Swell. Blogger's gone over to a new format. I sure hope it works.

Thoughts on Iraq:

1. Bush has done a reasonably good job weathering the storm; he's gained some credit due to his interview with the TV channel Al-Arabiya and, of all things, due to the Bob Woodward book, which has reinforced his image as a decision-maker. No one can claim any more that Bush is a dumbass whose strings are being pulled by sinister and nefarious oil interests.

2. The torture scandal is getting worse by the day. All I can say is that the Army seems to be telling us what it knows. Now what we have to do is see how high up the orders to use torture went; that is, if the guy who gave them was a lieutenant or captain like Calley or Medina at My Lai, then you punish everyone involved and the Army's honor is stained but intact. If the guy who gave them was a major or colonel, then you punish everyone involved AND sack every one of their superiors who should have known about this, and the Army's honor is shot to hell. If the guy who gave them was a two-star general or higher, I see no other possible response than a planned withdrawal from Iraq, with the only condition being that we take Saddam with us. Then our military needs to be purged up and down because a lot of the wrong people are in it.

3. This is not to insult the great majority of brave and decent American soldiers who do not torture or kill prisoners. But if these guys at Al Ghraib were acting under orders that go back to the top, then the wrong people are in charge and they need to be got rid of and replaced before we can reasonably go around telling other countries how to behave.

4. If we decide to pull out of Iraq, I think this means that we need to go a little more isolationist than we've been for a while. We can't trust the UN to do anything useful, so let's pull out, exceptions being made for effective UN departments like the WHO. As for NATO and our other military alliances, let's keep them in existence as figurehead institutions, but let's pull in the line that we're willing to contain. If, say, South Korea or Germany decides it doesn't want American protection, that's fine. We'll pull out and be willing to maintain perfectly friendly relations, but the alliance is off. From now on American alliances will be bilateral only. Regarding international trade, I have no problem with the WTO; let's maintain a low-tariff or no-tariff policy toward those countries that are not openly our enemies. And regarding war, we should not go into one in the future unless we or one of our real allies (that requests our aid) are actually attacked.

5. What does this mean now? Well, we were actually attacked by Al Qaeda, and the war against them and all other terrorist gangs does not stop. Ever. Until they are defeated and preferably dead. We will hit anyplace in the world Al Qaeda is operating, kill them, and then get out. No matter what a bunch of psychos some of our soldiers are.

If we leave Iraq, it will demonstrate to any other potential enemies that our will is weak, there's no denying that. That is a huge risk. It means that our word isn't worth a damn. Which, if we've been torturing and killing prisoners under orders from the top, it isn't.

Iraq will likely fragment into an independent Kurdistan, which will be an American ally--screw the Turks, they didn't help us when they could have--and some sort of Shiite state governing from Baghdad. Fuck the Sunnis. They had their chance at fair treatment by siding with us and they blew it. That will be their problem. Turn them over to the Shiites. If the Iraqi people wanted a decent government, they'd have sided with us by now. We will also have to be prepared for hundreds of thousands of refugees from Iraq; we can't bail out on the people who supported us this time like we did in Vietnam or last time on the Kurds and Shiites.

As for the oil, that's not our problem. We have plenty of fossil fuels at home (really, enough to last for hundreds, if not thousands, of years) and our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, also rich in fossil fuels, will be thrilled to sell us more. Now, it would cost us more to extract these fossil fuels--natural gas and coal as well as petroleum--than it would cost us to buy oil from the Middle East.

See, right now we live under an international market system in oil. Now, let's say Saudi Arabia can produce oil at $5 a barrel, which it can. Even if the Saudis jack up the price to $25 a barrel, making them $20 per barrel (THIS is why oil is a problem; we don't want to steal Iraq's oil, we're afraid of what Iraq will do with all the money that keeps rolling in from its oil) it's still cheaper than it would cost us to extract some of this shale oil or whatever, which would cost $60 a barrel, say. Now, we already extract enormous quantities of fossil fuels (we're first in coal production, second in natural gas after Russia, and second after Saudi in petroleum) at competitive market prices. If the market price of Middle East oil doubled, then it would become economically feasible for us to exploit these coal-tar sands and shale and whatever. Get it?

We're all going to make economic sacrifices if we go more isolationist, since we're going to pay higher prices for energy. Since energy is only one of the many small-to-medium factors important in the economy, everything will be a bit more expensive than we're used to. It won't be hugely more so, but it'll cost Wal-Mart more to send those goods to your local superstore by truck. Two things we ought to do are slap a 25-cent-a-gallon federal tax on imported oil (maybe except for Canada or Mexico) in order to reduce consumption--yes, the consumer will eventually pay for it in higher prices on everything) and slap strict controls on the gas mileage that cars sold in the US have to get. No more Lincoln Explorers, lots more Honda Civics. Both of these measures will be highly unpopular, which is why George Bush will have to be the guy who imposes them after he wins reelection. Oh, yeah, the thing NOT to do is subsidize ethanol production, since it's more expensive to make ethanol than it is to refine gasoline.

7. As long as we're going to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future, though, let's do what we have to to win. The only dumber thing than to go to war and win is go to war and lose.