. It would still cost money, but not nearly as much, and what we save could fund our schools and the homeland security first-responders we aren't providing for, despite our new laws requiring enhanced readiness.

I'm happy to discuss this, because I'm still conflicted, but there are too many questions for me to support it at this point.

cheers!
michael l.

Subject: Anti-War Posters
Date: 3/5/2003 8:25am

Thank you, thank you! I was near the NY peace rally, and thought the exact same thing: I want to believe you, I want to take a side, but you make no sense!

On the subway home, I think I reached my limit: a guy had a sign reading "War is always wrong. Period." He was stomping about the subway car, inciting us to join his cause. I asked him if he really believed what his sign read. "Of course, man," he said in a way that let me know he thought I was an idiot and a fascist just for asking. I said, "well, what if you're being attacked?" He pondered my query, and said, "We're not being attacked." I said, "But what if we were, and what if innocent people were?" He said, "Well, I guess in those cases, it's okay, but only as necessary, and as little as possible." I said, "Good for you, you're finally starting to make sense."

I thought I was done with the conversation, but apparently he was mad at himself for having failed in this simple logic argument, so he sniped, "Why don't you mind your own fucking business, asshole?" Well, needless to say, I considered making war on him right there, but I chose peace! Yay for me. (And, by the way, another thought struck me...many of the anti-war/pro-peace people I had seen that day seemed frighteningly on the brink of violence themselves.) But I did reply, "You're walking around with a giant sign, yelling slogans at everyone on the subway. You mind your business, and I'll mind mine." Again stumped, he just muttered under his breath as he walked away.

Again, like you, I want to believe...but I'm pretty sure the anti-war movement isn't the place I'm going to learn to be anti-war.

Michael M.

Subject: Anti-warrery
Date: 3/4/2003 3:30pm

Hi Jen,

That's funny stuff you wrote about the protests. But the simplicity you accurately ascribe to the protestors are shared by people on both sides of the debate. And you, my friend, endorsed a similarly vacuous argument when you linked:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ferrara022103.asp

He successfully argues his case, but it is against the wrong position.

He implies that the war-for-oil argument is debunked because the oil will be directed according to the laws of supply and demand -- the highest bidder will get the oil, not the US. This is true. That was never the concern though.

There are two arguments.

The first is that the United States will allocate first rights on development to American oil companies in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq previously nationalized their oil supply to the chagrin of American corporations who were otherwise nicely positioned to profit from its exploration and development. Simply installing a free-market oriented regime will give America access to those resources and to profits that would otherwise have accrued to Iraq. In a more explicit alternative the victors will be given the opportunity to determine who gets to operate in the new country on the premise of recouping the expenses of their just war. In that scenario, Bush will give his American supporters the first-rights. This would not be unprecedented. Kuwait was rebuilt by American construction companies as a reward for America's efforts.

The second argument is that more oil means lower oil prices which is good for the American economy. Ferrara "proves" this with his supply and demand model wherein the market price is lowered by a new equilibrium created by greater supply. He is only partially right in his economic analysis and wholly wrong in his conclusion about the situation not representing the best interests of the United States.

Supply is carefully controlled in the oil market and does not reflect an equilibrium price established by a free market as Ferrara described. The price has been successfully influenced to higher than market level by OPEC. All things being equal, following the war, OPEC countries would reduce their individual supplies to maintain a global price slightly above $US20 a barrel as they have done for years.

All things will not be equal after the war however. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and will have considerable bargaining power in OPEC. Their actions alone could undermine OPEC's cartel efforts, thus establishing a lower price that would be in the best interests of the oil-driven American economy. You could argue that this could happen because the US will install a puppet regime, or it will simply be a by-product of adding another powerful player to the cartel, increasing the supply, making stabilization of prices more difficult and accordingly increases the odds that they will be lower.

Ferrara debunked his own argument. It is no secret that the US wants low oil prices. They are constantly haranguing OPEC for keeping the prices high. I don't know what background Ferrara has, but if he is an economist he should be embarassed for not acknowledging this. If he is a political scientist he needs to hit the textbooks again. If he is some sort of writer who feels qualified to talk about subjects he is uninformed on, well, he's forgiven but public discourse is no more enhanced by his blather than it is by protest signs. Except that protest signs are occassionally clever.

Incidentally, I support military action, though I have reservations about how it will be conducted and what reconstruction will look like, and do not think that the issue is all about oil. Oil is an issue in other less direct ways, but that doesn't mean the US won't benefit.

That aside, I like your website. Your liberal-bashing is amusing but if you actually believe that they are any more guilty of naivete than the right, you're mistaken. The right is just as easily mocked. Their Ball could read "trickle-down economics will solve that," "big government is the problem," "we need lower taxes," "you're a communist!" "My sources (National Review Online) say yes," etc. The mantras of free-market fundamentalism are as unsophisticated as anything the protestors said. You should acknowledge that.

MB

Subject: Protest signs
Date: 3/4/2003 8:14pm

Jen,

Just a quick note to let you note that I thoroughly enjoyed your article for so many reasons.

- I am also a war 'agnostic' as I am pretty much a conservative but also have pretty wacky stances like being vegan etc..and find it refreshing to see someone else admit that they are still weighing the options.

- I was there with my wife the day of the protest and enjoyed San Francisco as it wasn't crowded during their event. We were able to eat and travel around being touristy without too much delay!

Here in Sacramento we have folks protesting (seemingly randomly) on 16th street and its amazing that they never have one cohesive argument.

Venezuela? Never enters the picture.

NATO and the EU vs The UN? Not a discussion.

Medicinal Heroin for transgendered NAMBLA supporters? You got it!

Keep up the good work.

Jose

Subject: "Based on good intentions..."
Date: 2/24/2003 4:03pm

You know what they say about the road to hell.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but even the sparse few "logical" points of the Anti-war argument have already been refuted multiple times by logical argument and material fact.

The "blood for oil" meme being the most obviously debunked one.
As literally hundreds of pundits and individuals have pointed out:

1) Introducing lots of cheap oil to the market would HURT Bush's "friends in the oil industry." (Of course, leftists aren't known for their comprehensive understanding of complex economic principles like SUPPLY and DEMAND....)

2) If we wanted the oil, we'd make a better profit by just dropping the embargo and signing a trade agreement.

3) We're already more or less in control of most of Iraq's oil-- in the no-fly zones.

4) We have our own reserves--- if we can ever shut up the knee-jerk enviro-emotionalists long enough to *get* at it.

5) There's already "blood for oil"--- with various countries making under-the-table deals with Saddam for his oil, enabling him to keep in power on their dollar.

Even if oil were the real reason, even if it were the ONLY reason, it would still be a valid one. Saddam has already made a grab for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia; he'd try again in a heartbeat. And like it or not, the free world depends on oil for everything...industry, construction, transportation, communication, electrical power, heat, agriculture... everything. If a despot were to seize control of the oil fields of the Mideast, he would put a stranglehold on the economies of the free world, and could easily send countless countries into a recession or a depression just by turning off the tap. The overall human suffering that would result just from that would dwarf that caused by his military actions thus far.

If he is left in power, if he is allowed to continue accumulating his bio, chemo and eventually nuclear weapons, he will try to do just this the very instant he feels he's powerful enough to keep America at bay. This alone, disregarding all of his other crimes against humanity, is sufficient justification for his ouster at the point of a bayonet.

The pacifists are buying time for a monster.
There is no "rational reason" or excuse for that.

RH

Subject: Anti-war Protests
Date: 2/24/2003 1:44pm

Jennifer,

Thank God! Someone else who has a brain and hasn't been able to come to a conclusion about war in Iraq! I, too, was feeling like I was the only one! (I will try to control my exuberance because one can only use so many exclamation points in a paragraph without looking like comic strip text.)

My biggest frustration with trying to sort out my thoughts on this issue is that I am swayed by information and ideas, not emotion and charisma. Yes, I know war is a terrible thing that should be avoided as much as possible and that in an ideal world we would be able to love our neighbors and live in harmony, but we're not there yet. For some reason, those who are trying to influence public opinion against war believe that slogans, insults and terminology/approaches from the anti-Vietnam era will swing everyone to their point of view. I was in preschool when Vietnam ended (and don't remember anything political before the Watergate scandal), so "teach-ins" (and all those other "-ins"), folk songs, and anti-war rallies don't resonate with me -- they don't automatically trigger the supposedly requisite emotional abhorrence of the situation. I need to be convinced in other ways. I need actual information to help me come to an educated decision because, in spite of the nifty "Queers for Palestine" logo, even my being a lesbian hasn't given me any additional insight on this issue. There is a fine line between the United States' being a good global citizen and being the world's most powerful doormat; I'm looking for reasonable assurance that leaving Saddam Hussein alone won't be inviting him to wipe his feet on the things that I value. Is that too much to ask?

Thanks for a great web site -- I can always count on it to make me think as well as make me laugh. Now if I could only kick my Bookworm habit!

Karen M.