Wow, is the Unfrozen Caveman Party recruiting ? Where do we sign up ? Where do we mail our check -- excuse me, our Pelt and Hide contributions ?

Brilliant Chester! To add to your thoughts: One of things I think Americans hated most about Vietnam was that we lost. We are not losers so it was absolutely humiliating. (Interestingly, in much of the revisionist military history effort has been made to reveal the actions of the individual troops as honorable while criticizing the decisions of political and military leaders). As Donald Kagan has stated nations go to war because of honor, fear and interest. The Iraq war and any other conflicts in the GWOT must be viewed from that light. Americans may be very uncomfortable with Iraq but the last thing they want is the dishonor and humiliation of another Vietnam.

Here's the action that the unfrozen cavemen want.

It is said that Captains should study Tactics, and Generals should study Logistics.

Most of the Terrorists are being paid to fight, if this pay, training, and supply was interdicted, many Terrorists would have to go find work. At the present time, Iran is the largest funding source in the world for Terrorists, contributing as much as $1 billion in money, arms, and training every year.

I believe the following would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.

We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic, and they better start to cooperate, or else.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else. (At the moment I don't think we could, or should put boots on the ground in Iran)
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power. [From Dune]”
It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.

The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.

I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. 2 Trillion Barrels of oil in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). Any organic matter can be turned into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more nuclear power, (if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks). There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. So talking to them is a waste of our time, and just gives them time to develop nukes.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them.
6. My recommended solution for American energy independence: a combination of tax breaks, loan guarantees (all energy development is capital intensive), and the government purchase of the patents held by Oil-Tech, and Power Energy, and making them open source.

The following further expands on the idea.

Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, Iranian as well as the rest of the Persian gulf oil producers, produce what is called heavy sour crude which typically sells for ~20% less than the benchmark sweet light crude quoted on the spot markets. So, with that understanding we can roughly calculate the gross income Iran’s economy generates from oil exports. At a price of $75 Barrel Iran will get 80% of that price for its low grade crude, or $60. $60 x $2.5 million barrels x 365 days = $54.75 billion. Now from the CIA world fact book we can see that Iran has a GNP of $564 billion. So by destroying Iran’s oil industry their GDP is cut by 10% just from the lost exports. But, the damage is much deeper than that, Iran subsidizes gasoline at $.10 a gallon and Iran consumes 1.425 million barrels of oil a day. With the oil industry destroyed the cars, trucks, trains, and power plants no longer run. That means no machinery, no electricity, and no modern economy. I can’t estimate what Iran’s GDP would decline to, but even the poorest nation on earth still has running cars and electricity. I think much of the population would either revolt or start walking for the boarders. They couldn’t import oil because we would destroy tankers, pipelines, and rolling stock. They couldn’t attack us in Iraq either, because with out gas they can’t logistically supply an attacking army. We on the other hand could perform a ground attack anywhere and they would be incapable of maneuvering in response. Not that I think we should do a ground attack, I don’t, but we would be well positioned if we needed to (airborne assaults on nuclear facilities).

Hmmmm.

1. I see the emergence of the hardline American as a response to the potential for danger. Particularly after Beslan.

2. Americans in wartime are traditionally extremely aggressive. I think the principle is that we, as free people, have better things to do than fight a war so we like to fight a very intense war and get it done with. This is one reason why Americans simply don't like long wars. We all have better things to do than worry about bombing some city yet again, so let's bomb it really really good the first time and checkmark that sucker right off the list.

I've read some anecdotal stories about how angry American soldiers were in WWII about having to fight at all so they were particularly aggressive against the Germans because they wanted it over and done with so they could go home.

3. I see the emergence of anywhere from 1 to 2 new political parties this year. I think the Democrats are finally going to split between the ultra-left Progressives and the more mainstream Democrats.

And I see the possibility of conservatives splitting from the Republican party and forming a conservative party. There is an enormous amount of discontent with the Republican party within the conservative ranks. And if the Republican party is forced to lose considerable political power, then it might be possible for a newly formed conservative party to overtake and replace the Republican party.

Any "Caveman" unity would be formed within the conservative party as I don't see any of the other political parties adhering to that sort of sentiment.

4. The simplest way of dealing with Iran is to simply destroy Iran's gasoline *import* facilities.

Iran produces crude oil, but does not refine it into gasoline or other petroleum products. So that's quite an Achilles heel.

All of these comments contain some good thoughts, but for immediate purposes, we'd better focus on the sorts of issues hinted at in Point No. 3 of Ed's post above. Don't know that I agree with him, or think things will work out that neatly with parties splitting, old moribund organizations nowadays have a way of struggling along, even though internally they have factions at cross-purposes; or their original purposes have disappeared (NATO is a case in point).

But American political issues are urgently important, because if the Democrats, also known as the Mainstream Media Party, or, if you prefer, the Cindy Sheehan Sock Puppets, obtain a majority in the House of Representatives, we will see the collapse of the war, not to mention the impeachment of the President.

I've got my gripes with the Republicans and the administration, as many of us probably do, but a rerun of April 1975 is an ugly, and inmminent possibility, which the Caveman voters need to organize, pronto, to avert.

Karl and Ed,

I agree with you both. Why not hit both the gasoline import facilities and the oil production facilities? Those would make up phase II. Phase I would be nuke-production sites.

I'm all about bringing people together and you two are two groups that should talk: the "bomb the gas" group and the "hit the oil wells" group.

Seriously, I'm all for bringing their economy to its knees no matter what it takes.

as i was reading your essay, i was thinking to myself, my god there's two of us.
in reality all you're describing is a jacksonian.
as far as the political party splits are concerned, i agree that the call'em "angry left" could go off and form their own party, but they would be happier knowing they were destroying something not of their making. that would be why they would/will stay part of the dems. party. as far as the politicians go in congress today there are two isles, the conservatives on the right, the largest segment would be the republikrats in the middle, and the liberals on the left. face it, with the exception of a handful, all any of them want to do is get re-elected. i said in 2003 that the 2004 elections would be the last time the two major pols would dominate the presidential election. wrong again.

To paraphrase Napoleon, if you are going to take Khuzestan, then take Khuzestan. Karl Maier is on the right track about denying the mullahs the funding they need to keep their terrorists supplied, but destroying Iran's oil industry is a high price to pay for demonstrating to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil when we could otherwise take over Iran's oil industry on the cheap by liberating the Shia Arabs who constitute the majority in Iran's principal oil province, Khuzestan.

Taking Khuzestan with an Anglosphere+ Alliance (US-UK-Australia-Canada-India-NZ + Japan + Germany + the willing) would let the West shift those billions in funding to highways instead of nukes, engineering schools instead of madrassas, hospitals instead of barracks -- creating an infrastructure for peace. Laurent Murawiec has already outlined this shift in funding in his "Princes of Darkness," albeit in discussing the liberation of Saudi Arabia's Shiite Arabs from oppression by the Wahabbi imperialists rather than liberating Iran's Shiite Arabs from oppression by the Persian imperialists.

Actually, the US and its allies -- including Iraq -- have the forces available to liberate both Iran's Khuzestan oil province and Saudi Arabia's Hasa oil province, which would leave both Hezbollah and al-Quaeda dependent on their masters' savings accounts rather than new funds coming in every day. The terror masters would probably cut off the funding instantly, especially when they contemplate how their own populations will respond to their leaders' loss of the territories that generate all the oil revenues.

At the same time we announce we're liberating the Shiite Arabs in Khuzestan and Hasa and putting the oil revenues from those provinces into an international administration that will build infrastructure throughout the Middle East, we can offer the mullahs and princes safe exile if they don't resist, and shock and awe in Teheran and Riyadh and the Straits of Hormuz if they do. With that kind of offer on the table, backed by US air power in the region, you'd probably see meek acceptance on the part of the corrupt leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia when Alliance and Iraqi troops march in, and celebration on the part of their entire populations, not just the liberated Shia Arabs, who will finally see some concrete benefits from those vast oil revenues, rather than having them pissed away on luxuries for the elites, nuclear arms programs in Iran and Pakistan, terror programs all over the world, and all sorts of other misadventures. With honest administration and a focus on civil needs, nations throughout the Middle East could make real progress after the West's victory.

The control of Khuzestan and Hasa provinces is the key to determining whether oil revenues fund nukes and terror, or roads and schools. The mullahs and wahabbis have declared war on the West. In war, you attain victory by seizing your enemy's centers of gravity. Khuzestan and Hasa provinces are compact geographically, and populated by Shia Arabs with no love lost for their oppressors from distant Teheran and Riyadh. Let the world think that the West wants to steal oil revenues for our own domestic purposes rather than ensure that they fund infrastructure in the Middle East instead of war on the West. If we seize Khuzestan and Hasa, history will show that civil infrastructure arose in the Middle East and the Islamofascist war on the West ended.

With all the emphasis on our taking any casualties, I wonder what the unfrozen caveman would think of bombardment, as in the old naval tactic, where a battleship would stand off a city and then bombard it until the people were sick of the bombardment and surrendered or made a working peace.

We obviously have the capability to do this from the air. What would a country do in such a situation in modern times. Put civilians on their infrastructure and photograph the bombs being dropped?

We don't really have to go all the way back to Caveman. I'd settle for a return to the 19th Century for a couple of years.

Great sentence Terry: "...opportunities must be created and then exploited -- or if they come by luck, they must be exploited all the same." That may sound harsh or cold to some, but I think they sum up your whole essay.

Thanks, Scott!

Just FYI: Call me Chester. I know my email address throws people off sometimes though.

Instead of the "caveman" bit read Walter Meade's treatise Jacksonians for a much better view.
Place Pres. Bush in as a "Wilsonian" trying to steer "Jacksonians" away from useful action or success. Have Pres. Bush return (ad infinitum) to the UN for everytning. Have Dr. Condi Rice validate every internationally sanctioned action, and by contrast desanction actions taken without international imprinteur (sp?).
Now you too can predict actions by this administration much more accurately.

Chester,

I find your article very interesting, and I think it describes a feeling that has been coming over me. But unlike what your article might suggest, I'm not developing a greater hostility at muslims. I do see this in many people, with talks about increasing levels of military action, some quite savage, towards seemingly random opposition.

On Belmont Club, a place where the comments section has often been filled with very thoughtful types, I recently listened to some people discuss the need to drop a few nukes on Lebanon and Iran. Attempts to show that this might be a bad idea were treated with a tremendous amount of hostility, to the point where I was considered by some to be a "muslim sympathizer", whatever sins that may entail.

You're quite right, Americans do want to win. But we are hardly facing a formidable opponent. We are facing a fringe movement of a set of broken societies.

I'm not angry at Muslims and I'm not afraid of Islam. I'm certainly very concerned about *some* muslims and I'm concerned about the fate of many Islamic countries. But I don't feel particularly threatened by them. The worst jihadis could never approach the threat of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.

But I'm definitely feeling angry and aggressive. And my anger and aggression is directed towards the current administration and the various neoconservatives in seem to proliferate in the right-wing media. Considering the failures of our administration I don't believe that the situation can be improved by giving them more power to continue their course. Considering the failed predictions, lies, and outright BS by various neoconservative writers, I don't believe that the situation can be improved by giving them any additional credence.

I ask anyone who really cares about the troops to take a walk down memory lane. Look at the things that were said, the claims and predictions that were made, by the likes of Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and numerous others. And look at where we are now.

Oh sure, we can blame the left. We can blame the MSM. We can blame the Iranians. But once in a while it can be fruitful to look at those who were given the most control and who constantly and consistently have got things wrong. And when they start suggesting we need to expand the conflict to additional countries we all need to really examine the track record of their past predictions and our current predicament.

Call me an unsophisticated caveman for I really don't understand your caveman lawyer reference as a parallel to the Caveman Warrior. One debatably funny and the other deadly serious.

I'll take the serious side thank you.

I am another former Marine Caveman. I'm now in the Army National Guard. There is a battalion worth of us here in a "blue" state (not that any of us are Democrats) who will vote a straight Caveman ticket.