The Great Historical Questions
Why Northern Europe?
I received a lot of questions the last few weeks about why Mediterranean peoples in Italy and Greece who crafted Western civilization eventually faded before Northern Europeans (tribal barbarians during a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization), and especially Anglo-American culture.
A couple of observations. First, and most obviously, northern Europeans derived their own Western culture only through the classical inheritance. Second, by the 7th century Islam was on the move, and the Mediterranean and Eastern European states were a sort of buffer belt for the next 1,000 years—as the once classical bastions like northern Egypt, Ionia, Greece, Sicily, Cyprus, and Crete were serially overran. Third, geography was turned upside down, as Mare Nostrum became a sort of dead-end pond, while Spain, Portugal, France, England, and Holland had access to the Atlantic, and with it a direct route to India and China, and the Americas. Fourth, England was spared much of the internecine squabbling on the continent, developed a sort of cosmopolitanism and globalized presence as an island and imperial sea-people, and was able to develop a stronger sense of Protestantism, setting the stage for an Anglo-American global ascendancy.
American Decline?
Another reader wondered whether the United States is now in irrevocable decline, while India, Russia, China, Japan, and Europe reemerge to assume our once global prominence.
I doubt it. All of those countries have far more fundamental problems that we do. India is mired in poverty and overpopulation, prone to religious violence and burdened by a caste system. Russia is a neo-Czarist thugocracy, a $100-a-barrel oil price plastering over the otherwise corrupt and inefficient Russian economy, and a shrinking Russian population. China has not yet come to grips with class strife and unionism, suburban malaise, and must spend hundreds of billions in infrastructure. Its environmental degradation will take years and trillions to repair.
Europe is shrinking, as its socialist/secular/pacifist/heaven-on-earth creed has brought short-term prosperity and stability, but also millions of unassimilated Muslims, no defenses in the face of rising jihadism, possible rogue nuclear states like Iran and North Korea, and a bullying Russia, and a sybarite culture founded on the premise that the here and now is all there is.
In short, America’s natural wealth, its meritocracy and legions of different races, religions and tribes that are united under meritocratic values, its superb military, its past avoidance of doctrinaire political extremism, whether fascism, militarism, Nazism, communism, or jihadism, and its ability to react and galvanize almost overnight, all suggest we can rather quickly, should we wish, defeat any foreign enemy, get off our costly dependence on foreign oil, close our borders and end illegal immigration, begin to spend less federal money, promote more individual savings, balance budgets, pay off foreign debt, and restore our financial preeminence—if we get honest charismatic and competent candidates who can appeal to the better angels of our nature.
No War New Under the Sun
Finally, a reader wrote in and asked whether the ancient world offered any parallels in our modern war on jihadism.
Plenty.
Preemption? In 369 BC Epaminondas decided that the Spartans were a non-ending threat. And while the latter had not invaded in over a year and a half, and probably wouldn’t, he nevertheless considered them an existential and immediate danger, and so went into the Peloponnese in winter 369, ravaged Laconia, freed the Messenian helots, and spread democracy by force through the creation of the three great citadels at Mantineia, Megalopolis, and Messenê. Sparta never again invaded Boiotia.
Preventative War? Consider Rome’ Third Punic War, where Carthage represented no immediate threat (far less than Sparta posed for Thebes), and yet Romans went to war to end their unrelenting fear of a reemergence of a North African empire.
Counterinsurgency? The Romans dealt with magnetic nationalist leaders like Boudica, Jugurtha, Mithridates, and Vercingetorix that required fighting terrorists, winning hearts and minds, and fighting unconventional wars.
A War Against Terror? Pompey’s successful war against the pirates, mostly from Cilicia, was waged against a tactic more than a state or people.
Asymmetrical warfare? Athens fought Sparta largely by sea, Sparta by land—until the last bloody decade of the Peloponnesian War. In hellholes like Aitolia and Akarnania conventional Athenian hoplites were bled white by terrorists, light-armed, and missile-troops. Alexander fought a dirty war of ethnic cleansing in Bactria and southern Afghanistan that cost him more losses than in his three conventional battles against the Persians.
In other words, nothing we have encountered since 9/11 is new. All our current challenges have parallels, and they have been faced—and overcome—by past conventional Western leaders. Classical literature reminds us how and why. Human nature is constant, only its technological manifestations change. For every bin Laden there was an Arminus, for every Ahmadinejad there was a Jugurtha, for every David Petraeus there was a successful Sertorius in Spain or Caesar in Pontus.
We are not alone, and nothing we encounter is novel. Millions in the past experienced everything we have, though on a quite different magnitude, and we can learn about almost everything in present by reading from the past.
Sidenote to the May-June European Tour
Our debate/discussion on the future of Europe at the Trianon Hotel at Versailles is shaping up well, with Bruce Thornton and, it looks like, a prominent French intellectual/diplomat soon to be announced. And we hope to have a good tour of Nato headquarters, and similar discussion and debate that evening. Visits to Somme, Verdun, Waterloo, etc. should give us some appreciation of the burdens of European history, and why the European Union frightens us more than it does Europeans wearied by centuries of deadly squabbling.
Empathy for the Candidates
I confess a certain sympathy for the candidates. They are up at dawn and out till late night. Many are over 60. Three have survived melanoma, prostate cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. They must be obsequious in the face of often arrogant and stupid questioners ,who try to bait and embarrass them. Less bright media talking heads bully them incessantly. What they wear, how they look, or the blunders they make are the evening small talk of millions. And all this for the Presidency?
So there is a certain Darwinian logic to our process. Any who survive our modern political agôgê, both mentally and physically, are apparently certified to be able to be President.
Change?
The Obama-Edwards-Romney-Huckabee mantra of change, means what? One would hope something like the old contract for America to insist on spending cuts, and thus ensure necessary tax cuts don’t lead to deficits. Contrary to conventional “change” wisdom, what should we do differently abroad?
Any new ideas on Pakistan? Huckabee and Obama want to invade. Richardson wants to depose Musharraf.
And Iraq? Edwards’ timetables on withdrawal?
How about Iran? Formal diplomatic negotiations á la Obama?
The truth is that there are no good alternate choices on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or the general Middle East. Someone did something right to have killed thousands of al Qaeda operatives, avoided another September 11, and deposed the Taliban and Saddam.
Perhaps “change” means balanced budgets, paying off the debt, paying down trillions of dollars overseas? If so, that would be something indeed, but no candidate seems to man up to that. So we are left with a sort of “I’m an outsider” reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s Plains stchick, or the “new ideas” of Gary Hart. But as Walter Mondale once asked, “Where’s the beef?”
The Fox Debate Tonight
I got a lot of abuse for writing the “Old Warhorse” column for TMS syndicate. It was not an endorsement, but an acknowledgment that McCain’s appeal sort of transcends ideology and is based on his blunt talk—whether telling Iowans that subsidies for ethanol are misplaced, or club-for-growth types that tax cuts without spending limitations only discredit the necessary idea of shrinking government to increase economic prosperity.
He supported the Petraeus surge at a time when other moderate Republicans were about to bail (and his persistence helped give Petraeus the window of time for the surge to work and deflate the defections). And when he was wrong, there was a logic to his fallacies. His immigration lapses, and subsequent demonization of those who wanted the borders closed now, were based on the correct enough notion that we can’t deport en masse 11 million illegal aliens, many of whom have resided here for years, are law-abiding, and are not on public assistance, but gainfully employed. He was too iffy on tax cuts, but mostly because he wanted them tied to mandatory spending reductions.
And the disastrous McCain-Feingold grew out of a correct appreciation that the cash for favors nexus in our political culture needed addressing.
On the surge, it should be noted, however, that in 2004 McCain and others were calling for an additional 100,000 troop surge, opposed by Casey, Abezaid, and Rumsfeld. The current smaller Petraeus surge was a compromise, and predicated on counter-insurgency reforms.
In this regard, I think McCain is to be congratulated for his stalwart support for Iraq. But while Petraeus is clearly the right man at the right time for the right job, I don’t understand the serial damning of Donald Rumsfeld. I am not convinced that had Casey or Abezaid asked for more troops, Rumsfeld would have resisted. There is a way to take some credit for the brilliant Petraeus surge without suggesting that Rumsfeld was incompetent, or, as once alleged, one of the worst secretaries of Defense in history—untrue, unnecessary, and unbecoming.
And the other candidates?
When Romney attacks and goes negative, he loses empathy. But when ganged upon, Romney’s natural sunny disposition shines through, and we start to see less of the slickness, and more of the quite impressive control of facts and ideas. As a side note, Romney may talk tough about being against amnesty in any form, but if so, then he needs to explain how we deport 11 million, at least 5-6 million of whom have been here over five years, are gainfully employed, not on public assistance, and have never been arrested. It is easy to declaim “I am against amnesty in all forms”, but rather difficult to say, “Therefore I urge we deport summarily every Mexican national, no matter his circumstances.” Somehow we hear the former, but rarely the latter.
In this Sunday night’s debate on Fox, I think Huckabee’s limitations become more and more evident. His impressive character and unquestioned conservatism on social issues seem to me outweighed by a sort of tentativeness, and relative inexperience in foreign affairs at a time of war. We should expect that it will be likely in early 2009 that the jihadists or an Iran or Syria will deliberately test our new president, and try to make inroads by forcing him to either back down or use military force.
Giuliani always comes across well, whether candidly admitting his errors, or in pulling no punches about the jihadists. I like him a great deal, but think if one wishes a moderate, McCain has a better chance to defeat Obama or Hillary. Most polls continue to show that he is the only Republican who can win a general election—an important consideration given that an Obama or Clinton presidency would be as self-righeously wrong-headed as Jimmy Carter’s
As for the Democratic candidates, I posted tonight the following at NRO’s corner.
O Hillary, Where Art Thou?
Poor Hillary is in a Catch-22 dilemma—and there’s no Dick Morris to bail her out. Bill’s constant presence, campaign gaffes, and serial narcissism contributed to her slide, reminding Americans that his ubiquitous picture on the screen, her incessant references to her work in his administration, and the specter of 28 consecutive years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton rule are about the farthest thing from “change” imaginable.
And then there is the Freudian problem. It is not altogether clear that his own desire for another eight years of the limelight overshadows a deep-seeded resentment and envy of his wife, who might, as the first-female president, and a liberal who avoided tawdry scandal, overshadow the prior Clinton’s legacy. In that regard, remember Bill’s 1992 revealing concession— “It doesn’t bother me for people to see her and get excited and say she would be president too.”
As Hillary slides, there were will be logical calls to raise his “it doesn’t bother me” profile, due to his “stature,” “savvy” and “experience.” But when one wonders why Hillary’s negatives poll nearly 50%, we should also remember that in neither election Bill achieved a 50% plurality, either due to third-party candidates or innate worries about his character that trumped his successful triangulating politics.
Sen. Obama looks unbeatable, especially since Hillary’s campaign was well funded, did almost everything by the book, and still is imploding. When John Edwards drops out–and he will–most of his money, supporters, and voters will probably go to Obama.
But all that said, Obama’s charisma and ex tempore rhetorical skills have a shelf life without concrete positions. The war in Iraq is no longer a key issue, so against it “from the beginning” does not resonate so much any more. Where does Obama stand on closing the border and amnesty? Does he want to raise taxes or cut spending to pay for his new programs, themselves poorly delineated.
If he doesn’t get specific, his “change” mantra will be like Gary Hart’s “new ideas” that Mondale deflated in 1984 with the “where’s the beef?” debate quip that Bob Beckel turned into a campaign stop staple.
Expect her to go for the jugular on all that and more. To the extent she can on her own, without a beet-red Clinton shaking his finger at a Chris Wallace, or fibbing about being against the war from the start, she might recover.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
Mexifornia : A State of a Becoming
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Paperback)
Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Smithsonian History of Warfare) (Paperback)
Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom
Fields Without Dreams : Defending the Agrarian Ideal (Paperback)
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Paperback)
13 Comments
GGA - Dublin, Ohio:Dr. Hanson -
Happy New Year! I hope you have a healthy and great 2008.
Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts and insights through your columns and this blog. Your words are always enjoyable and enlightenting.
Hopefully, you are weathering the western storms OK, and I trust the rains and snows will serve to replenish (at least somewhat) the necessary water reserves. I am reading “Fields Without Dreams” and now feel connected at some level to your family farm and its rich history.
I continue to talk about the wonder of raisins with friends and family whenever I can. In fact, I have a giant box on my desk for healthy snacking every day.
Best regards,
Jan 7, 2008 - 8:29 am ivanhoe:GGA - Dublin, Ohio
“Perhaps “change” means balanced budgets, paying off the debt, paying down trillions of dollars overseas? If so, that would be something indeed, but no candidate seems to man up to that.”
Of course there IS a candidate who has consistently lobbied for all these needed actions and more. Ron Paul, the protest candidate on the Republican side of the coin, has clearly stated for years what real “change” needs to happen if we are to avoid national bankruptcy. Granted, his foreign policy is unworkable and unrealistic, at least as the world exists , but at least he has started a discussion that needs to be pursued as to why we have troops spread all over the world. Why we have a military /industrial complex whose cost, influence and size dwarfs the rest of the nations combined budgets. If there are compelling reasons for us to garrison nations around the globe that are capable of protecting themselves, I wish someone would make the case.
Jan 7, 2008 - 9:55 am narciso:Being defeated militarily is not the only peril that causes nations to end. They can be bankrupted into oblivion as well; an ailment we seem determined to inflict upon ourselves.
Its time for the American people to “man up” and decide that if we are determined to have a Welfare/Warfare state that we at least pay as we go, which would be real change, instead of dumping the cost on future generations.
The Roman parallels areparticularly instructive. The campaign against the Numidian prince Jugurtha (a rough analogue of Bin Laden)and the Iraq campaign as related by Sallust in the early part of the 1stCentury AD; isparticularly on point. At the time, that was the longest running military campaign that Rome had undertaken. It took several
Jan 7, 2008 - 6:45 pm actor212:‘unsuccessful’ military leaders like the patrician Metellus, before Marius came along to defeat the Jugurthan. As it was nearly two millenia he was given up; by his own countrymen. Marius and his lieutenant Sulla, each had roles in the victory. Marius continued to win honors while rising in power and stature after the confrontation with the Cimbri. A generation later, a crisis over immigration of a kind, exploded into the Social War where Marius’s partisana had taken sides. After an aggressive campaign against Mithridates of Pontus. One problem is that Marius in instituting professional instead of conscript soldiers, earned their loyalty. A generation later, the
Pontus rebellion was stamped out, but not before a generation of Roman
‘man on horseback’ like Pompey Crassus, & Lepidus rose to power in the first of many triumvirates, Social upheavals like the Spartacist
revolt and the Catiline conspiracy
also helped destabilize the Roman
Republic. It was ultimately, Marius’
s relative, Julius Caesar after the
victorious campaign against Vercingtorix’s Gauls; who drove the
Republic to its death throws; prefigured by the Octavian/Marc Anthony rival.
So, um, Vickie? Based on your analysis…
Would the Church’s persecution and decimation of the Huguenots count as a parallel to the American crusade in Iraq?
Silly little man.
Jan 8, 2008 - 9:15 am Jim Rockford:Ivanhoe you can stick a fork in Ron Paul and the Ronulans. He’s done. His nasty racist newsletter from the 1990’s has sunk him.
Good riddance to bad rubbish too.
I suppose Ronulans serve a useful function — drawing out the lunatic conspiracists who cannot deal with reality and so retreat into fantasy conspiracies. The lunatic enthusiasm for Ron Paul like UFO-ology, crystal healing, and other general idiocies proves G K Chesterson’s maxim. That when a man ceases to believe in God he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything.
Jan 8, 2008 - 10:41 pm ivanhoe:Mr. Rockford,
Mr. Paul may indeed be done as you say, and if indeed he holds many of the views stated in the controversial letters ,he should be.
Jan 9, 2008 - 4:12 am syn:You miss the point of his campaign, which for many of us is to point out that we have drifted into a multiparty socialist state where more power is concentrated in Washington than is healthy for a constitutional republic.
There are many principled arguments against a Ron Paul candidacy and you may well try to offer one, or you could continue with semi-literate character assasination,which seems to be your forte’. Your call of course.
Perhaps if Ron Paul doesn’t know that the federal government is Constitutionally required to protect and defend the nation.
Spending a little under 5% of GNP on military budget can hardly be considered an ‘industrial military complex’ considering the nation will be bankrupted by the ‘industrial entitlement complex’ which consumes around 15% of GNP.
If Ron Paul would like to reduce the size of government then perhaps he might want to look into the ideals found in Federalism rather than attacking the military.
That said I rather deal with Code Pinkers, than Paulites. At least Code Pinkers target their rage on politicans unlike Paulites who target their rage on private citizens.
Jan 10, 2008 - 3:44 am Scott:Responding to “Actor212″ and his silly Huguenot analogy:
You are WAY off base here pal as VDH was using CLASSICAL political/military events to shed light on the present day - not Medieval Holy Wars.
Your analogy - a state/church alliance persecuting a rival sect - is better suited to Saddam Hussein’s persecution of the Shia – but that comparison, of course, would run counter to the lame point you attempted to make.
Often, actually knowing some history before you post is a good thing.
******************
To those who continue to support the good Doctor Ron Paul:
- Ever wonder why the right wing kook fringe (Neo-Nazis, New World Order, Alex Jones, 9-11 Troofer types) see RP as their man?
- Could it be that his past statements made over a period of 15+ years via his newsletter have led them to believe that this is EXACTLY the case?
Yep.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28533_Ron_Paul-_I_Wasnt_Paying_Attention&only
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28537_Ron_Pauls_Personal_Details_in_Racist_Newsletter&only
Jan 10, 2008 - 9:18 am Ivanhoe:The Ron Paul movement is hardly the only political vessel containing cranks and deluded souls. I’m not proposing that Ron Paul is some sort of saint or even that he is qualified to be president, only that he raises some valid points about the nature of government. But the fact that so many of you who are rabid opponents of his won’t even enter into a rational discussion about the issues speaks volumes. What is so frightening about discussing and vetting why we are at war in detail, instead of the tired “we’re defending our freedom” against the ominous Islamist fascist threat. The same Islamist countries that can’t design and build a cell phone or automobile worthy of the Soviets are a mortal threat to national existence? No serious discussion of our many military commitments around the world allowed? No questioning of why Europe, Japan and Korea, who have the manpower and money to defend themselves are still leeching protection off our paycheck? No discussion of why rescuing a failed state, or several failed states, in the Middle East is more critical to our national security than securing our southern border, since it appears we cannot do both?
Jan 11, 2008 - 4:27 am Scott:The Heritage Foundation has many times mounted the argument that measured against GNP we don’t spend enough on defense, in fact spend a small fraction proportionally of what we spent in WWII, which is true. But pointing to the percentage of GNP as a measure assumes the same as the Democrats; that it is the governments money to begin with, not the people who earned it, and that those of you who propose to police the planet are under no obligation to further make your case for taxpayer funded Pax Americana.
Pointing out that we do have a military/industrial complex, often with revolving door staffing from our military ranks, and with a very vested interest in having the defense budget large and unquestioned is nothing new; it was pointed out by that other small-government crank Dwight Eisenhower and has been referenced to by John McCain in his stump speeches.
Ivanhoe – you set up a series of straw men here and then attempt to knock them down.
“The Ron Paul movement is hardly the only political vessel containing cranks and deluded souls.”
- Yea, we know. But if making common cause with Neo-Nazis and 9-11 Troofers doesn’t bother you then I don’t know what to tell you here. I for one am not on board.
“But the fact that so many of you who are rabid opponents of his won’t even enter into a rational discussion about the issues speaks volumes.”
- Says you – but about who? VDH? He has engaged on the majority of the issues you list – if not all – and so have the majority of the blogs I visit. Shame on you for not paying attention.
“What is so frightening about discussing and vetting why we are at war in detail, instead of the tired “we’re defending our freedom” against the ominous Islamist fascist threat.”
- Again, I ask you, who specifically has not discussed these issues? And surely you can’t be ascribing such a simplistic view of “we’re defending our freedom” to VDH? His level of argument is MUCH deeper than that.
“The same Islamist countries that can’t design and build a cell phone or automobile worthy of the Soviets are a mortal threat to national existence?”
- Straw man. While it is true that Islamists don’t produce anything of value, they have ACCESS to - and can EXPLOIT - technologies that can do the West grievous harm. Did you forget the lessons of 9-11 so soon?
“No serious discussion of our many military commitments around the world allowed? No questioning of why Europe, Japan and Korea, who have the manpower and money to defend themselves are still leeching protection off our paycheck?”
- Oh come now, here is but one link below – from 2004 - where VDH raises this issue; “The scheduled partial U.S. troop withdrawals from Europe were long overdue; some of us had become shrill and hoarse in calling for them over the past few years. It was not just that there was no longer any conventional enemy on Old Europe’s borders, or that the new hot points are further to the east, or even that in terms of a cost-benefit analysis it made no sense stationing traditional army divisions roughly where Patton and Hodges ended up 60 years ago.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200408200923.asp
“No discussion of why rescuing a failed state, or several failed states, in the Middle East is more critical to our national security than securing our southern border, since it appears we cannot do both?”
- We actually CAN do both as it is not really much of a manpower issue. We have an administration that WON’T do both.
“Pointing out that we do have a military/industrial complex, often with revolving door staffing from our military ranks, and with a very vested interest in having the defense budget large and unquestioned is nothing new; it was pointed out by that other small-government crank Dwight Eisenhower and has been referenced to by John McCain in his stump speeches.”
- Ahh…the dreaded Military Industrial Complex (MIC tm)! Oh come now, why does everyone forget the “Peace Dividend” of the first Clinton administration? That is the point where the MIC – if it every really existed – ceased to be. And they all went without much fuss.
- On the subject of Dwight Eisenhower; facts and context are important.
- Here are a some:
1960 (lowest defense spending year to date during Eisenhower presidency) = 52% Defense, 28% Human Resources
2005 (highest defense spending year to date during Bush presidency) = 20% Defense, 64% Human Resources
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/hist03z1.xls
Compared to Ike’s federal budget Bush is a liberal pacifist!
Jan 11, 2008 - 9:11 am Erik van der Heeg:An even better example on Roman COIN practices may be retrieved from Flavius Josephus “Jewish War”…
It is almost spooky how little has changed since the days of Vespasian and Titus…
Jan 12, 2008 - 5:18 am Ivanhoe:Scott,
I’m not attacking Dr. Hanson, who is perfectly capable of defending himself. Quite a fan of some of his writings myself. In fact, I vote for VDH as Secretary of Agriculture in the upcoming McCain administration. He can oversee the dismantling of that pointless department.
As I said, I was in no way attacking Dr. Hanson; simply responding to an earlier post critical of Ron Paul on this blog. My response was no more critical of Dr. Hanson than I would be of a particular newspaper if I had written a letter-to-the editor in response to someone else’s. What I was trying to point out, and evidently unsuccessfully so, is that it becoming just as difficult to raise dissenting views in the Conservative movement as on the Democratic side of the coin. That while Ron Paul is an imperfect messenger and there is indeed an assortment of misfits among his followers, he brings up some interesting issues about the size and growth of the federal government, and the cost of our foreign policy. Unfortunately because of what appears to be an unfolding scandal, the issues will be lost in the sensationalism of the moment.
Dr. Hanson has indeed questioned the same force deployment issues over the years, pointing out that many Americans are a bit tired of paying to keep troops in countries that are well able to take care of themselves, and where those same troops appear to be unwelcome.
As to the “Peace Dividend”, the post Cold War draw down was begun under HR Bush’s administration and was considered a bipartisan rational response to a declining threat.
In any case, Scott, be they arguments of Straw Man, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion or Dorothy herself, the “lessons of 911” as clearly laid out in the 911 Commissions Report are that foreign policy has consequences, often unforeseen. I hold that an interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East has brought us little but misery and enmity trying to bring democracy to peoples who have no history of it, no infrastructure to support it, and when it conflicts with tribal or religious priorities, no real interest in it.
Jan 12, 2008 - 5:40 am R. Richard Schweitzer:The Middle Eastern countries can sort out their own futures, and the oil will flow just the same for as long as it lasts. Oil has no country of origin label any more than corn, wheat or any other commodity has.
There are two references I would like to offer, one has already been sent to the “author” address:
First, on the Northern European advantages refer to the framework document by Douglas North et al in NBER Working Paper #12795, and the concept of “Open Access.”
Next, on “Decline,” it might better be seen as “Decadence,” as in Jacques Barzun’s “From Dawn to Decadence,” a marvelous panorama, that is sort of a follow-on to the closing essay in his “The Culture We Deserve.”
Jan 12, 2008 - 9:16 pm