Gingrich says it's World War III

Seattle Times ^ | July 15, 2006 | David Postman

[West Coast Conservative]

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.

Gingrich says that as of now Republicans "are sailing into the wind" in congressional campaigns. He said that's in part because of the Iraq war, adding, "Iraq is hard and painful and we do not explain it very well."

But some of it is due to Republicans' congressional agenda. He said House and Senate Republicans "forgot the core principle" of the party and embraced Congressional pork. "Some of the guys," he said, have come down with a case of "incumbentitis."

Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.

He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.

[goodnesswins]

MOST people don't think of the "Cold War" as WWIII.....it's just a fact of life.....they think of it as kind of an in-between war, cold....and NOT hot, with burning buildings and people.

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans. >P>Couldn't agree more.

Here's an "Amen" to your comment.

[Arizona Carolyn]

In a debate with Hillary he would spit her out in little pieces and she wouldn't even realize it until it was all over with. On the other hand, George Allen wouldn't be able to handle her in a debate, he's too laid back and gentlemanly and she is a piranha.

[Arizona Carolyn]

What's more, reading the blogs from Lebanon, most would welcome the USA coming in and getting rid of Hezbollah, they don't like them and the interference of Syria and Iran any more than Israel... and many of the Lebanese have evidently been blogging with Israeli's and feel this will only serve to set back the gains they have been making.

[what's up]

This is silly.

I'm not sure what would be gained by changing the verbiage from "War on Terror" to "World War III" except a lot of fear.

WWI and WWII drum up visions of 100's of thousands of Americans killed. This is a different war than those where Europeans involved themselves in carnage galore.

[Starboard]

Do you also disagree with this part of the article? Just curious. Newt makes a valid point here, IMO.

He said House and Senate Republicans "forgot the core principle" of the party and embraced Congressional pork. "Some of the guys," he said, have come down with a case of "incumbentitis."

[JLAGRAYFOX]

It's so simple, it's like the nose on your face. Take out all refining capacity for oil in Iran, wipe out the Syrian military, water and electricity, destroy all their airports, roads, bridges, railroads, transportation, etc. No need to go after the Nukes in Iran. Once there is no gasoline in Iran, the economy collapses overnight. Let the Iranian common people breathe, they like Americans. And, given a good shot they will do away with the present governm,ent themselves!!! It is Syria we should totally destroy. I am sure North Korea and Mr. Chavez and his ilk will get the point very quickly. And...if we need to suffer becasue of oil shortages, so be it. We brought that problem on ourselves by not drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore right here in the USA, thanks to the "Traitor/Treason" Democrat Party!!!

[upchuck]

"Some of the guys," he said, have come down with a case of "incumbentitis."

Some? Some? Some?

[GOPJ]

Sadly, we already know who the libs and the media wants to see win.

You're right. We do know, and it is sad...

[HawaiianGecko]

A question for armchair strategists out there: What if the Arab world plays it's strongest card, which is an oil embargo? I have not seen this possibility addressed.

 

An Oil Embargo Won't Work

by Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDoren   This article was first published in the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, Inc., April 10, 2002.

The threatened unleashing of the Arab oil weapon has sent world oil prices to a six-month high and triggered an extreme case of jitters throughout the industrialized world. A few days ago, Iraq announced a 30-day suspension of oil exports and its plans to go to the Arab League to demand a 6-12 month embargo on all Persian Gulf oil exports to the United States. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi says that his country will support Iraq's call for a U.S. embargo, which is not surprising given that Iran hasn't exported oil to America since 1992 anyway. The Arab street is violently demanding that our "friends" in the region go along with the embargo and Arab leaders are moving slowly but inexorably towards some kind of action.

There's less here, however, than meets the eye.

Iraq, for instance, normally produces about 4 percent of the world's oil supply. If production outside of Iraq remained constant, if demand didn't change, and if Iraq's cutoff were permanent, the suspension of Iraqi production would increase oil prices by 40 percent. Yet since Iraq's announced production cutback, world oil prices have risen only 1 percent. This tells us that market actors don't expect the cutoff to last long and that other suppliers are more than capable and - as importantly - more than willing to meet the shortfall. If Iraqi exports resume after the announced 30-day suspension, global supply will only have been reduced by 0.2 percent for the year (that is, if all other production were held constant) - hardly worth worrying about.

In fact, the 27 percent increase in crude oil prices since February has as much to do with a physical reduction of supply in the world market as it does with other factors, such as economic recovery in the United States, the seasonal increases associated with the onset of the summer driving season, and fears of future instability in the Middle East. These are all factors that temporarily increase demand. It's telling, for instance, that oil inventories in the United States have grown from 318 million barrels to 325 million barrels in one month. Instability in the Middle East always results in stockpiling, setting off a competition between future and present consumption. When the political crisis breaks, the price spike will break along with it.

But what if a full-fledged Arab oil embargo were indeed launched against the United States? As an unidentified OPEC official told the Agence France Presse last week, "As far as the organization is concerned, there are no talks of an oil embargo because no rational and sane human being would really back such a move, because it will certainly backfire on all of us. If two or three countries agree to suspend exports, rest assured that there are other producers that will come strongly to the market to offset that supply in the market." While that's not to say that the Arab oil producers won't jump off that economic cliff anyway, he's right to worry that an embargo would probably boomerang on embargoers.

The reason is simple: Once oil is in a tanker or refinery, there is no controlling its destination. During the 1973 embargo, for instance, OPEC oil that was exported to Europe was simply resold to the United States or ended up displacing non-OPEC oil that was diverted to the U.S. market. U.S. oil imports were no more disturbed at the end of the day than Soviet grain imports were disturbed by the short-lived and ineffectual 1980 grain embargo. Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani conceded afterwards that the 1973 embargo "did not imply that we could reduce imports to the United States ... the world is really just one market. So the embargo was more symbolic than anything else."

But how does that square with the popular belief that the October 1973 embargo quadrupled world oil prices, spawned shortages, and sent the United States into an economic tailspin? Well, world oil prices did indeed skyrocket. But it had less to do with the embargo than it had to do with the panic stockpiling triggered by tensions in the Middle East, tensions that broke into open war by October. While Arab oil production was cut by 340 million barrels between October and December, that cutback was less than the inventory buildup that occurred earlier in the year. There was still plenty of oil to go around. But few were willing to sell it given the fear of a future dearth.

The shortages in the United States had little to do with the embargo. Price controls imposed in August 1971 by the Nixon administration prevented major oil companies from passing on the full cost of imported crude oil to consumers at the pump. "Big Oil" did the only sensible thing: It cut back on imports and stopped selling oil to independent service stations in order to keep its own franchisees supplied. By the summer of 1973, gasoline prices were exploding, pumps were running dry, and long lines were commonplace. And that was before the Arab oil embargo or production cutbacks were announced.

Congress responded by making matters worse with the September 1973 Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. Gasoline distribution would henceforth be rationed and the price of "new" oil - including imports - was decontrolled even though "old" oil was not. Perversely enough, this exacerbated the shortages that the EPAA was trying to remedy. That's because long-term contracts - the means by which most oil was sold at the time - did not rise to meet spot prices. Contract holders thus had a strong incentive to stockpile as much oil as they could at the very time when inventories should have been released on the market.

Embargoes should not worry us. Production cutbacks should. But it's unlikely that the Arab world will cut off its nose to spite its face. As a Kuwaiti oil official told Reuters recently, "how can we support our Palestinian brothers if we do not have revenues?" Without petrodollars, the OPEC Arab states return to camels and tents and lose all influence on the global stage. And today the Arabs dominate only 40 percent of the world market as opposed to the 70 percent they held in 1973. This means that the world is a lot less vulnerable than it once was to the short-term effects of the oil weapon. The only fearsome thing about the oil weapon is fear itself.

This article was first published in the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, Inc., April 10, 2002.

 

 

[RockinRight]

How about just banning Middle Eastern Oil?

We get over 75% of our oil elsewhere anyway. It would still be hard but MUCH less so.

[RockinRight]

Newt's got WAY too much baggage. A Cabinet position under George Allen or Mike Pence might be good for him though.

[Arizona Carolyn]

According to the blogs from Lebanon the Syrian people are not the problem, just the corrupt dictator government. It seems the Syrian people want what we tried to give Lebanon when we forced Syria to move back before the puppeteer of Iran starting pulling the chains of Hezbollah and they started their old ways of kidnapping, oddly enough when Syria occupied Lebanon Hezbollah used that presence to not cause problems with Israel, once Syria was forced back, they no longer could legitimately use that excuse and save face... it's very convuluted... great explanation on the War thread by much brighter people than me.

[Just A Nobody]

Do you also disagree with this part of the article?

No, not in the least! I almost included that part as a plus in my last post.

[KoRn]

"We're NOT in WORLD War 3, at least not yet."

Whether you would choose to recognize it or not, war is upon you, and the rest of us. Radical islam has dedicated themselves to killing all of us wherever we can be found, and it's going on throughout the world. To not realize this would amount to putting your head in the sand.

[jeltz25]

Perhaps. Part of me also just thinks that Americans aren't going to elect a President named Newt. I mean look at the guys that have won, they have normal names(George, Bill, Ronald, Jimmy, Richard etc...)

I just don't know if a Newt can win the WH

[Paleo Conservative]

No, it's WWIV.

[thoughtomator]

Actually, it's world war 4; any googling of the subject will explain why.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Better a Newt than a Hillary or John (as in McCain).

[jamaly]

Gingrich may get on the nerves of many, but especially the liberals. But the man is a very wise, intelligent man, and he usually knows what he is talking about. And he is most articulate when he speaks. I wish we would hear more from him.

That may all be true; but, I sure wouldn't want to be married to him. He has a track record of being an unfaithful and uncaring husband. He told his first wife he wanted a divorce while she was recuperating from cancer surgery. What kind of "man" does that to his wife? If his wife can't trust him, neither can the country.