Taking yes for an answer in Iraq

A while ago I was watching a television show (I think it was Law & Order). The prosecutor and the defense lawyer were arguing a motion in the judge's chambers. The judge ruled for the defense, but the defense lawyer kept on arguing. Finally, exasperated, the judge turned to the defense lawyer and said: would you just take yes for an answer?

I am frequently reminded of this scene when I listen to the Left(especially Barack Obama) talking about Iraq . Before the Surge, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama himself predicted that the Surge would fail, arguing that Iraq was in the grip of the civil war, and injecting additional U.S. Troops would not work. Obama also said that, if the Iraqis had not gotten their act together in five years, they probably never would, and it was time for the United States to withdraw.

Both of these positions were plausible, but they were wrong. Iraq was not in the midst of a full-blown civil war. Much of the mayhem was being caused by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) who were, perversely, killing Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike. Once the Surge suppressed the violence, many of the Sunnis allied themselves with the Iraqi government and against AQI.

The Left responded to this development (to the extent they acknowledged it at all) by saying that they always knew that the surge would work militarily (not true), but that the Iraqis had failed to get their act together politically, so we still needed to withdraw.

But during the last 6-8 months, the Iraqi Parliament has passed a series of measures that aided reonciliation and accommodation, including a national budget that apportioned its oil revenues among various regions and factions. I could compare the performance of the Iraqi Parliament favorably with that of the US Congress during the same period, but that would be damning the Iraqi parliament with faint praise.

Moreover, Iraqi security forces have lately taken over more of the fighting. Iraqi forces led the fight to disarm or otherwise neutralize the largely-Shiite rogue militias that were threatening the country's security. This action by the al-Maliki government, itself largely composed of Shiites, helped establish its legitimacy with the Sunnis and the Kurds.

What is the left saying about Iraq now? Not much. Obama's website link still claims that the al Maliki government has made "no progress" in ending "the civil war" in Iraq and that violence in Iraq remains at unsustainable 2006 levels. The first claim is dubious at best, and the second is flat wrong.

Why doesn't Obama know what is happening in Iraq? Well he hasn't been there in over two years and he's never spoken directly with General Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker. On the other hand, I've never been to Iraq or spoken with General Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker, and I seem better informed about what's happening over there than Obama. So what is going on here?

I think that Obama, like much of the Left, is in denial. Obama's strongest selling point during the Democrat primaries was that, unlike Hillary Clinton, he opposed the Iraq invasion from the start. During those primaries, Hillary liked to say that both she and Senator McCain had lifetimes of experience, and Obama had "a speech he gave in 2002." That 2002 speech trumpeted Obama's opposition to the Iraq invasion from the start.

If the Iraq invasion actually turns out to be a success, Obama's opposition to it won't look nearly as good in the general election as it did in the Democrat primaries. Simply put, Obama can't afford to admit that he may have been wrong about Iraq and that McCain was right. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is frequently quoted as saying that everyone has the right to their own opinion, but they don't have the right to their own facts. That observation may end up haunting Obama,if things continue to go well in Iraq.

Boumediene and the Nuremberg trials

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-4 in the Boumediene case that non-citizen enemy combatants, captured and imprisoned abroad, are entitled to access to United States courts and to petition for writ of habeas corpus. John McCain has criticized this decision; Barack Obama has applauded it.

I am not going to debate the merits of the decision here. But Barack Obama's statement over the weekend, supporting the decision, is, frankly, bizarre. Senator Obama stated that the Court's decision carries on this country's tradition exemplified by the Nuremberg trials after World War II. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Nuremberg trials did not involve American courts or apply United States law, including our law regarding habeas corpus. The Nuremberg trials were conducted before an international military tribunal and applied international law. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson served as a prosecutor at the trials (the chief prosecutor I believe), not as a judge. In short, Barack Obama doesn't know what he's talking about here.

There is an understandable tendency, when a politician makes a boneheaded statement, to simply shrug and say what the heck, he (or she) is just a politician, what can you expect? But Barack Obama touts himself as a constitutional law professor (in fact he was a visiting lecturer for several years at a Chicago law school). Cass Sunstein, a well-known Professor at the University Of Chicago Law School has stated that Obama knows this stuff [constitutional law] cold, a statement that causes me to wonder about both of them.

If Barack Obama is this uninformed on a subject about which he claims expertise, I can't help but wonder about the reliability of his numerous other pronouncements on various issues.

More on the global warming debate

I am not a scientist, but John Coleman is (he is a meteorologist). And, to put it mildly, he is a global warming skeptic. His very thoughtful article on the subject is here. whatever you believe about man-made global warming, the issue is definitely not settled.

More regarding the pre-invasion view of Iraq

At National Review Online today, Andrew C. McCarthy has an excellent article entitled "Treachery," which discusses last week's majority report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. McCarthy is the author of the book "Willful Blindness: Memoir of Jihad." His article, link here, contains much more detail than my short post from yesterday.

Bush lied (about Iraq)? If so, he had a lot of company

Fred Hiatt, the Washington Post's editorial page director, wrote an article, which appeared in today's Houston Chronicle, entitled "Did Bush Lie? Sorry, but it's Just not that Simple." The link is here. The gist of the article is that the recent majority report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which claims that the Bush overstated the reliability of the intelligence regarding Iraq, in fact shows that the administration's claims were generally substantiated by available intelligence. Hiatt notes: "As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent."

The article reminds me of a site that I viewed a couple of years ago (I wish I still had the link) that showed a montage of video clips of Democrat political figures claiming in no-uncertain-terms that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat, that he had or was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he could not be allowed to remain in power. The individuals I remember include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Al Gore, and John Kerry, plus a number of other prominent Democrats whom I cannot now recall. I believe that the Hillary Clinton clip was from 2002.

In short, virtually every major elected official at the time, both Democrat and Republican, proclaimed that Saddam Hussein was an intolerable threat, who possessed or was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But somehow, it was only Bush (and perhaps Cheney) who lied. Everybody else just made an honest mistake. Some of these politicians (including Senator Rockefeller) now claim -- falsely -- that they did not have access to the relevant intelligence reports.

Look, everyone relied on the CIA's inaccurate reports that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (he apparently tried to maintain programs that would allow him to produce such weapons in the future). But it's undisputed that he stockpiled roughly 100,000,000 tons of conventional munitions. Think about that: 100,000,000 tons of munitions. Does anybody really think that this guy was not a threat?

I have plenty of issues with the way the war in Iraq has been conducted. And I have plenty of criticisms of the Bush administration on other issues. But "Bush lied, and boys died" just doesn't cut it. Neither, apparently, does the report issued last Thursday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Suggested reading

I usually read fiction (mysteries mostly). But every now and then I read nonfiction that more than repays the effort. During the past year, I read three books that I thought were exceptional. All three are histories or historical narratives of sorts. I will discuss them in the order in which I read them.

The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes. This book recounts FDR's economic policies and concludes, as have many economists, that many of those policies actually worsened and prolonged the Great Depression. It is undisputed that the Great Depression lasted until this country entered World War II, an occurrence that FDR worked hard to bring about. There is no question that FDR's vigor and (apparent) confidence buoyed the nation's spirits. Unfortunately, many of his policies and programs proved to be economically perverse. This book, which just came out in paperback, is fascinating and informative.

Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg. This best-selling book has certainly caused a great deal of controversy. The title, itself, has raised a lot of hackles. Tellingly, a significant number of the reviewers who are critical of the book are apparently unaware that the title is actually a phrase coined by H.G. Wells in a speech that he gave at Oxford in 1932. Maybe those "reviewers" didn't bother to read the book.

Goldberg's thesis is that fascism is a form of socialism and is closely related to communism (the term "Nazi" is shorthand for National Socialism, the German Worker's Party). I learned a lot of fascinating information about the Wilson Administration that they didn't teach in school. The book also contains an extensive discussion of the early Progressive Movement both in this country and abroad (H.G. Wells was hugely influential in that movement). The book is both very readable and extensively documented.

War and Decision, by Douglas Feith. Mr. Feith was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the first four years of the George W. Bush administration. He was deeply involved in the formulation of the strategies underlying the war on terror, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. His boss, Don Rumsfeld, wanted everything significant put in writing, so this book is very densely documented. It provides a detailed refutation of the cartoonish portrayal of the decisions made by the Bush administration presented by much of the mainstream media and antiwar politicians.

The book is not an apologia; it criticizes several of the key decisions made by the administration, especially as regards Iraq. But if you want to know why we did what we did militarily after 9/11, you should read this book.

One book I have not read and do not intend to read is What Happened by Scott McClellan. The reason is not that the book is critical of the Bush administration -- Goldberg and Feith's books contain trenchant criticisms of the Bush administration. Rather, I am not bothering to read McClellan's book, because, as far as I can tell, McClellan doesn't really know what happened.

In recent interviews, Feith has noted that McClellan was not present at any of the meetings where Bush's military and foreign policies were discussed and determined. McClellan was not on the National Security Council, and apparently did not have a high-level security clearance.

Robert Novak, in a recent column, pointed out that McClellan seems unaware that Richard Armitage at the State Department, not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, identified Valerie Plame as a CIA employee who got her husband, Joseph Wilson, assigned to travel to Niger. In short, Scott McClellan seems clueless as to what really happened in the Bush Administration.

energy continued

Conservation

I am all for conservation; who isn't? In fact, we practice conservation as far as is practical: we use compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy-efficient appliances. Since we live in Texas, we took special pains to shop for the most energy efficient air conditioner we could find. We use ceiling and other energy-efficient fans to keep our air conditioning costs down.

When politicians talk about "conservation," they are usually referring to better gas mileage for automobiles. The gas mileage for cars and trucks has improved significantly over the past decades, but no one seems to have noticed. I don't know how much further the mileage can realistically be increased (I am not discussing hybrids here). Congress recently mandated that average mpg increase from 25 to 35 by 2020.

But even if carmakers significantly improve the mileage of vehicles that people want to buy, it will take years for the older vehicles to be replaced by the newer models. And until current vehicles are traded in for the newer, more efficient vehicles (which haven't even been developed yet), the newer vehicles will not make a significant contribution toward energy independence. I am not saying that we should not develop vehicles that are more energy efficient. I'm simply pointing out that this option also has a built-in time lag.


Alternative Energies

Like conservation, every one (including me) is in favor of developing alternative sources of energy, primarily wind and solar. If everyone is in favor of it, why do we have so little of it? The answer is that these alternative sources of energy, as they currently exist, have significant technological limitations ( and therefore economic limitations). More people and communities would utilize these sources if they made economic sense.

Wind power

Wind power is the fastest-growing source of alternative energy in Europe and the United States. Wind turbines have become significantly more efficient, mainly because they have kept getting bigger. Some modern turbines are as tall as 360 feet. Improvements in blade design and gearing have also increased efficiency.

Unfortunately, the best places to locate wind turbines are often remote areas. In order to be useful, the power has to be transported to existing power grids, and transmission lines are expensive to build and maintain. Many wind power projects that are economical based on the cost per megawatt produced become uneconomical when the cost of moving that power where it needs to go is factored in.

Also, some environmentalists have concerns about wind farms killing birds. One has called them "avian Cuisinarts." Wind turbines appear to rotate slowly, but the tips of the blades can reach speeds of 150 mph. One study conducted in California from 1994 to 1997 determined that 37% of 61 tagged Golden Eagles were killed by turbine strikes. Another study estimates that each wind turbine kills two birds per year. Wind farms can also deprive birds of habitat. It takes 2000 wind turbines to generate the same amount of electrical power as the typical coal-fired power plant. No one knows how serious these problems will become as wind farms proliferate, but some environmentalists are understandably concerned.

Solar power

Solar panels have also become significantly more cost-efficient during the last 50 years, partly because designers and manufacturers have developed thinner and thinner panels. But a solar power system for a single family residence still costs $20,000--$30,000. And there are limitations on the amount of electricity that a panel of any given size can generate.

Moreover, solar panels generate direct current, and virtually all appliances and lights in this country run on alternating current. An inverter converts the current from direct to alternating, but some power is lost in the process, and the need to include an inverter adds to the cost of the system.

Obviously, solar panels cannot generate electricity at night. So the user either needs to include a method of storing electricity (think batteries, lots of batteries) or maintain a connection to a conventional power provider, or both. Many electric utilities impose minimum monthly charges. Bottom line: solar-generating systems are often not economical. They seem to work best on small projects ( e.g. space satellites, stand-alone street signs, etc.) or larger projects like manufacturing facilities, office buildings, and possibly apartment complexes. All in all, it appears that solar power will remain niche player for the foreseeable future.

Overall conclusion

As I stated at the outset, none of these three strategies will provide us with energy independence. In fact, it is likely that all three of them together will not accomplish that goal. That certainly does not mean that these strategies are not worth pursuing, they are. Simultaneously pursuing these strategies will both increase the supply of energy and reduce the growth of demand (note that I said the growth of demand). Accomplishing these goals will make us both more prosperous and more secure. The problem is not that we lack options, but rather that we seem to lack the will to implement them.

Energy

This country has never had a coherent energy policy. It still doesn't. We are currently spending record amounts to import oil and gas (we import 60% of our oil). Some percentage of our petrodollars are going to terrorists who want to destroy us. This post will attempt to make some sense out of our hodgepodge of conflicting energy policies.

Options. This country has three primary options to deal with its dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas: 1) produce more domestic oil and gas; 2) conserve energy so that we use less oil and gas; 3) develop alternative sources of energy, e.g. wind and solar ( coal and nuclear energy are also alternative sources,, but significant parts of the population object to teach).

For unfathomable reasons, many of our politicians treat these options as mutually exclusive. Many on the left object to increased production of domestic oil and gas, insisting that the nation should pursue some combination of conservation and alternative energy sources. Politicians on the right argue for increased domestic production. Few if any of our politicians advocate a comprehensive approach employing all three options. This is unfortunate, because none of these three options by itself will solve the problem. Indeed, it is entirely possible that all three options combined will not solve the problem. But pursuing all three options gives us our best chance of success.

This post will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these options in turn ( although not in elaborate detail). I take it as given that there is no practical impediment to pursuing all three options simultaneously.

Increase domestic oil and gas production. Since 1985, domestic oil production has declined by 40%. During that same period domestic oil consumption has increased by 30%. We now import over 60% of the oil we consume. The numbers are stark and undeniable.

Discussion of the domestic production option requires consideration of several distinct geographic areas: Alaska, the East and West Coasts of the United States and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. To give you an idea of what is at stake, experts estimate that Alaska and the East and West Coasts contained 25 to 30 billion gallons of oil and 80 trillion cubic ft. of natural gas.

Let's start with Alaska, which contains two major sources of oil and gas: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ( ANWR), which sits on a commercially-producible reservoir of oil and the North Slope, which contains huge reserves of largely-untapped natural gas. Each needs to be discussed separately.

Environmentalists have blocked production of the huge oil reservoir lying beneath ANWR even though the proposed wells would actually be located on the western border of the Refuge. Jonah Goldberg visited the proposed drilling site and reported that it is in fact salt marsh, indistinguishable from the terrain where the Prudoe Bay production facilities are located. This decidedly un-scenic area is home to huge mosquitoes and vicious flies. Even the Caribou avoid it, because the flies lay their eggs in their nostrils.

The proposed production activity would take place during the winter, utilizing ice roads. This is not a new concept. Logging operations in the northern United States were conducted during the winter utilizing ice roads. After the thaw, logging operations stopped, and crews worked to float the logs down the river to the mill.

The wells would be slant-drilled under the Refuge. Slant drilling is also a mature technology. It has been used in Texas for decades. It is also used to produce oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, so that as many as 50 wells can be drilled from a single production platform. Slant drilling is no riskier than straight drilling.

Simply put, the proposed production of the oil under ANWR would not despoil the Refuge and would be done using mature technologies, entailing minimal risk. Nevertheless, those opposed to producing this oil frequently make it sound as though ANWR would be strip mined if production were to go forward.

The huge amounts of natural gas that Alaska contains have not been produced for different reasons. This gas cannot be commercially produced until a new pipeline is built to transport it to market. A combination of political and economic issues has stalled construction of a new pipeline. Permits and rights-of-way would have to be obtained not only from Alaska but also from Canada ( and perhaps specific Canadian provinces), since the pipeline would necessarily extend across Canada to reach the United States.

Fortunately, it appears that the log jam may soon be broken. A major pipeline construction proposal has been made, and it may now be in the best interests of all parties involved to make it happen.

One objection to going forward with these projects is that they will not bring the oil or the gas to market for a number of years (I would estimate five to 10 years, but I am no expert). This is quite true. But these significant quantities of oil and gas will never get to market if their production has never started. And, as we shall see, the other two alternatives will also probably take years to make significant contributions to our energy independence.

The West Coast

Significant deposits of hydrocarbons are located off the West Coast of America. Politics have blocked their development. I was in Santa Barbara, and I remember looking at the offshore oil platforms. At night they were lit up, and I thought they were pretty. But even though the platforms have been in place for decades, some of them have never drilled a single well, because they could not get the necessary permits required to transport the oil to shore. This, unfortunately, is not an isolated instance. I don't know how much oil could be produced from reservoirs off the west coast, but at the rate things are going, we are never going to find out.

The East Coast

All I know about the East Coast is that, like the other areas discussed, it contains sizable deposits of oil and natural gas that are not being produced for political rather than technical or economic reasons. Given our current energy usage, not producing these reserves aggravates our problem.

The eastern Gulf of Mexico

The Gulf of Mexico is a prolific producer of both oil and natural gas. But for political reasons, only the western half of the Gulf has been open to exploration and production (or at least to production). The states bordering the eastern Gulf, primarily Florida, have blocked production in the waters off their shores.

I understand that tourism is a huge business in Florida, and it wants to protect its beaches and coastal waters from the possibility of pollution. But we have a national energy problem, and the production of relatively inexpensive and politically stable hydrocarbons is being blocked by local concerns. We have been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for decades, and there have been very few oil spills. Four thousand platforms were in the Gulf of Mexico when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck, and there was not a single significant spill.

Conclusion

Seventy five percent of the world's oil reserves are government-owned. This adds significant political risk (think Venezuela) to the technological and economic risks inherent in exploring for introducing oil and gas. Can we really afford to allow the not-in-my-backyard syndrome to limit our domestic production of oil and gas?



Robert Samuelson wrote an excellent article on this topic several weeks agohere.

(to be continued)

Excellent article re global warming

div style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; background-color: white; width: 115px; text-align: center; padding: 0 0 10px 0;">

My blog is worth $0.00.
How much is your blog worth?

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent article regarding the global warming debate here.