LEFTY LEAVES $100 ON SIDEWALK: I printed the Lieven essay for possible future use as a source of problem set material. There is much to occupy the reader. Let's start here:

"From the point of view of Israel, the Israeli lobby and their representatives in the Administration, the apparent benefits of such a free hand are clear enough. For the group around Cheney, the single most important consideration is guaranteed and unrestricted access to cheap oil, controlled as far as possible at its source. To destroy and occupy the existing Iraqi state and dominate the region militarily would remove even the present limited threat from Opec, greatly reduce the chance of a new oil shock, and eliminate the need to woo and invest in Russia as an alternative source of energy."

I'm sure somebody else will weigh in on the gratuitous swipe at Israel. Let's take the cheap oil premise seriously. Wouldn't it be in Russia's interest to develop its oil business so as to raise the living standards of Russians, and wouldn't Russian oil supplies be a source of price competition, if in fact the objective is cheaper oil? And wouldn't -- somebody else made this point recently but I don't recall who and where -- somebody who is interested in access to oil favor lessened sanctions against the al-Tikriti regime, because using existing capacity is cheaper than rebuilding capacity that has been torched, good as Red Adair is?

It gets better."It would also critically undermine the steps already taken towards the development of alternative sources of energy. So far, these have been pitifully few. All the same, 11 September brought new strength to the security arguments for reducing dependence on imported oil, and as alternative technologies develop, they could become a real threat to the oil lobby - which, like the Israeli lobby, is deeply intertwined with the Bush Administration. War with Iraq can therefore be seen as a satisfactory outcome for both lobbies. Much more important for the future of mankind, it is also part of what is in essence a strategy to use American military force to permit the continued offloading onto the rest of the world of the ecological costs of the existing US economy - without the need for any short-term sacrifices on the part of US capitalism, the US political elite or US voters."

Huh? Hasn't this guy heard about the Asian Brown Cloud? Hasn't he considered the possibility that cheaper oil, extracted with modern technology, just might be an incentive to the Indonesians to cut fewer trees for fuel, and to the Chinese to mine less of that brown coal? Moreover, has it ever occurred to Mr Lieven that these "alternative technologies" will be an incentive for sellers of oil to lower their prices?

Readers, if you come across any other fiskings of this essay, please let me know (skarlson - at - niu dot edu).