If I knew all the different ways to say "stupid", would that make me smart?

I mean, call me a clod-pated idiot or a blithering, small-brained Neanderthal, but my goodness, a trip to an anti-war rally is an education in ignorance. Not the protesters--mine. The Iraq war has always been a news item for me, something I read about and liked to talk about with some education. I knew things were going badly, but I thought I knew the best way forward with my arm-chair tactics.

First lesson: we are majorly invested in Iraq. Our children are dying there, our reputation has been tarnished and frayed there, and our riches have been wasted there. The depth of our commitment is staggering. Second lesson: there are more violations of international law, misplaced spending priorities, and secret prisons in this war than you can shake a stick at. The Bush administration spends more on a single weapons program than the entire VA budget: which means wounded servicemen are worth less than a research project on killing. Last lesson: my arm chair tactics won't extract us, and they won't salvage the civil war. It's too far gone. Any extraction will be painful, messy, embarrassing, and good for the country. Like a bad marriage, Iraq is worth leaving. My favorite lines (from before the rally) came from C-Span radio, which was playing a speech by Steny Hoyers, the House Democratic leader:

"Some claim that Democrats do not have a plan for a way forward in Iraq. This is not true. In fact, Congressional Democrats have been united around three basic propositions for months: First, we must shift greater responsibility to the Iraqis for their security, and transition the principal mission of our forces from combat to training, logistics, force protection, and counter-terrorism.

"Second, we should begin the phased redeployment of our forces within the next six months. And third, we must implement an aggressive diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, which reflects the continuing obligation of the international community to help stabilize Iraq and which assists the Iraqis in achieving a sustainable political settlement.

"This alternative path will not necessarily lead to the Iraq we would have liked to see at the onset of this war. As retired Lt. General William Odom said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18: "No doubt a withdrawal will leave a terrible aftermath in Iraq, but we cannot avoid that. We can only make it worse by waiting until we are forced to withdraw."

Bloggus Redivus: Iraq and Global Warming

Or, in other words, I am back. Between vacation, video games, books, a new roommate of the female persuasion, and my ever-distracting job, I lost the habit of blogging. They say it takes three weeks to form a new habit, and very little time to lose one. Well, in the time I have been gone I have lost the habit of exercising every day (aided and abetted by winter) and gained the habit of flossing. My friend decided to train for a marathon, ran the New York City Marathon, and then stopped running for a week....which turned into three months. He tried running the other day and couldn't go more than two miles. C'est la vie.

So in my absence from this blog, I have been reading non-fiction and thinking. I owe the ideas in the ensuing paragraphs to The End of Oil by Paul Roberts, a wonderful, prescient book.

Those twin messes, global warming and Iraq, are in the news all the time. In my mind, they are becoming linked, two parts of the same problem. Our dependence on fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) is a threat to our civilization in two ways: fossil fuels cause global warming, and they have made us dependent on stable oil prices. If we continue to be utterly dependent on oil and coal, the ensuing climate changes will disrupt our way of life over the next century. But if we fail in Iraq, it is highly likely that our American way of life will be disrupted in the next decade.

Global warming is real, it is occurring right now, and so far the changes have been small and felt only by a few humans: those in the High Arctic and in Oceania, the archipelago of islands in the western Pacific. As carbon dioxide continues to increase in the world's atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, dramatic changes are going to be seen. Look at the graph above: scientists know carbon dioxide levels have driven temperature in the past 400,000 years, and carbon dioxide levels are predicted to go through the roof. Our growing dependence on fossil fuels to support our growing population and industries is leading to the increased possibility of a slow-motion crisis: rising sea levels, super-storms, mega-droughts, mass extinctions, and the disruption of agriculture planet-wide. Every time I visit New York City, I can't help but thinking of Manhattan under an extra 2 meters of water, like it will be in 2100. The subways would flood, the sewers would become inoperable, and the city would have to be completely rebuilt or abandoned.

Oil, the liquid fossil fuel, is the critical resource of our modern American civilization: we drive with it, we make plastic with it, we use it to make our fertilizer and ship our food. If oil were to run out tomorrow, we might not recover from the blow. High oil prices have preceded six of the last seven American economic recessions. Oil is steadily running out and global demand is soaring. America needs to secure a steady supply of energy for our economic survival.

If I were George Bush in the weeks after 9-11, I would be thinking about two things: the terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and world oil supplies are primarily in the Middle East. If terrorists were to destabilize the Middle East by overthrowing the Saudi government, the resulting price shock in the oil market would drive the world, and especially America, into a depression that it might not recover from for decades. Conclusion? After 9-11, there was a pressing need to stabilize the Middle East.

I believe this is the thinking that led George Bush to pursue a global war on terror and to turn a careful eye on the governments of the Middle East. Two of the three members of his "Axis of Evil" controlled a large chunk of the world oil supply. Regime change, preferably to regimes that would allow American oil companies in, was in order. Iraq had an unpopular dictator who defied American commands: they would be first. As Bush said, "A strong government to spread democracy in the Middle East." That was the plan.

Of course, the war has not gone well, turning into a vicious civil war that now threatens to become a regional war that involves Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is perhaps exactly what Bush started the war to prevent. If Iraq merely dissolves into the chaos of complete civil war, terrorists will likely use Iraq as a base to launch attacks into Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabian Sunnis and Iranian Shi'ites get drawn into a proxy war in Iraq, world oil prices will go through the roof, and America's economy will collapse overnight.

Let me reiterate that point: if we do not prevail in Iraq, a spike in world oil prices and a global depression is the most likely result. It is the highest of stakes for America.

America can adapt--to high oil prices, to global warming--but we need time. And time, in Iraq, is running out.