Mars Bitches!

In today's Washington Post Charles Krauthammer uses a not so clever rhetoric device to show that the war in Iraq is far more important war than the one in Afghanistan. As usual, he shows that he in no way grasps what is going on there. From the Washington Post:

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

Al-Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan (or some cave on the border) presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that "the most . . . serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." Al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq "is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

And it's not just what al-Qaeda says, it's what al-Qaeda does. Where are they funneling the worldwide recruits for jihad? Where do all the deranged suicidists who want to die for Allah gravitate? It's no longer Afghanistan but Iraq. That's because they recognize the greater prize.

Apparently Krauthammer's favorite martian is a neocon, and like Krauthammer he has it all wrong.

Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we are there, they're there because the enemy of the enemy of the Iraqis are their friends. Do you really think that as hard as they are fighting us over the oil wealth that they are just going to turn around and give it to al-Qaeda if we leave? No, of course not. Whoever comes out on top in Iraq isn't going to be al-Qaeda, and they aren't going to share.

The Iraqis will drive al-Qaeda out of the country once we leave. We've already seen glimpses of that as the al-Qaeda - Sunni insurgent alliance has started to crack, and once we leave, it will end.

Now, as for the war in Iraq being their most serious issue today, that is true. But the question we should ask is not what, but why?

The answer is because we are there, because it's easy, because it's doable, and most importantly because it's cheap. There was a time when we defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. We did this by literally spending them to death. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq to do the same to us.

While it happens that sometimes people have to learn a lesson more than once, it is seldom that the teacher has to learn a lesson that was taught not that long ago.

From The Middle East To The Moon

If it's Friday, you can be almost sure that Charles Krauthammer has some batshit insane column in the Washington Post. today, Krauthammer sees no bounds for American empire, suggesting that we colonize the moon. Yes, you read that right, the moon.

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks NASA is a big waste of money. They have provided numerous scientific breakthroughs that have helped mankind, plus some cool video such as this short movie released today of Saturn shot by the Cassini-Huygens mission. (Other cool pictures available here) But what Krauthammer is proposing is insane. From the Washington Post:

Moreover, the moon base is not pointless. The shuttles were on an endless trip to the nowhere of low Earth orbit. The moon is a destination. The idea this time is not to go to plant a flag, take a golf shot and leave, but to stay and form a real self-sustaining, extraterrestrial human colony.

Sure, Mars would be better. It holds open the possibility of life and might even have water on its surface today. But the best should not be the enemy of the good. Mars is simply too far, too dangerous, too difficult, too expensive. We won't go there for a hundred years.

Nor is it true that there is nothing of use or even of interest on the moon. There are all kinds of materials to be exploited, observations of the cosmos to be made and knowledge to be gained on how best to live off the land away from Earth.

Self-sustaining, extraterrestrial human colony? Never-mind those pesky human necessities such as food, water, and air. We might not have the technology to sustain human life on the moon for a hundred years, let alone go to Mars.

And what exactly are those materials we are going to exploit? It will never, ever be financially viable to bring back any meaningful moon material for use on the Earth.