All About Josh

Friday, January 24, 2003


AS USUAL, VICTOR HANSON hits the nail on the head, in his column today at NRO about the anti-war protesters. Here's the money quote:

No Blood for Oil? Under a favorable scenario of a new reform government in Iraq, oil production will rise to over three million barrels. That would help to allow the world price to decline — or at least stabilize. Such price continuity will help billions worldwide beyond our shores — as well as earning revenues for the people of Iraq. Does Exxon really want lower prices and a state-run oil company under civic audit at last controlling the vast petroleum reserves of Iraq? Are Texas oil-company executives clamoring for consensual government in the Gulf or are they big supporters of Israel?

Those most worried about American military force used to remove Saddam Hussein may well be not D.C. protesters, but international oil companies who apparently are jittery that in a postbellum climate there will be too much Iraqi oil under a stable peace — or contrarily scared that their joint-venture infrastructure and investment abroad will be endangered when the shooting starts. Only the continued existence of Saddam Hussein means that none of his oil revenue goes to the people — as the world's oil supply remains tight, wells are relatively safe, and energy-corporation profits stay ample.


Exactly. The people who would lose out the most from a post-Saddam Iraq are the oil companies themselves, with the oil prices presumably going down with increased supply. Of course, the anti-war dolts don't seem to know basic economics.


THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN Joe Lieberman and John McCain are analyzed in Michael Kinsley's latest column.


THE WAR FOR OIL MYTH is nicely dispelled by Thomas Lippman in the Washington Post.


CHEERLEADERS FOR CHESS? Indeed, only at UMBC.


Thursday, January 23, 2003


THERE'S SOME GOOD INSIGHT on Joe Lieberman in Jonathan Tobin's latest JWR column.


ANDREW SULLIVAN ON THE IRAQ WAR:

But for us, it's important to remember why we're fighting Saddam. The answer is September 11. Those who want to find some specific evidentiary link between al Qaeda and Saddam don't begin to fathom what war is. It is not the pursuit of one distinct goal after another, depending on the exigencies of international law or diplomacy. That's called foreign policy. War, in contrast, is the attempt to destroy an enemy. The enemy is Islamist terrorism and its state sponsors. Strategically, the overthrow of the Saddam regime is absolutely central to this objective. It will deal another psychological blow to the reactionaries who want to ratchet Islam back a few more centuries and wage war on the free societies of the West. It will remove one huge and obvious source of weapons of mass destruction potentially available to the enemy. It will provide a military base from which to continue the war against al Qaeda and its enablers across the Middle East, specifically in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. And it will reassert the global hegemony of the United States and its Anglosphere allies. That's why we fight. It isn't a pre-emptive war. It's a reactive war - against what was done to this country throughout the 1990s, culminating on that awful September day. We are fighting to honor the memory of the dead and to defeat a brutal enemy that would inflict even more carnage if they possibly could. And we fight to defend the principles of a liberal international order, principles that the United States and the United States alone has long been responsible for upholding. Our loneliness in this struggle should not therefore be a cause for concern. It is, in fact, a sign, once again, that we are on the right path.

Indeed.


CONDOLEEZA RICE pens the adminstration's view in the NY Times today.


DONALD RUMSFELD surely knows how to bash France and Germany's stand of opposing war in Iraq. Today's Post features a classic statement from Rumsfeld.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the position of France and Germany was a "problem," but played it down, calling the two countries "old Europe." Addressing foreign journalists at the National Press Club in Washington, he noted NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe and said that "vast numbers" of European countries "are not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

Amen, Rummy.


I'VE BEEN IN London's Kensington Square district for the last week or so, and am settling in with my new internship here and classes. Posting will resume shortly.


Home