[Vision2020] US Middle East Policy:US Supported Saddam, Remember?
Phil Nisbet
pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
Tue Feb 7 08:43:04 PST 2006
Ted
Then I must be a pretty unusual guy, because I have discussed this issue
with you frequently.
I have also acknowledged that we supported Saddam at one time and flipped
back and forth on support of the various dictatorial regimes in the region.
Iran could indeed deny us use of Iranian oil, but as Farsi Shiites, they are
not likely to be able to deny us access to oil in the rest of the Middle
East. You are also correct that containment of Iran is a pretty strong
reason for changes to the paradigm that had controlled our policy to date.
The old paradigm of playing off various power centers in the Middle East,
one against the other and keeping the region unstable to maintain low oil
prices is the principle reason we ended up with the result that we did. The
global terror network was spawned as a result of our policies and there was
an obvious reason to alter the way we approached our actions in the Middle
East.
So, how do you change policy of support of various dictators and an unstable
region and contain Iran at the same time? In the old paradigm we would have
taken out the Taliban, install one regime there and then changed policy to
Saddam and started shipping him weapons again. That policy would have kept
oil prices low. It was a technique in the old Realpolitik that had been
functional for a half century. If this action in the Middle East was about
oil, it’s what we would have done. It’s actually what the oil companies
themselves proposed, something you mentioned in a previous posting.
You might also note that the Military Industrial Complex is up in arms right
now about the fact we are in Iraq. Yesterday's article on the subject shows
that the big arms firms are calling for return from Iraq and a reduction in
US forces by 100,000 troops. Why? Because they make more money from
selling fancy and sophisticated weapons systems and many of those new tech
gadgets are being back burned to pay for things like troops and bonuses and
low margin items like bullets.
You mention Saudi Arabia. They would have been the logical choice to invade
if control of oil fields were the objective. We could similarly invade
Canada or Norway if grabbing oil fields were that important. We did not do
so because we can affect policy in those places and we can also buy what
ever oil we wish in those areas.
My point is that oil and arms are not the primary reasons for War in Iraq.
That being the case, why not consider that Bush, just like Carter before
him, actually did have an ideological reason for his policy? We are both at
a point of acknowledging that the old Realpolitik was dead and that some
other policy was going to supplant it.
The Carter doctrine of exporting democracy gave us Iran, so it has problems,
but its motives were not practical politics or oil. I would suggest to you
that the Bush doctrine is not a lot different than the Carter one. Indeed
the Bush doctrine may end up being just as impractical and just as
problematic as the Carter one was. You have noted that previously in
suggesting that a nice stable dictatorship of a sectarian nature made Iraq
more stable than it is currently, something that takes us right back to the
old paradigm of Realpolitik.
Trying to build democracy in the Middle East as a means of stabilizing a
region we have kept unstable for generations to insure low oil prices is a
daunting and possibly impossible task. But that is indeed the motive, just
as insuring Human Rights were Carter’s motive. In simple terms, they are
trying something impractical for ideological reasons, not doing something
that makes economic sense.
The similarities are even stronger when you consider the bent of the most
recent policy toward oil. Just as Carter decided that we need to gain
energy independence, now the Bush administration is following the same path.
The existing big boys in business hate the current doctrine. It is costing
corporate power not assisting it. Big Oil and the Arms merchants hate it.
Those are realities.
So the best argument you have is that ideologically driven attempts to place
democracies into the Middle East to create stability will result in more
Iran’s. That argument suggests that we return to the old policy cynical
policy of divide and conquer that has been Western policy since the First
World War.
Phil Nisbet
>From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
>To: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>, rhayes at turbonet.com
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] US Middle East Policy:US Supported Saddam, Remember?
>Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 03:45:17 -0800
>
>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
> > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list