WHY ARE YOU DUCKING ME, PROF. SHARKEY?

I have posted this commentary 6 or so times on this blog site challenging 

professor Sharkey to debate me in print.  This blog has over 105,000 views.  He knows this challenge exits.  I offer it once again.  In the comments section 
here he has space.  If he wants to post his reply at length,  I can arrange for that.

                              NO BLOOD FOR OIL

                               by Keith F. Shirey

                 Professor, Political Science Emeritus

                Citrus Community College, California

The blogsite “The National Interest” presents commentary from “mainstream” scholars and professors.  The conventional wisdom found there is that the United States has vital interests in the (mostly ) Arab Middle East and the rest of Africa, particularly in the North.  In my view, this is not the case but I thought I’d visit web sites of scholarly publications and see if their content might change my view.  Typical of what I found was and article by Professor Zachary C. Shirkey, an associate professor of political science at Hunter College, City University of New York.   Shirkey, on July 29, 2013 wrote a commentary entitled, “America Can’t Escape the Middle East.” 

 As you read on, you may think that I have chosen an easy target in Professor Shirkey.  While it is true that his capacity for logical thinking is impaired, as compared to those of his published colleagues, the content of his commentary seems to be the usual fare:  What passes for erudite exposition, usually contains questionable assumptions, dubious claims and “facts” that have no place in a well-reasoned piece.  Shirkey’s commentary, in this sense, is typical. 

The Professor seems never to have had a course in Introduction To Basic Logic.  The idea that claims in an argument should be provided premise support adequate to make the conclusions seem, at least, plausible seems to be something of a mystery to him.  For example, at the outset of his commentary, he suggests that the primary goal of Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups is to institute sharia law throughout the world.   Well, maybe, but wouldn’t it be helpful if Shirkey provided a bit of support for that assertion?   He  does say that Sweden was attacked, in 2010, by a human bomber taking orders from al Qaeda but that’s hardly conclusive proof that Islamic terrorists want to impose sharia law there or anywhere.

As a matter of fact, the artist Lars Vilks' drawings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a roundabout dog, and the presence of Sweden’s military forces in Afghanistan were the reasons given by the “Stockholm Bomber,” that Professor Shirkey is referring to, for the attack.   One supposes that if jihadi groups wanted to impose sharia on Sweden they would need to have taken more assertive measures than one bombing attack in the last 2,000 years!  Furthermore, we need to know just what other measures could the jihadi groups have used to promote sharia law in Sweden (and around the world) and what is the evidence that they have been used.

Shirkey, then, “argues” that the U.S. can’t “escape the Middle East” because terrorist groups there want to impose sharia law throughout the world.  He next asserts that there is no escape because  they want to resurrect the Muslim Caliiphate.  That, of course is the Muslim “super-state” that would be comprised of all existing Muslim states.  Perhaps, although that is certainly not my view,  that would be a threat to U.S. national interests, but the reader is never given an explanation as to why.   So, just as his  case with the issue of sharia law, we are supposed to take on faith that “America can’t escape the Middle East” .  Where is Mr. Logic when we need him?   He certainly won’t be found in Professor Shirkey’s office at Hunter College.

It just gets worse.  Shirkey continues his “argument” by stating, “Simply ignoring the threat [worldwide imposition of sharia law and the Caliphate] would be counterproductive, meaning the use of drones to target Al Qaeda leaders and associated fighters will continue.  The United States will remain at the center of high profile counterterrorism efforts throughout the region, as well as part of continuing multilateral non-proliferations efforts.”[sic]

So, ignoring the [totally unproven] “threat” is “counterproductive.”  Why?  I don’t know and evidently Shirkey doesn’t either.  If he does, he doesn’t say why.  At the risk of not keeping the reader awake I’ve go to say again, where is the premise support for such a claim?  Mr. Logic, where are you hiding?

Professor Shirkey assumes that the reader will go along with his advocacy of the use of drones as an effective instrument against his (unproven) threat.    But , to use his term “counterproductive,” it is drones that seem very often to cause more problems  than they solve.  Drone attacks kill civilians, rescue workers that try to aid the hurt and dying and increase recruitment by militant groups.  See http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

in the Middle East.  He suggests that, while the United States may, in the future, no longer need to import oil, it needs to be “vitally concerned” in assuring that supplies continue.  Shirkey soldiers on to give other reasons as to why the U.S. must stay such as the  global price of oil be stable.   Economic downturns in other countries, caused by the spike in oil prices, will negatively effect the United States he argues.   Worse, would be an interruption in the flow of oil.  There is a U.S. “security stake” involved:  “The bottom line is clear, the United States will have ongoing security and economic interests in the Middle East even if it is not a net importer of oil” he concludes.

So, just how is the United States going to assure that the price of oil will be stable and its supplies not be cut off?  Well , one doesn’t need a clear chrystal  ball by now to predict that Professor Shirkey keeps this a secret from us in his commentary.   Perhaps in conversation with himself the Professor knows.  But, after all, this is a public commentary, and, as we have seen, in issue after issue, he will withhold his knowledge and wisdom from us.

What is utterly unbelievable is that Professor Shirkey does not mention that rather well-known Middle Eastern country, the state of Israel  (perhaps he thinks it’s in Europe?) in a discussion of why the U.S. will have to remain in the Middle East.  This omission takes one’s breath away!  Israel is not just a nation state ally of the U.S. that is a battle tested laboratory for U.S. weapons systems!  There seems to be an agreement among many scholars that the US-Israel relationship is like no other in history.  Some argue that Israel is the U.S.’ 51^st state.  Certainly It could be argued that the U.S. and Israel have “shared strategic interests” and values  that involve the U.S. national interest.  Who knows what Shirkey would say about that.  

A question overlooked by Professor Shirkey is whether jihadists in the Middle East constitute an “existential threat” to the U.S. homeland (fatherland? motherland?).   The collapse in the Middle East of core al Qaeda and a number of its key affiliates does not, of course, mean that jihadist violence is over.  Such religiously motivated mayhem has been a feature of the Muslim world for many centuries.  But one of the major arguments for “not escaping the Middle East,” which is now being particularly applied to North Africa, is that if we were to do so, the homeland would be put in jeopardy.  I see no proof of that.  See Sevmas Milne, The Guardian of 1/22/13.  Again, one wonders what the Professor would say.

The United States has caused the deaths, and physical/mental wounding of thousands of its own troops in the Middle East.  It has spent trillions of its treasure for no good reason.  It has killed over a million of Middle Eastern civilians (mostly in Iraqis).  That the war in Iraq was unnecessary is now almost a cliché.  That the prolonged war in Afghanistan has been mostly pointless is now being widely acknowledged. 

The danger of Professor Shirkey’s commentary, and those like it in “scholarly” publications, is that these careless, illogical, presentations—particularly when they neglect highly significant facts and issues— can be influential in the political world because they are made by “respectable” academics.  Perhaps it is too obvious to state, but they serve as rationalizations, excuses for war and other acts of state violence that benefit exclusively profit driven entities, particularly multinational oil companies. 

Stripped of its nonsense about sharia law and the Caliphate, Shirkley is simply trying to make the case of more blood for oil.    General John Abizaid, former had of the U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq said about that war, “Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that.”  Much of that blood is now and will be spilled by thousands of innocents in the drone attacks that Professor Shirkey advocates in his cold-blooded  piece in The National Interest.

But it is not in the national interest to foment hatred of the United States through the use of drones or giving aid to tribes, clans and countries that will aid multinationals in oil and mineral exploration and extraction. This will only results in recruiting for jihadist groups which are now most powerful in North Africa where the U.S. is “pivoting.”   Al Qaeda and its affiliates are not currently threats to the U.S. homeland, despite what the hysterical Congressman Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has to say.    However, in the future they could be because aiding recruitment and adding strength to these groups could result in payback on U.S. soil.

In North Africa there is much oil and other mineral resources to war over and many crazy religious zealots to be recruited.   And, perhaps, in the future there will be another 9/11, this time a payback for blood for oil.

What’s your end game, Professor Zachary C. Shirkey?