Surge

Surge is a word heard most in relation to electricity - you know the zap that happens when lightning gets into the grid and blows out electrical equipment.

But, not this time, not this is the pet name for President Bush's plan to increase U.S. troups by 20,000 to help stabilizing the country before we cut and run.

What's a sensible person supposed to believe in here?

I believe in protecting the innocent, so if "surge" means making a safe road for the peace lovers to get out of the way before the civil war, then I guess it sounds like a good plan.

It's crazy. The world can't afford civil war in Iraq and the Middle East, but given BOTH sides have external support, to keep the conflict on the back burner for years if we let it. A "surge" isn't going to save the future stability of Iraq, no sorry, ain't gonna happen.

And the worst thing about civil war is the side that wins is usually the side the most willing to be the most outrageous in their efforts to win the peace. Winning the peace is to convince the other side that'd you'd rather die than surrender, and hope they cut and run at your ruthlessness. WELL, I mean that and having big guns and bombs to back up your view.

Basically what Iraq needs is another ruthless dictator, like Saddam, who has the military power to destroy his enemies and and willingness to do whatever it takes. It needs a dictatorship, since a dictator doesn't need to be responsive to popular opinion. Well, I guess Saddam hung for his ruthlessness, but he could have still been in power for all his "crimes against humanity", if only he had left the Kuwaiti oil alone. But lesson learned, the next dictator will happily cozy up to the U.S., given a few years for our bruised ego to heal, and play good international partner, while keeping the internal resistance under control.

I'm talking jokingly, at least playing a side I don't 100% believe, but can't necesarily argue against. There's no use pretending anything about "democracy" in an economy ruled by oil wealth. I mean democracy is hard enough among people growing up in a land of peace and plenty, but I can't have much hope that good institutions can develop in an instance in a place where violence beats laws.

Well, whatever my views on dicatorships, I admit democracy also must apply limits to individual freedoms when state power is threatened. It sounds horrible, and easy to judge negatively, but must just be accepted. A leader responsible for the safety of the people can not allow a minority of the people to break the laws, however "apparently harmlessly".

Today at the federal courthouse I saw the peace protestors with their signs saying to bring the troups home. I'm all for their idealism, but I have to look at the bigger picture and not say what I don't like, but what I don't like the LEAST. In other words, I have to espouse the smaller of evils.

What I see is:
1) A minority of activist Americans protesting the war.
2) A majority of Americans tired of the war.

What I don't see from either group is a response to the war that addresses our own responsibility for it - namely our dependence upon oil imports to run our economy.

My thought is that we're going to be dependent upon oil for a long long time no matter what we do. However this dependency will end as supplies shrink and demand keeps increaseing. We're going to pay sooner or later for our demand for cheap oil, so why not face those costs now?

We ought to:
1) Demand that government pays for its spending through taxation not borrowing.
2) Demand that oil be taxed at a level that will create an economic incentive for conservation and alternatives to be developed.

These two are actually somewhat complimentary, although I'm afraid the borrowing probably far ought weighs any taxation we could apply to oil. Still, it's one TINY response that can be a part of a larger one.

But NO, not even my smart engineer coworkers will support me. I mean they're not even the ones who will be hurt by gas prices. They'll still drive their SUVs to work when gasoline is $10/gallon. They don't even argue in defense of the poor. No they just say basically that the market will take care of things when prices rise too much. Then on the other side, there's those who have been brainwashed to believe the government is corrupt, that all taxes are evil, and that they'll fight every last dime they can from getting into the belly of the beast.

Now I am characterizing others, easier to say "Joe doesn't want his taxes to go up", while I benefit from Joe's fight as well in my taxes. And of course there's the moral highground - if I BELIEVE I OUGHT TO PAY MORE TAXES then I can write a check and do my part - the old volunteer funded government.

Of course no sensible person would do that. I know my little taxes are spitting into the wind of debt and an unviable future. I'm better of keeping my saved taxes (because of Joe's fight), and invest it somewhere it can make a difference.

I do admit my own insanely confident sense of entitlement, not for a high income even, but mainly the freedom of my time. I thought of that as I heard the Minnesota Guard will spend an extra 125 days in Iraq because of Bush's surge. They're losing their lives, while I am free to do whatever I want, as long as my bills are paid.

I don't wish entirely to be an isolationist, wanting to devolve the global trade system which I so greatly benefit. I accept my dependency upon a system that others do not benefit as much, and whom may one day fight against it, and harm me, whom has nothing against those who now want a better share of the pie.

As an individual, the best I can seem to hope to do is reduce my consumption, or at least that's the part I partially succeed. I expect some 90% of my spending is either necessity, or investment. Both are relative terms, and my biggest luxury is to live alone in a 3 bedroom house, even if I'm not home that much and try to minimize utilities. Anyway, moneywise, I'm just damned fortunate, damned because I feel guilty others struggle more.

But on the guilt, once I get my work hours done, what do I really give back in terms of my time? Sure I can give blood 6 times a year, and vote, and keep my yard mowed and raked, and driveway shoveled and all that. But basically I have about 50 hours week of "discretionary time" that I waste on whatever inspires me in the moment.

Now I mainly bring that up before I follow through with my desire to tell people to "Buck up, and prepare, harder times are coming, and you're responsible for your own needs, and the world in 5 years may not support your current $110,000 household income, and so be prepared for that not to be there."

Well, nice message, but people raising families, and with more demanding careers than me have much less time to try to figure out how to reorganize their lives to consume less, save more, and defend their future.

So, am I responsible for them? If I get my mortgage paid off, and have surplus income someday, what shall I invest it in?

I suppose any silly reader of this blog won't know what I'm talking about - why any of this matters to national policy?

Back to entitlements, basically I admit we're all pretty much spoiled, more or less. I'm spoiled more at least, but whatever struggles you think you have, they're pretty damn small compared to risks if the system as we know it fails us.

Maybe you're an optimist. We've learned how to handle economies. The great depression will never happen again. We can just print money to keep the economy flying through anything, savers be damned. And maybe we've got the technical and natural resources to keep our titanic rammed headlong into the iceberg, without stopping us. Maybe every danger really is too small to seriously hurt our ambitions?

Success is a funny game - the more you win, the more you fight to win more, and the more you learn how to keep winning. Either we're not as smart as we think, and natural limits will hit us. OR we are smart enough to keep the ship flying until we sink the entire biosphere with us. Whichever is true, you gotta say, hold, let's think about this!

We can't bring democracy to the middle east.

We can't make cheap oil last forever.

We can't expect the pyramid game of economic growth to continue indefinitely.

A day of reckoning will come when we'll have to increase our self-sufficiency, increase the power of our communities to meet their own needs.

Anyway, I just don't think you can ask questions about Iraq in isolation. Yes, we need to withdraw sooner or later. Our enemies WILL outlast us.

I must accept the risks exist. It's a funny game - that doing the RIGHT things now likely mean WORSE near future, but doing the WRONG things now mean we can keep going logner without the pain, and then it'll be even harder on everyone.

Addicted to oil.

It is a good phrase.

Addicts don't take advice even as poorly as the average proud soul. Even in their weaker moments when they accept their failings, the alternatives appear unacceptable.

I think there's a political phrase "Never promote a problem that you don't have a solution to."

I think that's where we're at.

There are no acceptable solutions now.

There's little hope acceptable solutions will come.

We will continue until things as-is become unacceptable.

Surge and cut and run - a winning combination?