[Vision2020] US Middle East Policy:US Supported Saddam, Remember?

[Ted Moffett]

Sunil, Roger et. al.

Thank you Sunil, for acknowledging my post, and to Roger for his response.

One of the variables that needs to be considered in the current US Middle
East policy is the fact that oil rich fundamentalist Islamic anti-US Iran
is/has become increasingly powerful, and this increase in Iran's power has
been on the radar for years, no doubt involved in the equations in our
invasion of Iraq.  Gone are the days we could install our puppet dictators
in Iran!  Iran is now the potential fundamentalist Islamic anti-US
superpower in this region, and marginalizing their power is no doubt a
priority of US long term strategy.

I don't think the idea that the Islamist world could use oil as an economic
weapon against the US or the West is a far fetched idea.  The problem with
this theory is that the Islamic world has too much infighting to allow the
unity of purpose that would render denying access to oil to the US or the
West effective, insofar as it would require unity among a number of Islamic
nations across the Middle East.  Nonetheless, the possibility of this
outcome I think does motivate US strategic planning in this region, involved
in our invasion of Iraq.

The theory we could continue with access to Middle East oil with the old
paradigm of manipulating the governments in this region to our ends has been
under question with Iran in the equation, ever since the first Bush Gulf War
that stopped Iraq's expansionist goals, and probably before, since the 1979
Iranian revolution.  How easily it seems the US public forgets that the US
supported Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war after the 1979 Iranian revolution
(have you seen the photos of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam?), the US
supplying Saddam with some of the same weapons we now condemn him for using
as an evil dictator in Saddam's war against Iran!!!!!!!!

Sure, in an all out fight, Iran would not stand a chance against the US, but
the costs of this military approach would be great.  Invading and
"conquering" Iran, a much bigger more powerful nation than Iraq, would be a
nightmare compared to our invasion of Iraq (though it can be argued we have
yet still to "win" the Iraq war, given the chaos and attacks ongoing every
week), a joke of a military contest, given the US's overwhelming advantage.

A nation that would take our citizens hostage, as Iran did in the Iranian
revolution, for its own political/military goals, could just as well try to
deny US access to Middle East oil.

The US will move dramatically in the future in one way or another to
undermine the power of Iran, to assure that Iran does not threaten our
allies or our access to Middle East oil.  I think Iran developing nuclear
weapons would be a disaster, but with the US invasion of Iraq, can you blame
Iran for wanting the best military defense possible?  Iran's nuclear weapon
program can thus be viewed in part as blow back from the US invasion of
Iraq, and to insist otherwise is to stretch credibility of analysis.  Of
course Iran probably would have pursued nuclear weapons anyways, as many
nations have for their own defense, or other nefarious intentions,
but perhaps not quite as quickly or aggressively if the US was not breathing
down their throats on their east and west borders in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US Middle East policy is to fight terror?  Support democracy?  Get rid
of dictators?

Then why do we support the corrupt dictatorship of the Saudi Royal
family over Saudi society, a government and Wahabist culture that, while
investing 100s of billions, maybe close to a trillion, in the US economy,
and being friendly to assuring US access to Saudi oil, treats women like
slaves, tortures its own citizens, denies freedom of the press and political
organizing, and has been quite convincingly documented to be connected to
massive funding of Al Queda, with 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists being Saudi
nationals?

It seems we should have invaded Saudi Arabia in our war on terror?

I usually get either hostility or silence to these questions, from those who
support our current administration's Middle East policy.

Ted Moffett


On 2/6/06, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> I suspect you'd call me ignorant no matter what I said, but what the hell,
> I'll reply anyway.  I think the war in Iraq is entirely unrelated to the
> so-called war on terror.  I'm not sure how one wages a war on a tactic,
> but
> Iraq is a separate and unrelated war.
>
> I disagree with what Phil says about the war not being about oil.  I think
> it's about securing access to Middle-East oil; I think one of the goals
> was
> to be able to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and into Iraq.  I don't
> know if the Administration is starting to give up on that one as things
> are
> going so poorly; I wonder what is going on with the plan for long-term
> bases.  Our 'liberal free press' hasn't done a good job keeping us
> informed
> about that aspect of the occupation.
>
> I see Ted has also raised the issue of the long-term bases, so I won't say
> any more.
>
> If Iraq's oil is being used to rebuild Iraq and make it a better country,
> it's a pretty well-kept secret.  Someone ought to let the Iraqis know
> about
> it.  They seem to have gotten the idea, from watching what goes on around
> them, that reconstruction is about American companies lining their pockets
> while they stay unemployed.
>
> I think the notion that we have the right to invade other countries to
> make
> them better is a dangerous and arrogant one.  Perhaps we should
> demonstrate
> that we can rebuild the Gulf Coast before we go around invading countries
> that haven't harmed us and killing their people.
>
> Sunil
>
>
> >From: "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
> >To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com, rhayes at turbonet.com
> >CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: LMT reporting US losses
> >Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:00:17 -0800
> >
> >Sunil,
> >
> >Isn't the war, a war on terrorism.Thus the war in afganistan, Indonsia,
> >Phillipines, Iraq, and even Sudan. With all of these countries involved,
> I
> >think its a little ignorant to say "this" war is about oil.
> >
> >Secondly, If the oil in Iraq is being used to rebuild Iraq and make it a
> >better country, isn't that a good thing?
> >
> >
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060207/d8501433/attachment-0001.htm