HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Down The Middle - Jun 17, 2004 - Printable Version
- Shock and Awe or Shuck and Jibe?
by Down the Middle
We had Al Qaeda on the run (the administration's translation for "We can't find that sucka' anywhere.") and it was time to settle accounts with those nations who had supported them, as the President had promised. Would it be Pakistan, where bin Laden and his cohorts had fled to save themselves from capture or death in the caves of Tora Bora? There, they would be afforded the same protection from the local tribesmen as they had enjoyed in Afghanistan, plus the same natural protection of the mountainous terrain. Perhaps the best protection of all would be the border itself, and the reluctance of the U.S. to violate the sovereignty of it's long time friend.
Nope. Pakistan quickly offers to help it's old friend by "looking for the terrorists, themselves" and immediately becomes an ally in the "War on Terror".
Could it be Saudi Arabia, a nation dominated by the virulent Wahabi sect of Islam and the greatest source of donations to the terrorists...and, oh yea, that little thing about fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers being Saudi.
No can do. The Bush family has had a longstanding close relationship, both personal and business, with the house of Faud every since old George was developing oil fields in the area forty years ago.(The Gulf War was stopped by President Bush 41, the moment American troops had retaken the disputed Iraq/Kuwait field, one he had personally developed back then.) The relationship of the two families has grown so close over the years, the citizens of Kennebunkport quietly refer to Prince Bandar as "Bandar Bush" and Bandar's children are said to refer to our President as "Uncle George". It would stay business as usual with the Saudis.
Then, it must be Iran. In the late seventies, when the Shah was overthrown, our embassy in Teheran was overrun and our people were held hostage for four hundred and forty-four days. (It was rumored at the time that Vice Presidential candidate George Sr. had met secretly with the Iranians in France and cut a deal for no hostages to be released until the election was won and the Reagan/Bush team took office.)
In the early eighties, Iran blew up our embassy in Beirut with a car bomb and then sent a suicide truck bomber to the airport killing two hundred and forty-one U.S. Marine peace keepers in their barracks.
If that wasn't enough, they had recently put together a nuclear program for "peaceful purposes" and it was feared that they, too, now had the bomb.
Wrong again. I guess we still weren't willing to sacrifice thousands of troops fighting Iran as Saddam had done in the 80's, at our behest. Besides, Iran was a very large country to conquer and occupy. It was four times the size of Iraq.
Iraq? Now, there's a thought...but Iraq hadn't been connected to 9/11 and couldn't be linked to Al Qaeda, either.
In fact, under the heavy hand of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a secular government that became our bastion against the religious fanaticism of Iran. At the cost of thousands and thousands of Iraqi lives and millions and millions of Iraqi dinars, he had protected the oil nations in the region and therefore, by proxy, our own oil interest in the neighborhood. So much so, Saddam had put himself in such terrible debt to the Saudis and Kuwaitis, he believed he was "owed" some concession for his good deed. Not only was he rebuffed by "our Arab friends" but Kuwait was said to be fudging a little on the all important divided oil field. Saddam believed his only way out was to annex Kuwait by force, along with their part of oil field. (Kuwait was once part of Iraq.)
Former President Bush's state department suckered him on in by assuring him the U.S. had "no policy" concerning Arab borders, and then he brought the weight of the western military world down on him. The reason for this? Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would now have to accept the protection of American forces on their Holy ground, virtually forever. We would now have permanent bases in the region to protect our "national security" - the oil.
Being a little more than pissed off at the perceived treachery, Saddam later tried to have old George assassinated, but this was all old news. Iraq had been under U.N. sanctions for years and coalition jets controlled Iraqi airspace. The only oil he was allowed to sell was in trade for food and medicine although he did sell to a few neighbors via overland pipeline and tanker trucks. As of late, it is now suspected certain, yet undisclosed high ranking people at the U.N. were making millions by allowing the illegal sale of Iraqi oil.
Yes, Saddam had become a major pain in the ass but no imminent threat to the U.S. or anyone else, for that matter. So, what was the real story behind the "threat" allegations that led us to war? The strategy could mean only one thing. Bush was going to conquer and occupy Iraq, as a first step towards "cleaning up" the Middle East.
Capturing Iraq would cut the land bridge between Syria and Iran and put American forces within striking distance of virtually any Middle Eastern target. From there, we could project power into Syria and then later, Iran. The President had begun his crusade. What else could it be?
Maybe, we wouldn't go any further than Iraq. Maybe, we would just install a friendly government in Baghdad and get the oil flowing again. With all the turmoil in the region and Venezuela cutting us off for supporting a coup against their elected government, we desperately needed to secure future sources to feed the hungry beast. I guess, after all, there were really several reasons to go to Iraq...and the top three were oil, oil and oil!
Oil would not be the only benefit, though. There would also be the usual government contracts to
rebuild the oil "expressway" and the country's infrastructure, much of which we had blown away,
ourselves. We could also end up with long term agreements on military bases as well as the oil contracts.
There's also one more reason to control the country. Iraq not only has large reserves of oil but is literally an "Oasis" in the desert. That's right, water. Knowing how valuable water has become in our own country, a land with many rivers and lakes, imagine how valuable Iraq's ample supply would be to the surrounding desert countries, who have little of the precious resource themselves. Our planners are already telling us, the wars of the future will be fought over water. Ever drink any oil?
So, what is the truth? Was Iraq just a diversion because we couldn't catch bin Laden or was it revenge for messin' with good 'ole dad? Was it to prevent those nasty weapons of mass destruction or just a good way for the Bush cronies to rape the U.S. Treasury? Was Bush really on a crusade to defeat the infidels in a new holy war that had been thrust upon us or were we just expanding our permanent military presence to secure the regions oil for our "national security"?
Whatever the truth was, there could be only one legitimate reason for going to Iraq now. To find the terrorists and their weapons...and they just weren't there.
Lookie here:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4911reality.htm
and here:
http://www.boreme.com/bm/MAY04/a/f_osama_bin_lotto/fr.htm
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).