Opener Letters

Quick Victory in Short War

2006-08-11T14:02:00.000-07:00

While the Long War erodes our liberties at home (mainly because our Politically Correct elites won't concentrate our domestic countermeasures against our Islamist enemies), terrorists abroad create instabilities that raise the price of oil and thereby increase terrorist funding. What America needs is a Short War. And a quick victory in a Short War is well within our grasp, since winning the war on terror requires controlling a relatively small amount of territory occupied by a relatively friendly population.

We can seize our enemies' center of gravity by liberating the oppressed Shia Arab majorities in Iran's Khuzestan province and Saudi Arabia's Hasa province. These provinces also happen to be the sources of the oil that funds the mullahs and sheiks who run the Islamist terror programs. They are compact, and their populations have no love lost for the imperialists in Teheran and Riyadh who seized these provinces in the early 20th century.

The oil revenues could then fund an infrastructure for peace in the Middle East, with funds going to roads instead of nukes and engineering schools instead of madrassas. A coalition of the willing -- an Anglosphere+ Alliance with the US-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ-India + Japan + Germany -- could administer the funds, paying for schools and hospitals and highways throughout the region.

The Khomeinists and the Wahabbis would have a choice of resisting our liberation of those provinces and suffering the consequences in Teheran and Riyadh -- think shock and awe -- or submitting to our control of those limited territories and living in peace with their palaces and offshore bank accounts intact (or with whatever their citizens will allow them to escape with after leading their nations into a disastrous confrontation with the West). They'll probably submit, but if they don't, the Army and the Marines could sweep their forces aside, and our Iraqi allies could help restore order among their Shiite cousins.

The same coalition of the willing could form the nucleus of a new United Democracies organization, withdrawing from the United Nations and setting high standards for membership in the new global community. With control of Persian Gulf oil revenues, this community could offer real benefits to nations that meet membership standards. The Islamist threat would fade with the end of Islamist funding, which has never had anything to do with earned wealth and productivity.

Would any politician embrace using our overwhelming power to convert this Long War into a Short War? It smacks of Teddy Roosevelt, who liberated Panama when it was a Colombian province and Colombia wouldn't let the USA build a canal. Teddy didn't believe in limits on governmental power, which was not such a good thing domestically but earned the USA tremendous respect internationally. As we face radical Islam again, it's time to for a leader to arise who would fulfill a promise "Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead." George Bush, as you rightly note, Bill, does not seem to be the man. However, if he's been biding his time waiting for the opportunity, we should see that very soon. Both al-Quaida and Hezbollah have given us plenty of reason to go after Saudi and Iranian oil revenues.

Defunding the network of radical clerics sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Iran

2006-08-11T11:37:00.000-07:00

Glenn is almost there:

"We need to be going after the sponsors and encouragers of this sort of thing, not just the formerly weed-smoking dupes. In particular, that means the network of radical clerics sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Iran."

Yes, Glenn, the money comes from the Khuzestan and Hasa oil fields where Shia Arabs are oppressed majorities. Call for a policy that liberates the oppressed (sounds like whose motto?) and funds an infrastructure for peace in the Middle East, rather than nukes and terrorists.

This doesn't have to be a Long War, but we have to seize our enemies' power centers to make it a Short War. Our enemies cannot defend their source of power against our conventional forces, and they cannot fund a counterstrike when we control the oil revenues. Let's end the war against Islamism now so we can begin restoring our liberties at home.

A Really Bold Proposal for Iran

2006-07-20T15:11:00.000-07:00

Karl R. Maier's "Bold Proposal for Iran" at Strategypage suggests destroying Iran's oil fields to defund the terrorists. He says destroying the fields will convince the world we're not at war for oil. That doesn't make much sense when the US could be really bold and just brave the world's concerns that the United States is in Iraq for the Oil. Let's let the world think we're at war for oil rather than to liberate Arab Shiites, and just take the oil provinces intact from Iran and Saudi Arabia. We'd liberate the Arab Shiites nonetheless in Khuzestan and Hasa nonetheless, and give Najaf great prestige at the expense of Qom when Iraqi troops join us in the liberation.

With our dominance in the air, we can give the mullahs and the wahabbis a choice of what condition they'd like their ministries and ministers in Teheran and Riyadh to be in after we liberate those provinces -- no damage to the oil fields and no deaths in the provinces mean no damage to the ministries and no deaths in the capitals. The terror masters will be quite circumspect when they understand that their homes will be in the same condition as the oil fields when we move in, for better or for worse.

Then we'll have lower oil prices thanks to better reservoir management, and that will give the world some real shock and awe. No need to blow up fields or capitals, and we defund the terrorists all the same. It just takes a little more boldness...

Peace-loving, naturally-harmonious Islamofascists

2006-07-03T13:14:00.000-07:00

Glenn Reynolds writes about voyeuristic idealization as the reason "Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, does popular culture portray primitives as peace-loving folk living in harmony with nature, as opposed to rapacious and brutal civilization?" Indeed. Beyond Marie Antoinette playing peasant, we see Michael Moore playing insurgent, and the mainstream media treating terrorism as the inevitable reaction to our attempt to bring democracy to the heart of the Middle East. Those peace-loving, naturally-harmonious Islamofascists get plenty of support from popular culture.

Passes for Third-World Oppressors

2006-06-01T13:04:00.000-07:00

It seems to [Glenn Reynolds] that events like [IRANIAN PROTESTERS KILLED] would get a lot more attention if they were happening in Iraq. "So why are they being ignored, now?" Glenn asks.

Glenn already pointed to Helen's review of Shelby Steele's extended explanation: White Guilt... being a Third-World imperialist oppressor means never having to say you're sorry. Only Western (white) imperialist oppressors have to say their sorry, and they have to say they're sorry even if they don't kill any demonstrators.

Third world imperialist oppressors can use unearned oil wealth to finance world-wide terror, and the West can only try to take the terrorists out one-by-one in a Long War, instead turning the War on Terror into a Short War by liberating oppressed minorities (Shia Arabs) living in the terror masters' oil provinces and administering the oil wealth to create infrastructure for the local residents instead of funding terror movements around the world.

Those are the rules when White Guilt molds the mainstream media's coverage, and the political class try not to upset the politically correct.

Murawiec on redrawing the lines

2006-05-25T11:12:00.000-07:00

In a great interview about the dark kingdom of Saudi Arabia, posted November 22, 2005 at National Review online, headlined“Talibans with Oil and a Good P.R. Company,” the following exchange took place:

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What do you anticipate Saudi Arabia looking like in ten years?

Murawiec: Split in its original component parts conquered between 1910 and 1934 by Ibn Saud as his sword was carving him an empire: Hasa, the predominantly Shiite eastern province with the oil, along the Gulf coast; Hijaz, the Red Sea province open to international trade since the dawn of history; Asir, largely Shiite, brutally wrested from Yemen... and these segments then trying to enter some form of association, perhaps with others in the peninsula. The Soviet Union had been born in 1921, and Yugoslavia too: They were older, when they toppled, than Saudi Arabia now is.

The terror masters in Iran and Saudi Arabia are imperialist oppressors, and having gotten used to oppressing the weak and poor, they'd like nothing more to oppress the strong and rich, like the United States. King Abdullah and Ayatollah Khameini aren't practiced at hiding, like Saddam was, and to save their skins you can be pretty sure they'd issue the orders not to resist the Marines as they liberate the Shia Arabs in Khuzestan and the 82nd Airborned as they liberate the Shia Arabs in Hasa. With the Anglosphere (including India) plus Japan and (Merkel's so good we ought to think about it) Germany administering the oil revenues, there'd be no more unearned wealth backing terrorists or nuclear proliferation in either country.

If Iran's Kurds and Azeris want to join Iraq's Kurds and Azerbaijan's Azeris, then perhaps we could convince them all to join some kind of association with the Persians and the Wahabbis, but it would have to be an association where Islamic radicals from Riyadh and Qom never get their hands on any oil money. If they want to export their fanaticism, let them figure out how to make that pay.

Do you prefer your mullahs ousted or bankrupt?

2006-05-25T09:16:00.000-07:00

Unrest in Iran is evident among Persians, Azeris and Arabs, as Gateway Pundit observes. This is scary, as the mullahs have shown themselves more than willing to murder opponents, and reports say that numbers of protesters were killed on the scene or arrested for death by torture. If the Iranians can overthrow the mullahs and create a democratic regime without our help, more power to them. However, my comment at Gateway Pundit was this:

The Persians and the Azeris can take care of themselves, but the Ahwazis ought to get US support to secede from Iran -- Khuzestan province, with its Shia Arab majority, has all Iran's oil. If the Iranian people can't get their act together to take political power away from the mullahs, soon, the Marines can easily take away their financial power by liberating Khuzestan's Shia Arabs from their Persian imperialist oppressors. Once the mullahs can no longer fund Hezbollah, a big part of the world's terrorist infrastructure will go down. (And if the 82nd Airborne liberates the Shia Arabs in Saudi Arabia's Eastern province from the Wahabbi sheiks at the same time, there won't be much terrorist infrastructure left -- moves that let us convert the Long War into a Short War, and that put rogue governments on notice that supporting terror outside your borders can do great damage to your regime.)

Science Non-fiction

2006-05-20T18:22:00.000-07:00

Glenn Reynolds' "An Army of Davids" tours the horizon as advancing technologies increasingly let individuals productively move away from mass organizations back to humanity's artesanal roots. He addresses these individuals' principal tools (microchips, software, fiber optics and sensors), their crucial support systems (comfy chairs in third places offering caffeine), their prominent applications (news and analysis, entertainment and fashions, security), and new tools that will empower their crafts in the future: nanotech, biotech, and spacetech. He extrapolates these advances towards a new horizon: the Singularity, where tools themselves become sentient and design even newer tools taking our technology beyond human ken.

Reynolds' keen eye highlights numerous anecdotes that illustrate his theses well. The huge information flow he has attracted with his influential commentary on current events at his Instapundit blog serves his book readers well. His blog readers send him hundreds of emails a day with news about his wide-ranging interests, which season his own ongoing search for valuable reading and, increasingly, audio and video materials about those interests. With clever turns of phrase, he gives readers his own perspective on those stories, building up a strong case for his own general optimism for the direction technology is taking humanity.

He chooses his aphorists well, writing about and quoting many analysts who pithily shed light about the trends he finds compelling. For those who want a deeper analysis, he provides many references to the analysts he respects on his chosen topics. He is quite fair in discussing the ideas of technological pessimists, honestly admitting the dangers that arise when evil individuals have the same access to powerful tools as the good. If you end up sharing his optimism about these trends, it's not because he has only presented one side of the story.

And just what is Reynolds' story? He describes the humanity's transition from the small scale enterprises characterizing the hundreds of centuries from the Neolithic to the Industrial Revolution to the Dilbert Interlude of large scale enterprise encompassing the two centuries past, and then back to small scale enterprises again coordinated by the power of microchips, software, and fiber optics. He tells it with rich, lively illustrations and great sympathy for its participants. Importantly, he focuses on how this affects us in America today, and how it's likely to change America going forward. His focus on America leaves out a lot -- in terms of global population, the huge and ongoing shift of Chinese off the farms and into new industrial enterprises (Dilbert lives!) shows that industrialization is far from over -- but does effectively capture the leading edge of this shift in the efficient economic scale for various activities.

Reynolds tells his story pretty much wearing his blogger/journalist hat. He's a lawyer by trade, but he doesn't use the law as an analytical framework very much. His discussion of the comfy chair revolution ends up at the boundaries of acceptable public conduct, and his discussion of home-made content ends up at Big Media's regulatory restrictions, but generally he focuses on observations that appeal to a wider public, and even where he gets into these specialized discussions, you can certainly argue that the wider public's interests would be better served in it took an interest in these kinds of regulatory issues. Most of what he includes is "gee whiz, that's really neat."

In terms of tying it all together, his Army of Davids theme is very successful. The Internet and blogging have enabled ad-hoc coalitions to quickly form around important subjects and bring effective pressure to bear on institutions that previously enjoyed immunity from public pressure. He lists several instances where people in pajamas took on the suits and won, and since his book came out, they just keep coming. Hilton Hotel's Brian Kelleher, for example, might have behaved quite differently if he read AoD before his email account crashed with protests about Fran O'Brien's' closing, and the Hilton Corporations of the world will find it a lot harder to recover from their missteps now that bloggers can get inside their decision cycle.

Still, Reynolds could have enriched his Army of Davids theme even more by discussing Chris Anderson's Long Tail analysis. Perhaps because he thinks of economics as equilibrium and learning curves as military, he missed taking his connection of diversity as a consequence of capitalism with the possibilities for corps, divisions, regiments, battalions, companies, platoons, squads, and fire teams of Davids. More analysis of how the Internet unites and empowers small groups to pursue their own distinct interests definitely could have improved the analysis, and would have highlighted the diversity that characterizes the blogosphere between the occasional blogswarm that groups everyone together. And it does take a blogswarm to bring down a goliath.

One of the neat things about industrialization was that it finally allowed great designs to be mass-produced, so that rather than buying an indifferently designed pistol from your local artisan, you could buy a masterpiece of design from Sam Colt. That doesn't mean that industrialists never produced schlock, but the onset of aggregation, uniformity and economies of scale in the 19th and 20th centuries brought us some wonderful benefits that we still enjoy when great designs are mass produced. Where diversity, variety and efficiences in small-scale and one-off production pay off is in trying out new possibilities to find the important innovations that will captivate a broad public. People increasingly can make a living with the small successes thanks to the long tail, and comfortably make a lot more of the trials that we inescapably have to attempt before something big comes along to change the terms the goliaths operate on.

All those little trials attempted by all those Davids ensure that breakthroughs keep on coming, and the breakthroughs fuel economic growth. Reynolds isn't an economist, but one hopes he could take the time to learn about churn from Michael Cox and Donal Hicks and combinatorially-growing economic diversity from Stuart Kauffman and John Holland. John Holland's comments on software improvements versus hardware improvements might give him a useful perspective to consider Kurzweil's analysis about the Singularity. AI's progress simply hasn't kept pace with Moore's Law. and the fact that we'll have faster and cheaper processing power doesn't mean that computers will develop design abilities or self-awareness. Those combinatorially-growing possibilities leave a lot decision space to explore. By comparison, chess is child's play, so that when we start asking AI to deal with the real world without our language instincts, we're going to have to laugh at their stumbles. Looking through the warehouses full of failed consumer products or the crazy patents people spent good money to file will seem like solid common sense in comparison.

For someone without formal economic training, Reynolds does pick up on some very good points. In terms of analyzing new technologies, stasists tend to focus on unknown costs to scare the rest of us away from floating any trial balloons. Like a good dynamist, Reynolds rightly notes that the benefits are also unknown, and may make any risky trials well worth taking. Stasists underestimate the number of good people out there trying to make new technologies serve mankind, whether motivated by profit opportunities or altruism. There's a natural bias for people to extract the good that technologies offer us, and Reynolds picks up on that optimistic bias. He has a very nice discussion on prizes, too, as a economical way of motivating people to look for good things.

He misses some points too, though. Thousands of artisans may take away a bit of Budweiser's market at the margins, but brewing beer isn't an activity that's enjoyed declining costs. You're not going to see a new brewer come along and sweep Bud aside. Info processing has had huge declines in costs, though, letting the producers of "Open Water" spend weekends in the Bahamas and come home with footage that can put Hollywood studios to shame. Glenn doesn't properly distinguish between the impact of the different kinds of Davids. The Open Water folks have created a mass household in a way the local brewer never will.

This carries over into his take on the impacts of future technologies as well. Nanotech and biotech are essentially information-processing technologies that are destined to generate enormous transformations of just what people do, generating tremendous opportunities for what Jane Jacobs characterized as new work. Spacetech, on the other hand, is a matter-moving technology. While space elevators are sure to provide dramatic decreases in costs per pound to reach orbit, it's not clear what matter is out in space that can't be found more conveniently here on Earth. As geology and geophysics advance, we're finding hugely-rich mineral resources under just a few feet of seawater. For oil, this hasn't kept resources from turning into reserves and production. For metals, a few feet of seawater might as well put those resources on the far side of the moon in terms of our likelihood of ever producing from them. Earth mining is likely to stay more efficient than space mining for a very long time. Certainly the costs of providing air to miners in space aren't likely to be competitive any time soon.

And if space is mainly a tourist business, which does seem viable as combinatorially-advancing technologies put geometrically-increasing wealth in the hands of more and more Davids who will buy air in outer space, it doesn't seem too likely to protect humanity from some galloping plague. Commercial ties make the remotest settlements vulnerable, as permafrost burials from the 1918 flu epidemic show. If the government's going to invest in technologies to keep humanity going in any event, the money ought to go into subsidizing good guys biotech so the keep ahead of the virus hackers, rather than encouraging pleasure jaunts to Jupiter.

That's not to say we don't need to occupy the high ground. For defense, space offers unparalleled dominance. Turn Project Orion over to the Navy, and we'll see nuclear-powered spacecraft carriers guarding our shores and commerce from any physical attacks, and have a way to reach out and touch anyone anywhere who tries to sneak in with infotech, nanotech, or biotech subversion. The riches created by an Army of Davids exploring the possibilities opened up by collapsing costs in all these information-processing technologies will make that affordable, especially with space elevators to cheaply take the bombs up without setting any off in the atmosphere.

Reynolds' merits in this work far outweigh any lacunae from his somewhat imperfect understanding of and attention to economics. He's right on the money in trusting our security to packs educated by wargaming, rather than bureaucratic shepherds checking little old ladies for shoebombs. Horizontal knowledge and swarming are going to make those herds incredibly powerful, and not just against terrorists. Politicians are starting to learn just what Porkbusters are capable of. We're entering into a golden era where economic diversity leads to rapid stable growth, as Davids keep needing to hire more people to take advantage of all their inventions and discoveries. And they won't be able to hire them unless they're "..helping people to do what they want to do, not getting them to do what you want them to," as Reynolds says. The Singularity it's not, but we're very likely to appreciate the advent of those projuvenation technologies that let us stick around to see it all (and if you don't know about that, Reynolds gives you a nice introduction).

So, read the Army of Davids and see where the future might be taking us. Just take it with a grain of salt here and there. Reynolds always has at least the gist of what's going on, if not the exact details. He's already living much of what will be the future for many of us. As William Gibson said many times, "As I've said many times, the future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed." And Reynolds was pretty darn close when he put the words "The future has already arrived -- it's just not evenly distributed" in Gibson's mouth.

Liberation Means Non-Proliferation

2006-05-17T10:20:00.000-07:00

Saudi Arabia and its neighbors are talking about buying nukes with their oil money, because Iran is building nukes with theirs. Saudi Arabia's oil-producing Eastern province is full of Shia Arabs who hate their Wahabbi imperialist oppressors, as is Iran's oil-producing Khuzestan province, whose Shia Arabs hate their Persian imperialist oppressors.

None of the Shia Arabs are talking about buying or building nukes. Perhaps it's time for the 82nd Airborne to liberate the Eastern province Shiites while the Marines liberate the Khuzestan Shiites. With no more money flowing to the Wahabbis or Persians, the War on Terror would pretty much be over (it doesn't have to be a Long War -- we only make it one by giving our enemies sanctuaries).

With the Anglosphere plus Japan administering the oil revenues to ensure transparency, the Middle Eastern infrastructure boom and reduced geopolitical risks would be good for the whole world economy.

So, let's do it before any more nations start brandishing nukes.

"Hilton dishonors veterans"

2006-05-10T09:03:00.000-07:00

"Hilton dishonors veterans," 2.7 million-member American Legion spokeswoman Ramona Joyce said. "It's a foolish move. They could have come out shining, supporting the dinners and supporting the veterans. Business won."

Evict Brian Kelleher, restore Fran O'Brien's. And do it before an Army of Davids puts a global crimp in Hilton's business, which didn't win and won't win as long as millions of veterans and their families and supporters are hopping mad at what Brian Kelleher did at one single location.

Adjectives for Instapundit

2006-05-03T17:43:00.000-07:00

Glenn Reynolds notes "Of course, if we seized the Saudi and Iranian oil fields and ran the pumps full speed, oil prices would plummet, dictators would be broke, and poor nations would benefit from cheap energy. But we'd be called imperialist oppressors, then." Regular readers here (are there any?) know I'd agree with that. But readers here know Glenn missed a couple of important adjectives when he followed up by calling the Saudis and Iranians "...racist, sexist, homophobic theocrats! (Literally!)"

The Saudis are Sunni Wahabbis who run an empire out of Riyadh, oppressing, among others, Shia Arabs who are the majority in the oil-producing (al-Sharqiyah) Eastern Province. The Iranians are Shia Persians who run an empire out of Tehran, oppressing, among others, Shia Arabs who are the majority in the oil-producing Khuzistan province. Oppressing, among others those Shia Arabs makes them, literally, imperialist, oppressor, racist, sexist, homophobic theocrats. They just started their oppressions in 1913 (the Saudis) and 1925 (the Persians) when it wasn't such a big deal, and now not too many people know they are now and have been for a while imperialist oppressors. Apparently, the left thinks you have to be white to be an imperialist oppressor, and don't let the facts get in the way of the conclusion.

As you look around Opener Letters, you'll see a lot of posts on this, but the one on Mark Steyn links to an article explaining, among other things, that the Marine Corps intelligence guys have Hicks and Associates studying Iranian minorities (and the Ahwazi Arabs -- those Shia in Khuzestan -- know that the Marines are studying them, as you'll see by following the Ahwazi Arabs link there and searching for the Marines in the compendium of articles).

Also, even though running the fields at full tilt in Saudi Arabia wouldn't make a big difference, running them at full tilt in Iran would. The Persians have a reputation for doing a terrible job at petroleum engineering. And once we cut off terrorist funding, the attacks keeping Iraqi production down would subside. And political risk would be way down, too, eliminating a big premium for what the crazies might do. And with the instructive example, you'd see a lot less craziness in other fields.

2006-05-03T12:35:00.000-07:00

Subject: **Fran O'Briens**
From: "Capital Hilton"
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006

May 1, 2006

Thank you for your letter. We first want to emphasize that Hilton Hotels Corporation is deeply grateful for the service, sacrifice and devotion of our troops and their families.

Our business relationship with Fran O’Brien’s has come to an end effective May 1, 2006, due to their refusal to pay rent and make necessary improvements in order to comply with the terms of their lease.

We fully support our troops and have offered to host and sponsor the dinners moving forward. We recognize and salute the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and will continue to demonstrate our gratitude to them.

Sincerely,
Brian Kelleher
General Manager
Capital Hilton Hotel

Brian,

Your behavior regarding Fran O'Brien's, according to the sources I've been following, is worse than despicable. Your statements on the issue have been so opaque that I can only believe those sources, who offer credible details from multiple witnesses. If the Capital Hilton Hotel were to remove you today as General Manager, it would be far from enough to satisfy me that Hilton Corporation had seen the light, but it would be a small step in the right direction. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. Your behavior completely belies your words. You have demonstrated conclusively that Hilton Hotels Corporation is deeply contemptuous of the service, sacrifice and devotion of our troops and their families.

You ended your business relationship with Fran O'Brien's effective May 1, 2006, because renewing their lease would commit you to the necessary improvements in order to comply with the terms of Americans with Disabilities Act. Your stiffing them on unpaid room service charges was more than enough reason for them to tell you to use that debt to offset their rent. Your pretexts are as transparent as your details are opaque.

Your attempt to host and sponsor the dinners moving forward is a transparent effort to cloak yourself in the goodwill they created by innovatively support our troops. You trying to steal their ideas while throwing them in the street is what really disgusts me, even more than your despicable hypocrisy and your despicable treatment of the disabled in general and disabled veterans in particular. You are beneath contempt.

You are so far from recognizing and saluting the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, you are so far from demonstrating your gratitude to them, that Hilton Hotels might never be able to air out the stench from your stay with them.

Most sincerely,

Mark White

A Short War, not a Long War (comment at Opinion Journal)

2006-05-02T13:19:00.000-07:00

Shelby Steele's White Guilt thesis is well illustrated by the USA's unwillingness to even consider defunding our terrorist adversaries in the Iranian and Saudi Empires. In both, radical elements run regimes that oppress the Shia Arab minorities concentrated in the oil-producing provinces.

In the Iranian Empire, Bernard Lewis has noted, the revolutionary-style Shiite Persian overlords in Tehran are led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a dangerous radical who holds "apocalyptic" visions of Islam. In the Saudi Empire, Mr. Lewis notes, Wahhabist leaders and oil money fuel the current Islamic extremism in Saudi Arabian, which he described as an extremely violent and intolerant strain of Islam -- "Wahhabism is to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity."

Without oil money, neither revolutionary Shiites nor Wahhabist Sunnis would have much influence. They couldn't fund terrorists, nor could they fund the radical Islam that provides the sea terrorists swim in. They couldn't fund nuclear weapons or missile programs. And taking away their funding is well within the reach of the US military.

Across the border from Iraq to the east lies Iran's Khuzistan Province, which produces 90% of Iran's oil revenues. To Iraq's west, Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province produces the bulk of Saudi oil revenues. Oppressed Shia Arabs constitute the majority of both province's populations. The Marines and the 82nd Airborne could seize both provinces in days, and Shia Arab troops from Iraq could maintain order among the liberated populations while they create their own governing institutions.

Shorn of their oil revenues, radical Islam and terror would quickly collapse in both Tehran and Riyadh. The Long War envisioned by so many would turn into another one of the Short Wars that happen when Western forces confront Third World forces.

But, as Mr. Steele notes, the left would characterize the liberation of Shia Arabs as White colonialism against innocent Brown nations, rather than the end of the Persian and Wahhabist imperialism that oppresses those Shia Arabs. And if the Anglosphere (US - UK - Canada - Australia - India) + Japan did take it on themselves to administer the oil wealth with complete transparency for the direct benefit of populations throughout the Middle East, building infrastructure and educating youth, the left would go apoplectic screaming "blood for oil." Never mind that transparent administration would advance the region's welfare far more the radical Islam's terrorist "oil for Blood" policies do now.

Comment on Mark Steyn's Paean to True Multiculturalists

2006-04-28T18:45:00.000-07:00

Hi, Mark Steyn,

You'll be pleased to know the Marines have begun studying the different ethnicities encompassed by theIranian Empire. Lieutenant-Colonel Rick Long confirmed the story for Guy Dinmore: Hicks andAssociates are indeed informing our expeditionary specialists that there are some powerful separatist currents in Iran, most importantly among the AhwaziArabs who constitute the majority of the population inKhuzistan province, where 90% of Iran's oil lies.

With the 101st Airborne escorting the Pesh Merga intoIranian Kurdistan, the Persians ought to be plenty distracted enough for the Marines and Brits to escort a couple of divisions of Maliki's Iraqi Army to liberate their fellow Arabs from Persian oppression. Hell, we could send in the 82nd Airborne to liberate the Shiite Arabs in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province at the same time, and defund both the big terrorist-sponsoring, nuke-building regimes at once. If they say boo-hoo, the Air Force will be around to make them regret it.

This business of knowing who's who has its advantages, especially when the Wahabees have been oppressing the Sheahs enough to make them eager for liberation, and the Parsee Sheahs have been oppressing the Arab Sheahs enough to make them eager for liberation, too, and with the Sheah Arabs living where all the oil is!

If we decide to take our iron back, the Sheahs will be happy to help us and the Wahabees will just have to pass around collection plates at the mosque and see if that produces enough scratch to keep their imams in charge.

This could be a very short war if we just decided to end it. No financing means no terrorist financing, and no terrorist financing means no terror. War over, US/UK/Australia/Canada/India/Japan (Anglosphere +Japan) win, and as an alliance we administer the oil revenues to build a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Middle East while expanding oil production to fuel global growth.

Jane Jacobs: Brilliant Pioneer on Economic Growth

2006-04-27T18:02:00.000-07:00

Jane Jacobs, uncorrupted by dogma, made some stunningly astute observations on economics. If time affords, I'd like to read all she's written, because what little I have read confirms she was decades ahead of most academic economists.

Yet when I google for evidence that people are quoting her two most important insights -- or at least what I consider to be her two most important insights -- it's almost like she's an unknown writer.

"Innovating economies expand and develop." That's her most important insight, and googling for people who quote her turns up about 15 results (try it yourself!). I was able to cobble together most of the paragraph from a couple of different sources:

"Our remote ancestors did not expand their economics much by simply doing more of what they had already been doing … They expanded their economics by adding new kinds of work. So do we. Innovating economies expand and develop. Economies that do not add new kinds of goods and services, but continue only to repeat old work, do not much expand nor do they, by definition, develop.” - Jane Jacobs, The Economy of Cities, 1969, pg 49. (The chapter title, "How New Work Begins," generates one result.)

Her other stunning insight is on how Roman Law -- prohibiting what you don't permit -- affects the process of adding new work to old. Googling for this observation turned up one result, and only a partial one at that:

"...forced to stay within prearranged categories -- whether by zoning, by economic planning, or by guilds, associations or unions -- the process of adding new work to old can occur little if at all."

But then, the realization that prosperity really is that simple doesn't seem very widespread.

Still, in 1969, Jane told us almost all we really need to know about economics: innovation creates growth and wealth, and you have to permit what you don't prohibit (i.e. Common Law) if you want innovation -- that is, if you don't force work to stay in prearranged categories, you'll naturally get innovation with its attendant growth and wealth. If you then endow innovators with equity to properly motivate them to strive for new work, then you have a wealth machine. Jane doesn't discuss equity explicitly, which is a shame, but at least she assumes implicitly that people who start new businesses own them.

Jacobs made her two crucial observations, but she then let her analogy of corporations as living organisms confuse her analysis. She said large corporations with internal divisions of labor were sterile except for their reproductive organs -- research and development departments. She correctly noted that R&D frequently produced wonderful innovations that the corporation then failed to capitalize on.

In fact, in 1969, Charles Koch was just beginning to grow Koch Industries with Market-Based Management, which indeed permitted what it didn't prohibit. Koch Industries was and is wonderfully creative in creating new work on old, even while maintaining the internal coordination needed to keep up the old work that remains competitive. Rather then central planning -- forcing divisions to stay in prearranged categories -- Koch Industries creates internal markets, like a miniature version of a market economy (and while the Koch family retains sole ownership, they do give employees a form of virtual equity for motivation)*. It works, beautifully, but Jacobs didn't chance to observe it in time to amend and extend her observations on how new work begins (fortunately, Thomas Petzinger did).

Jane's analogy of the corporation as living organism wouldn't have led her so far astray if she'd been as clued in on Lynn Margulis's ideas of symbiosis driving the origin of species as she was on the idea of cities driving the origin of agriculture, but then, Margulis's ideas were yet in the future.

To get a detailed ideas of how new work begins, you need to look more closely at evolution, and in particular at the ideas of Stuart Kauffman and John Holland. Their two chapters in the Santa Fe Institute's The Economy as a Complex Evolving System brilliantly describe how new work evolves as new combinations of modular elements drawn from existing work. Kauffman's use of fitness landscapes illuminates the interactions between new work and old, and his discussion of the adjacent possible shows the vast potential the economy has for future development. Holland's genetic algorithms offer an abstract description of how different modules come together to create new combinations, and how evolution balances exploration for new work together with exploitation of old work. Together, they show us how humanity explores the economic fitness landscape, climbing learning curves and adaptation curves (jumps from one fitness peak to another) to find better ways of accomplishing things that people want done. (Clayton Christensen doesn't have a theory of adaptation curves, but his work aptly describes the process of climbing them.) (The Dallas Fed's Michael Cox and Richard Alm aptly describe how creative destruction keep the economy churning.) (My own work contrasts, inaptly, the economic effects of Roman Law and Common Law -- I should further clarify how Roman Law helps the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful, which makes it a constant temptation for a government and its bureaucracies.)

So, Jane had the basics, and influenced both Kauffman and Holland in their thinking on the process of beginning new work. If we taught undergraduate what the three of them taught us on how to grow firms and economies, we'd have a lot more growth than we do now.

Just as an aside, George Soros has a much better explanation of mergers and acquisitions that Jacobs -- they stem from corporations using high-priced shares to buy assets cheap** rather than from underlying economic motivations as Jacobs would have it. But then, she didn't pay much attention to equities and markets.

* A little fair-use of Petzinger's 4/18/97 WSJ/Dow Jones copyrighted column:

"Drawing on economics, psychology and the history of science, Mr. Koch runs his company on what he calls "market-based management," which he regularly teaches to employees. Though the execution is often complex, the main idea is simple: The free market is an information system whose power in society can be drawn inside a company.'

"The concept is rooted in the right. Mr. Koch's father, Fred, was an ardent anti-Communist with a library full of free-market literature. One day in 1962, Charles, a newly minted M.I.T. engineer, pulled down a book on the Austrian school of economics, which describes free economies as systems of spontaneous, unplanned order. "I spent the next two years almost like a hermit, surrounded by books," he says. And it dawned on him that if central control was a "fatal conceit" in an economy, to quote the economist F.A. Hayek, why should it be any different in a firm?'

"SO SINCE ASSUMING his father's post in 1967, Mr. Koch has hacked away at command-and-control structures, transforming the $177 million-a-year oil company into the second-largest private company in America. Yet outside his endowment of libertarian causes and a long-running financial imbroglio with an estranged brother, his moves have drawn scant public notice."

** The relevant discussion should turn up in a Google search of -- "george soros" reflexivity "earnings per share" acquisitions -- but if it's in those 68 results (many of them repeats), it's not obvious at first glance.

Comment at Tigerhawk's Tanker Wars Post

2006-04-26T18:49:00.000-07:00

When you talk about dissatisfaction in Iran, don't limit yourself to Persians, who are only around 50% of the population. The mullahs already face a significant rebellion in Kurdish Iran (10% of Iran's population) and are shelling Kurdish Iraq over the border to try to settle the Pesh Merga.

The most significant minority population in Iran, though, is not the rebellious Kurds. Unlike their brothers in Iraq, they're nowhere near oil. The Ahwazi Arabs in Khuzistan (5% of Iran's population), though, are a majority of that province's population, and that's where all Iran's oil comes from. Split off the Ahwazi Arabs and suddenly all Iran's oil wealth disappears.

Mr. Dunn's article shows us how easy that would be. In fact, it looks so easy that we ought to defund the Wahabbis over in Saudi Arabia at the same time. The Shiite Arabs in the eastern provinces, where all the Saudi oil is, have been oppressed by Sunnis long enough. It's time the Shiite Arabs around the Gulf came together in one nation, with help from the Anglosphere (US, UK, Canada, Australia, India), Japan, and the Shiite majority in Iraq.

The Persians ought to do well enough without the oil, once the overthrow the mullahs and start putting their educations to work.

Big hat-tip to Tigerhawk for the Dunn article link

Comment at Tigerhawk's Brothel Post

2006-04-26T18:46:00.000-07:00

Rulers in both Saudi Arabia and Iran use their unearned oil wealth to export radical Islam. The protesters (who presumably violate German law and subject themselves to arrest and prosecution by appearing in public wearing masks and bearing arms) are "protecting" their financiers. Those financiers will certainly use that unearned wealth to attend the World Cup and make new girlfriends (unless they behave way out of character), but they'll do so hypocritically -- do as we say, not as we do.

We can protecting Western free speech from radical Islam most directly by defunding Islamic radicals. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are empires, with many disparate communities ruled from imperial capitals. The unearned oil wealth of Riyadh and Tehran is concentrated in provinces with Shiite Arab majorities, oppressed in their homes by small numbers of Wahabbi Arabs from Riyadh and Revolutionary Guard Persians from Tehran. With help from our Anglosphere allies (principally the UK, Canada, Australia, and India), from Japan, and from our new Shiite Arab allies in Iraq, the USA could make very short work of those Wahhabis and Revolutionary Guards, and administer that oil wealth to create infrastructure and democracy in the Middle East rather than exporting radical Islam to the rest of the world.

Confronting those masked protesters with the challenges of making a living will soon turn their energies to other, less noxious, pursuits.

Comment at Daniel Drezner's Blog

2006-04-26T18:42:00.000-07:00

The principal interest the United States has in the Middle East is seeing oil revenues channeled into infrastructure to improve the lives of Middle Eastern populations, rather than terror weapons to support Islamic radicals in the global jihad.

The Luttwak article Daniel recently linked notes that for Iran, Sunni Arabian oil dynasties very conveniently have Shiite minorities to be mobilized. Very inconveniently for Iran, though, these Shiite minorities are not Persian, but rather Shia Arabs who are much more sympathetic towards fellow Shia Arabs in Iraq than Shia Persians in Iran. Even more inconveniently for Iran, the Persian Empire also has a Shiite Arab minority to mobilize who are also much more sympathetic towards Shia Arabs in Iraq than Shia Persians in Iran. Most inconveniently of all for Iran, the Shiite Arab minorities in Iran are majorities in the provinces where Iran's oil actually occurs.

Given unmatched American military strength in the Northern Persian Gulf and close relations with Ayatollah Sistani, who would no doubt like to see these friendly Shiite Arab populations liberated from their Persian opressors, the US is in a wonderful position to defund the Shiite radicals funded by Tehran. As Laurent Murawiec notes, the Saudi oil provinces also have a majority of Shia Arabs who are much more sympathetic towards fellow Shia Arabs in Iraq than Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia.

A couple of American divisions supporting a couple of Iraqi divisions could control the Northern Persian Gulf, not only defunding 12th Imam Persian Shiite radicals funded by Tehran, but also Wahhabi Sunni Arab radicals funded by Riyadh. We defang Islamic radicals of both stripes simply by dismembering the empires created for Persian and Saudi oppressors by British and French colonialists in the aftermath of World War I.

This wouldn't be blood for oil, it would be blood for liberation, since we would be liberating Shia Arabs from the colonization by imperialist opressors. Ayatollah Sistani would bless the Shia Arab divisions that join us in liberating their neighboring cousins from foreign domination out of Tehran and Riyadh, and agree to international administration of the northern gulf's oil resources in return for the opportunity to unite all Shia Arabs with Najaf. With those Shia Arab divisions at our side, liberating the Shia-majority oil provinces from the Persians in Tehran and the Sunnis in Riyadh ought to earn us a very warm welcome.

Defunding both Tehran and Riyadh seems like a geopolitical masterstroke, fixing the leftover problems from the WWI peace settlement created when those older empires thought they would control those territories and resources. This seems like an entirely appropriate response to the threat that radicals from both the Iranian Empire and the Saudi Empire pose to world stability. Once we put northern Persian Gulf oil production under US-UK-Australia-Canada-Japan-India administration, there's no more worries about an Islamic bomb -- neither the Iranians nor the Saudis will have the money to build it. Nor will they have the money to continue funding Shiite and Sunni extremism.

Roll Over, Ahmadinejad

2006-04-26T17:00:00.000-07:00

Further research into "Redrawing the Map" has turned up similarities between the Mark White Plan and the Bernard Lewis Plan -- a bugaboo for folks on the other side who want it to be about oil instead of liberation. Woodrow Wilson had Bernard and me both beat by decades, but the French and English victors weren't quite over their imperial phase, so we did end up with the Saudi Empire and the Iranian Empire, among others, instead of a Middle East divided into nations.

Serendipity, though, via Tigerhawk, led to JR Dunn's discussion of the Tanker War, which is notable in showing just how much of a pushover Iran would be. If the Wahhabi's National Guard folds like the mullah's Revolutionary Guards, we'll have lots of very happy Shiite Arabs and some very chastened Islamofascists.

True Humility

2006-04-26T12:01:00.000-07:00

If you google the word "search," you discover true humility:

Further Open Letter on Fran O"Brien's

2006-04-21T09:38:00.000-07:00

Statement Regarding Fran O’Brien’s Restaurant
Wednesday, April 19, 2006

For strictly business reasons related solely to the inability to reach a new lease agreement, the Capital Hilton has elected to terminate the lease with the operator of Fran O’Brien’s restaurant at the hotel. This decision was not at all related to the Friday night dinners for disabled veterans but rather a result of lease negotiations that failed. The hotel offered to host and sponsor the May 5, 2006 dinner and expressed interest in working closely with the veterans to continue the Friday night tradition.

The Capital Hilton prides itself on its involvement and support of many community organizations and events and has provided complimentary or discounted rooms to families with veterans in the hospital, donated facilities to military organizations and most recently hosted a meeting for 300 people.

Please feel free to contact Lisa Cole, should you need further information.

Contact: Lisa Cole, Director of Communications
305-503-6503 786-866-7567 305-796-8383 Lisa_cole@hilton.com

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006
Subject: Fran O'Brien's Update
To: Lisa_cole@hilton.com, atish_shah@hilton.com

Dear Ms. Cole,

Your interest in Hilton's reputation should have led you to clarify this issue if you're in the right, but all the clarifications seem to be coming from the veteran's side (see link). The Hilton side just seems to keep repeating generic statements with no details that could help its reputation.

Indeed, the clarifications coming from the veteran's side seem to indicate ever more firmly that you are in the wrong. You need to renew Fran O'Brien's lease immediately, and pay damages.

http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2006/04/fran_obriens_up.html#

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 From:
Subject: Reputational Damage and Hilton Investors
To: atish_shah@hilton.com, Lisa_cole@hilton.com

Dear Ms. Shah,

You might be interested in my comment on Mudville Gazette's latest Fran O'Brien's update:

"Bock said there's still time to reach an agreement between the Capital Hilton management team and Fran O'Brien's." And if the Capital Hilton management team can't reach agreement with Fran O'Brien's, there's still time to replace the Capital Hilton management team, who seem bound and determined to severely damage Hilton's reputation to the substantial detriment of
not only their location, but all the other Hilton locations, and all Hilton affiliates.

Just imagine the damage the Capital Hilton management team will do to Hilton shareholders by deeply alienating a million-member organization whose leader, Mr Bock, says "We'll lend our support any way we can, even if it means having to help raise money for an elevator." As Bock notes, "It's not May 1st yet." As far as the management team at the Capital Hilton's concerned, there'd better be some changes in attitude soon or there should be changes in personnel.

Posted by Mark White at April 21, 2006 05:24 PM

You can see the whole post (and you really ought to) at:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/004433.html

Hilton's Reputation and the Fran O'Brien's Negotiations

2006-04-14T16:34:00.000-07:00

Subject: Please Help Preserve Hilton's Reputation
To: daniel_a_boyle@hilton.com
CC: Greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com

Dear Mr. O'Boyle,

Yourself and your organization enjoy liberties bought and paid for by our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Your tenant, Fran O'Brien's, has offered substantial help towards fuller recoveries for those who've paid a price in blood for your liberties. For some reason, some people in your organization seem to have lost sight of the debt they owe to our servicemen.

You've been mentioned as one of the people who can help right this oversight on Hilton's part. As the father of a boy serving in Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, deployed as the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) in Forward Operating Base Warrior outside of Kirkuk, Tamim Province, Iraq, I hope neither my son
nor any else serving in Iraq or Afghanistan will ever need Friday Dinners at Fran O'Brien's to help restore his will to live after a devastating wound. However, should he or any of our other servicemembers ever need that morale boost and find it unavailable, I certainly hope that no one would ever be able to say that Hilton played a part in making it unavailable. I don't think
I could hold any respect at all for Hilton if I were to hear that.

Please use whatever influence you have to help ensure that Hilton honors its debts and preserves its reputation.

Best regards,
Mark White
Des Plaines, Illinois
PS You might want to see what people are saying about this:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/004390.html

From: "Matt Bitzer"
Subject: ** Fran O'Brien's **

Your e-mail has been forwarded to me, Brian Kelleher, General Manager, of The Capital Hilton.

Thank you for your _expression of concern regarding the Fran O’Brien’s restaurant. I appreciate your interest and would like to take this opportunity to respond to you personally.

For strictly business reasons related solely to the inability to reach a new lease agreement, the Capital Hilton has elected to terminate the lease with the operator of Fran O’Brien’s restaurant at the hotel. This decision was not at all related to the Friday night dinners for disabled veterans but rather a result of lease negotiations that failed. The hotel has offered to host and sponsor the May 5, 2006 dinner and expressed interest in working closely with Walter Reed so that the Friday night tradition can continue. Furthermore, the hotel is in discussions with one of the sponsors of the Friday night dinners to continue their support of the dinners.

The Capital Hilton prides itself on its involvement and support of many community organizations and events and has provided complimentary or discounted rooms to families with veterans in the hospital, donated facilities to military organizations and most recently hosted a meeting for 300 people.

Sincerely,
Brian Kelleher
General Manager, Capital Hilton

Subject: Hilton's Reputation and the Fran O'Brien's Negotiations
To: "Matt Bitzer"
CC: Greyhawk@mudvillegazette.com

Dear Mssrs Bitzer and Kelleher,

Thank you for responding to my expression of concern regarding Hilton's reputation. From what I've read, Fran O'Brien's' owners were eager to reach a new lease agreement for their basement space, and the inability to reach that new lease agreement was entirely due to a late and unilateral rejection of negotiations on the part of the Capital Hilton, accompanied by an eviction
notice. Your statement does nothing to dispel that impression.

My further impression from your note is that, having tossed out the veteran who created the Friday Dinners, you now plan on taking over his tradition. If you are able to do so after causing so much ill will between the Capital Hilton and the veteran community (and their supporters like me), I suppose more power to you. At least the servicmen and servicewomen recovering from their wounds could continue having their nights out. Still, given the way it seems Hilton has treated Hal Koster, I can't help thinking the wounded might find their bile rising at your offer. After all, they are veterans too, and might prefer a different venue.

Given that the Capital Hilton prides itself on its involvement with and support of many community organizations and events, provides complimentary or discounted rooms to families with veterans in the hospital, donates facilities to military organizations and recently hosted a meeting for 300 people, perhaps the impression I have of the negotiations is wrong.

If my impression of how the negotiations went is indeed wrong, then the Capital Hilton's reputation, and the reputation of Hilton Hotels generally, would be well served by clarifying just how they did go. On the other hand, if my impression of how the negotiations went is correct, then you have just undermined the results from all the other good works you have done in the community and given yourself a large black eye.

I appreciate the fact that your negotiations with Fran O'Brien's' owners is a private matter, but then, so are your discounted room rates for visiting families. I trust your interest in your reputation will lead you to clarify this issue if you're in the right, and to correct it if you are in the wrong.

Your interest in my opinion of Hilton and your personal response to my expressed concerns are both quite gratifying. I eagerly await your clarification.

Best regards,

Mark White
Des Plaines, Illinois

Redrawing the Map

2006-04-14T13:18:00.000-07:00

An open letter to the guys at Strategypage:

REDRAWING THE MAP

You mention "There are a lot of Shia Arabs in places like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Kuwait. Most of these Shia Arabs live near the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. It has always been, at least since the oil was discovered, the policy of both nations, to keep their Shia happy, or at least quiet."

If fact, there are also a lot of Shia Arabs in Iran and Iraq, too, and most of these Shia Arabs live near the Iranian and southern Iraqi oil fields. Even more important, most of the people living near the biggest oil fields all four big Persian Gulf oil producers are Shia Arabs.

Now, if Teddy Roosevelt could get away with redrawing the map of Colombia to suit American interests, it seems like a good time for George Bush to redraw the maps of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq to suit American interests.

Recognizing a new Shia Arab Republic as an American protectorate in the northern Persian Gulf with a capital in Basra and a Guantanamo-style lease on a Shatt-al-Arab American base would immediately defund the Saudis and the Mullahs, defanging radical Islam of both Sunni and Shiite varieties.

The Shia Arabs are the majority in the oil-producing region, and live under Persian and Sunni imperialism. You can certainly make the argument that the US would be liberating an oppressed people while dispossessing tyrants who threaten our own security. So, while many around the world and around our Congress might complain about this executive action, Bush could certainly sell it to a majority of Americans after the fact.

In fact, the media have made it easier for Bush to take action by hyping a rising threat of a sectarian civil war in Iraq. We can declare the Shia Arab Republic as a decisive measure to avert an Iraqi civil war leading to a wider conflagration in the middle east, and at the same time avoiding a nuclear arms race between the Iranians and the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are both asking for this by allowing terrorist funding, and neither of them have any effective way of stopping us, given the minority status of Saudis and Persians in the oil regions. Kuwait's royalty would become regular citizens, and could keep their non-oil assets -- they've been our friends. But we should encourage the rump states to overthrow and strip the accumulated wealth of the Saudi princes and the mullahs -- they haven't been our friends.

With the Shia Arabs out of Iraq, we could encourage the Iraqi Sunnis to join with the formerly Saudi and formerly Syrian Arabs in a new Sunni Arabian federation governed from Amman by Jordan, and the Iraqi Kurds to join with the Iranian, Syrian and Turkish Kurds in a new Kurdish Federation with its capital in Kirkuk (again, giving the Persians what they deserve for not settling the mullahs, the Syrians what they deserve for allying with the Persian mullahs, and the newly-Islamic Turks what they deserve for not letting the 4th Infantry Division disembark and transit when it needed to).

All roads lead to Baghdad, making it an ideal place for a multiethnic city-state governing itself and serving the entire region economically, with free trade guaranteed by the only Air Force left in the region -- the United States Air Force.

That lets Baghdad continue "serving as an experiment on how to create an Arab economy that will flourish." After redrawing the map, we can use the oil wealth first to build the security infrastructure for the US base on the Shatt-al-Arab, then to create a US-administered trust fund for infrastructure throughout the Middle East (newly including rump Turkey as compensation for the loss of territory, and the parts of greater Jordan without prior oil wealth out of fair play).

With free trade, economic transparency, new spending on infrastructure, and republican governments, the Arab world should stop lagging the rest of the planet in economic growth. We solve the main problem of bad government. No more dictators, no more government restrictions on the economy. No more corruption and waste. No more conspicuous consumption, and a lot more business investment. And lower oil prices for America and the rest of the world.

So, you guys have critiqued a lot of ideas. What's your take on this modest proposal?