Letter On The Iraq War

[JayB]

"If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation. In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is not a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent."

 

My example is the set of all third world countries that rely on the sale of a single commodity or set of commodities to drive their economies, and I'll cite the historical records and scholarly consensus.

 

This is like debating a guy who flips a coin five times, gets heads five times in a row, and proclaims the law of averages null and void. Do you honestly believe that if I don't take the time to compile all of the data scholarship that supports this theory in this particular thread, that all of this evidence and scholarship have been nullified? Interesting.

[tvashtarkatena]

"If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation."

 

Flip 1: China. I hear their free elections are real potboilers. I suppose that they're single commodity producers...if you define "all the cheap shit we buy" as a single commodity.

 

In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent."

 

Flip 2: Norway, the world's tax haven.

 

My example is the set of all third world countries that rely on the sale of a single commodity or set of commodities to drive their economies, and I'll cite the historical records and scholarly consensus.

 

Flip 3: 'third world'? A bit of bait and switch, no? Is Saudi Arabia 'third world', or are you talking about someplace like Nigeria? I'd say 'third world' has much more to do with repression than 'single resource'. Non-specific/multiple criteria: Naughty statistician!

 

This is like debating a guy who flips a coin five times, gets heads five times in a row, and proclaims the law of averages null and void.

 

Flip 4: I've racked up 4 national examples that refute your argument to your none. So far, I'm winning by infinity percent...relativistically speaking, of course.

 

Flip 5: Costa Rica. A classic commodity (coffee and palm oil) producing central American country which is not repressive. Why? Because they choose not to be.

Edited August 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Jay is probably correct in his assertion that no official speeches have mentioned that Islam is the root of all evil. However, I do think there are examples where the language used could have been better phrased. The one example that looms large for me is the one-time trendy in the administration buzzword of "Islamofacism".

 

Wouldn't "extremsism", "facism", "religious fanatacism-fueled murder" have gotten the same thing across without specifically skewering Islam?

 

Now, you say, the obvious reason for this is Bush's well-known lack of public-speaking talent. But I think there's a different reasoning. Though "Islamofacism" may have been an unnecessary slur on Islam, that couldn't have done anything but hurt the cause of any US-friendly government of a predominantly Muslim nation (e.g. Pakistan) it did serve another purpose. It served the probably intended purpose of inflaming fear and hatred in the US, in order to prop up the popularity of an ever more indefensible war in Iraq. They used "Islamofacism" to play to those simpletons here in the US of A, who hunger for a final solution.

 

The internet-virus letter in the original post serves the same purpose.

 

 

Does the fact that the people committing the acts of terrorism make explicit and repeated reference to the motivations and sanction for their actions in their religion - which is Islam - mean that acknowledging these facts in public statements is indicative of an intention to undertake a wholesale condemnation of the said religion, especially when coupled with repeated mosque visits, multiple and repeated statements in which the president, the secretary of state, etc take pains to make positive comments about Islam and differentiate the extremists form the rest of the faithful?

 

Would inciting "fear and hatred" of Islam as a policy goal really jive with the broader policy objectives that the administration has been trying to achieve, and that has maintained relationships with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, etc, etc, etc?

 

I think that unreasoning fear and hatred in question here is more appropriately consigned to the folks making these assertions rather than the administration, with the target in question being the president and his administration.

 

I thought that the black helicopter survivalists who were railed against Clinton would never have their paranoid vitriol exceeded by any other portion of the electorate in my lifetime, but clearly I was mistaken.

[underworld]

jay, you need to be more open to conspiracy theory

[tvashtarkatena]

What about single commodity producers in the underworld?

[JayB]

"If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation."

 

Flip 1: China. I hear their free elections are real potboilers. I suppose that they're single commodity producers...if you define "all the cheap shit we buy" as a single commodity.

 

In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent."

 

Flip 2: Norway, the world's tax haven.

 

My example is the set of all third world countries that rely on the sale of a single commodity or set of commodities to drive their economies, and I'll cite the historical records and scholarly consensus.

 

Flip 3: 'third world'? A bit of bait and switch, no? Is Saudi Arabia 'third world', or are you talking about someplace like Nigeria? I'd say 'third world' has much more to do with repression than 'single resource'. Non-specific/multiple criteria: Naughty statistician!

 

This is like debating a guy who flips a coin five times, gets heads five times in a row, and proclaims the law of averages null and void.

 

Flip 4: I've racked up 4 national examples that refute your argument to your none. So far, I'm winning by infinity percent.

 

Flip 5: Costa Rica. A classic commodity (coffee and palm oil) producing central American country which is not repressive. Why? Because they choose not to be.

 

You don't actually seem to understand how these things work. If I claim that the scholarship and the data support the conclusion that smokers have a greater tendency to contract lung cancer, and you cite the names of five people who smoke who have not contracted lung cancer, you have not refuted the data or the scholarship. The fact that you believe otherwise is telling.

[chucK]

I think you'd agree with me (maybe not?) that we are in a war against extremists who happen to Muslim, and are using their twisted view of Islam to gain followers. We are not (or shouldn't be anyway) fighting all of Islam.

 

To smear all of Islam with Osama and his ilk by inserting Islamo into his their descriptor did not help us in this war, except to possibly bring a restive domestic populace under better control. This whole "clash of civilizations" propaganda is just that. It's brainmush for domestic consumption, and it actually hurts us when these sloppy justifications leak out into the rest of the world.

 

 

Rereading your previous comment you don't seem to understand my point. I don't think inciting "fear and hatred" of Islam is a policy goal in itself. I think it is being used as a tool to gain domestic support. The great pain they take to distance themselves from this rhetoric when on the world stage shows that they understand that slurs of this type can cause them problems internationally. It's just that they don't have a choice, the public here is turning against them.

[tvashtarkatena]

I recently debated the former deputy director of the CIA under Reagan in a public forum. He is still a security consultant for the higher levels of Homeland Security and writes copiously on the subject of national security. His thesis was that we are at war with fundamentalist islam that seeks to impose it's 'operating system', as he phrased it, on 'our hardware'. His made it clear that his views are widely held in the current administration at many levels.

 

The problem is, the view is wrong. Statistics show that most terrorist acts to date are motivated by a political agenda, not a religious one. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, well over 50% of all suicide bombings were conducted by the Tamil Tigers; a political separatist, not religious, organization.

 

Those who seek to promote the myth of the 'war on terror' systematically downplay the political agenda of the attacking groups; choosing instead to lump them into a single, 'islamofascist' (sub in your favorite religious variant here) entity.

 

In Iraq today, attacks are motivated by a grab for power in a splintered, non-functioning country that lacks even the most basic security. Religious rhetoric is employed at times, but the primary purpose is for your militia based group to wind up on top. That has pitted Sunni against Sunni as well as Sunni against Shiite, and vice versa.

 

By mischaracterizing the conflict as a bunch of fanatics who hate freedom, and this has consistently and unwaveringly been Bush's message, this administration has not sought to address the real political agendas being pushed, and therefore has had little success pushing their foreign policy agenda.

 

When Al Qaeda attacked on 911, bin Laden explained in no uncertain terms what they wanted and why they attacked 1) Cessation of US support for Israel. 2) Withdrawal of US troops from Arabian soil. 3) Cessation of US interference with arab affairs in the Middle East. Right or wrong, crazy or sane, It was a political, not religious, agenda.

 

 

[underworld]

and there you have it....

 

taking bin laden's words at face value as tho he's a nice honest guy.

 

 

so did the guys that flew the planes into the trade center.

[tvashtarkatena]

You don't actually seem to understand how these things work. If I claim that the scholarship and the data support the conclusion that smokers have a greater tendency to contract lung cancer, and you cite the names of five people who smoke who have not contracted lung cancer, you have not refuted the data or the scholarship.

 

Perhaps not, but I've successfully refuted you in front of this audience.

 

BTW: My aunt's pushing 90. She's been smoking for 70 years.

[tvashtarkatena]

and there you have it....

 

taking bin laden's words at face value as tho he's a nice honest guy.

 

 

so did the guys that flew the planes into the trade center.

 

Apparently the Bush administration also takes bin Laden's word at face value. We pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia after his proclamation.

[Jim]

You don't actually seem to understand how these things work. If I claim that the scholarship and the data support the conclusion that smokers have a greater tendency to contract lung cancer, and you cite the names of five people who smoke who have not contracted lung cancer, you have not refuted the data or the scholarship. The fact that you believe otherwise is telling.

 

I went back and looked at the Wickipedia reference you posted and the linked article. I didn't see anything related to "single resource" vs "multiple resource" economies, only a distinction between countries "rich in natural resources" and those that "lack natural resources". And while there was one paper that addressed the increased likelyhood that a country "rich in natural resources" would have more issues with corruption - I saw no mention of a correlation with "repressive regimes". Seems to me you're stretching this analogy.

 

In addition - the US is quite resource rich and a democratic country (sort of). I don't think your thesis is holding much water here - and not backed up by what you have cited.

 

One of the countries cited in the summary (your link) is South Korea. The summary goes on to say lacking natural resources South Korea has concentrated on investments in education and that has lead to a more diverse economy. My oh, my though - a step across the border and we have a similar country, similar lack of natural resources, and quite a repressive regime.

 

If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception

 

This is way too general a statement and not backed up by anything you've provided. It's an opinion, but not a particularly valid one.

[tvashtarkatena]

Damn, JayB, if you don't even read your own citations, who will?

Edited August 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

You don't actually seem to understand how these things work. If I claim that the scholarship and the data support the conclusion that smokers have a greater tendency to contract lung cancer, and you cite the names of five people who smoke who have not contracted lung cancer, you have not refuted the data or the scholarship. The fact that you believe otherwise is telling.

 

I went back and looked at the Wickipedia reference you posted and the linked article. I didn't see anything related to "single resource" vs "multiple resource" economies, only a distinction between contries "rich in natural resources" and those that "lack natural resources". And while there was one paper that addressed the increased likelyhood that a country "rich in natural resources" would have more issues with corruption - I saw no mention of a correlation with "repressive regimes". Seems to me you're stretching this analogy.

 

In addition - the US is quite resource rich and a democratic country (sort of). I don't think you thesis is holding much water here - and not backed up by what you have cited.

 

One of the countries cited in the summary (your link) is South Korea. The summary goes on to say lacking natural resources South Korea has concentrated on investments in education and that has lead to a more diverse economy. My oh, my though - a step across the border and we have a similar country, similar lack of natural resources, and quite a repressive regime.

 

If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception

 

This is way to general a statement and not backed up by anything you've provided. It's an opinion, but not a particularly valid one.

 

I could easily rephrase the said statement to something like "There is a strong tendency towards an inverse relationship between resource wealth and democratic rule in countries which lack strong democratic institutions and traditions." and it would indeed be more accurate. I don't think that such modifications would undermine the claim that on the whole, the presence of vast oil reserves and the revenues that they generate have been a factor that has tended to undermine, rather than advance democratic reform in the middle east. This is one of many variables that has done so, but it's important, often overlooked, and is not easily addressed by changes in public policy. You are welcome to argue the contrary case if you wish.

 

If you broaden the scope of your reading beyond the wikipedia entry, I think you'll find that my claims that there is a connection between resource wealth and authoritarianism are supported elsewhere in the literature.

 

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/publications/research_reports/art2635.html/OA-Extractive_Sectors_and_the_Poor.pdf

 

 

 

 

[Jim]

I could easily rephrase the said statement to something like "There is a strong tendency towards an inverse relationship between resource wealth and democratic rule in countries which lack strong democratic institutions and traditions." and it would indeed be more accurate. I don't think that such modifications would undermine the claim that on the whole, the presence of vast oil reserves and the revenues that they generate have been a factor that has tended to undermine, rather than advance democratic reform in the middle east. This is one of many variables that has done so, but it's important, often overlooked, and is not easily addressed by changes in public policy. You are welcome to argue the contrary case if you wish.

 

If you broaden the scope of your reading beyond the wikipedia entry, I think you'll find that my claims that there is a connection between resource wealth and authoritarianism are supported elsewhere in the literature.

 

Now we're getting silly. You could rephrase it - but that's not what the article said. I did read several of the articles linked to the Wickapedia site - as I stated. If you going to base your argument on "scholarly" works, and not just your opinion, then don't get caught trying to bend the words to match your opinion and then accuse others providing some solid examples that contradict your opinion as non-scholarly. Cheers.

[JayB]

And another:

 

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/doesoil.pdf

 

If you are going to respond to data and arguments presented in the paper, you'll need to...actually read the paper.

 

 

[JayB]

I could easily rephrase the said statement to something like "There is a strong tendency towards an inverse relationship between resource wealth and democratic rule in countries which lack strong democratic institutions and traditions." and it would indeed be more accurate. I don't think that such modifications would undermine the claim that on the whole, the presence of vast oil reserves and the revenues that they generate have been a factor that has tended to undermine, rather than advance democratic reform in the middle east. This is one of many variables that has done so, but it's important, often overlooked, and is not easily addressed by changes in public policy. You are welcome to argue the contrary case if you wish.

 

If you broaden the scope of your reading beyond the wikipedia entry, I think you'll find that my claims that there is a connection between resource wealth and authoritarianism are supported elsewhere in the literature.

 

Now we're getting silly. You could rephrase it - but that's not what the article said. I did read several of the articles linked to the Wickapedia site - as I stated. If you going to base your argument on "scholarly" works, and not just your opinion, then don't get caught trying to bend the words to match your opinion and then accuse others providing some solid examples that contradict your opinion as non-scholarly. Cheers.

 

Wasn't claiming that the articles in question weren't "scholarly," but that they didn't specifically address the question under discussion. I've provided a paper which does specifically address these claims, which I invite you to read, if you wish to base your objection to my argument on the contention that it has no support in the literature. Just because you didn't read a paper that contains the argument or the data to support my claim, doesn't mean that such papers don't exist. If you're going to play that game, at least play it fairly.

 

Again:

 

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/doesoil.pdf

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I could easily rephrase the said statement to something like "There is a strong tendency towards an inverse relationship between resource wealth and democratic rule in countries which lack strong democratic institutions and traditions." and it would indeed be more accurate. I don't think that such modifications would undermine the claim that on the whole, the presence of vast oil reserves and the revenues that they generate have been a factor that has tended to undermine, rather than advance democratic reform in the middle east. This is one of many variables that has done so, but it's important, often overlooked, and is not easily addressed by changes in public policy. You are welcome to argue the contrary case if you wish.

 

If you broaden the scope of your reading beyond the wikipedia entry, I think you'll find that my claims that there is a connection between resource wealth and authoritarianism are supported elsewhere in the literature.

 

Now we're getting silly. You could rephrase it - but that's not what the article said. I did read several of the articles linked to the Wickapedia site - as I stated. If you going to base your argument on "scholarly" works, and not just your opinion, then don't get caught trying to bend the words to match your opinion and then accuse others providing some solid examples that contradict your opinion as non-scholarly. Cheers.

 

Wasn't claiming that the articles in question weren't "scholarly," but that they didn't specifically address the question under discussion. I've provided a paper which does specifically address these claims, which I invite you to read, if you wish to base your objection to my argument on the contention that it has no support in the literature. Just because you didn't read a paper that contains the argument or the data to support my claim, doesn't mean that such papers don't exist. If you're going to play that game, at least play it fairly.

 

Again:

 

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/doesoil.pdf

 

I'm afraid Jim is right here... you're backpeddling...

[JayB]

...and right. You are also welcome to read the paper and dispute the arguments, data, and conclusions.

[Jim]

I could easily rephrase the said statement to something like "There is a strong tendency towards an inverse relationship between resource wealth and democratic rule in countries which lack strong democratic institutions and traditions." and it would indeed be more accurate. I don't think that such modifications would undermine the claim that on the whole, the presence of vast oil reserves and the revenues that they generate have been a factor that has tended to undermine, rather than advance democratic reform in the middle east. This is one of many variables that has done so, but it's important, often overlooked, and is not easily addressed by changes in public policy. You are welcome to argue the contrary case if you wish.

 

If you broaden the scope of your reading beyond the wikipedia entry, I think you'll find that my claims that there is a connection between resource wealth and authoritarianism are supported elsewhere in the literature.

 

Now we're getting silly. You could rephrase it - but that's not what the article said. I did read several of the articles linked to the Wickapedia site - as I stated. If you going to base your argument on "scholarly" works, and not just your opinion, then don't get caught trying to bend the words to match your opinion and then accuse others providing some solid examples that contradict your opinion as non-scholarly. Cheers.

 

Wasn't claiming that the articles in question weren't "scholarly," but that they didn't specifically address the question under discussion. I've provided a paper which does specifically address these claims, which I invite you to read, if you wish to base your objection to my argument on the contention that it has no support in the literature. Just because you didn't read a paper that contains the argument or the data to support my claim, doesn't mean that such papers don't exist. If you're going to play that game, at least play it fairly.

 

Again:

 

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/doesoil.pdf

 

 

Huh? I did read that article. It's summary is that "oil rich poor countries" (and some variation of mineral-rich) are generally susceptible to undemocratic forces. It says nothing about single resouce vs multiple resource. It also makes strong distinctions regarding developed countries vs poor and undeveloped - with some variations regarding the Arabian Penninsula. Previous examples of developed countries with strong oil economies - UK, Norway, are actually backed by this paper. You could have saved yourself some grief by more accurately summarizing the article and not stretching it to accomodate your argument. 'nuff said.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

...and right. You are also welcome to read the paper and dispute the arguments, data, and conclusions.

 

I did read it. As for disputing the arguments... well the paper doesn't make the argument you make. Jim addresses this well in his response above.

[tvashtarkatena]

Your original statement;

 

If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception.

 

and your most recent statement;

 

"I don't think that such modifications would undermine the claim that on the whole, the presence of vast oil reserves and the revenues that they generate have been a factor that has tended to undermine, rather than advance democratic reform in the middle east. This is one of many variables that has done so, but it's important....

 

If you broaden the scope of your reading beyond the wikipedia entry, I think you'll find that my claims that there is a connection between resource wealth and authoritarianism are supported elsewhere in the literature.

 

 

aren't even in the same universe. But let's take your most recent, watered down paragraph. The one supported by 'the literature'. I'll simply address it by listing the nations of OPEC and their types of government. Frankly, I don't see the pattern your scholarly citations suggest. I'm guessing that your citations are opinion essays rather than data driven studies. What's more, I'd conclude from this list that oil wealth seems to favor democracy and social liberalism, even in the Middle East. In any case, the only two countries that truly match your combination of repressive autocracy and single resource (oil) production are Libya and Saudi Arabia. Two. A bit of a minority, especially from a population standpoint. Not a very predictive model, I'd say.

 

The most you can say is that oil wealth had something to do with the politics of these countries, although exactly what that is varies all over the map country by country. I wouldn't bank your Phd on what is essentially a statement, predictive as it may be, that "Yeah, oil matters...somehow."

 

OPEC Nations:

 

Algeria: Constitutional democracy

Angola: Constitutional democracy (new as of this year)

Libya: Autocracy

Nigeria: Constitutional democracy

Iran: Autocratic theocracy

Iraq: ?

Kuwait: Constitutional monarchy with elected legislature, socially moderate

Qatar: Monarchy, socially moderate

Saudi Arabia: Monarcy, socially repressive

UAE: Federation of seven monarchies, socially moderate

Venezuela: Constitutional democracy

Indonesia: Constitutional democracy

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena