Dunno about the "REAL" reasons being sorted out behind closed doors. Won't you consider the possibility that the renewed interest in Iraq is because of the increase in world terrorism, some of which is now being focused on the United States? And our fear and knowledge that Saddam is eager to help with that effort. Seems pretty up front and straight forward to me.
Is it really that straight forward. Doesn't the Al Qaeda angle seem to be the most forced argument in the move towards war?
For the past four years I've earned a living analyzing petroleum distribution issues for a 100-year-old trade magazine. There are plenty of people, literally thousands, who know a lot more about this complex industry than I do. But there are not many people who's job requires them, for example, to actually read 400+ pages of the Bush energy plan and try to see how it meets the real needs in the marketplace for retailers and consumers. Or look at what the impact will be from the Venezuelan strike on spring-time gasoline prices.
Applying that same approach to this situation, and what knowledge I have of petroleum supply and distribution, people who don't think there is both serious domestic/international economic risk in the region today or even that there isn't great opportunity for various corporate concerns are clueless. I get industry press releases in my e-mail offering access to consultants who will tell me "Who are the winners and losers going to be?" in the industry with a regime change. I will agree, though, that I don't think the benefits are such that we would be doing this without the very real economic and political threats in the region, threats that can't just be overlooked.
[BTW: this just represents my personal opinion as an American citizen, and does not reflect the views and opinions of the magazine that employs me. It should not be construed as providing an official or private endorsement for or against the war, just a presentation of readily available material and personal opinion.]
For those of you who are strong supporters of the "9/11 angle" I'll ask you the following:
You can debate if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi represents a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network..." in unsubstantiated claims by Powell related to a poison and explosive training camp in Northern Iraq. However, there is a captured terrorist and Zarqawi associate that claims the camp belongs to Ansar al-Islam, a group not connected to Al Qaeda and violently opposed to Hussein and operating in a region outside his control. Ansar al-Islam primarily seeks the establishment of an Islamic regime in Jordan. This was leaked by the Germans, so it probably carries as much weight as Powell's claim in the end, no more, no less.
Even if a single Al Queada cell exists, given the clear links to significant Al Qaeda support and funding in Saudi Arabia and an unwillingness of the Saudi govt. to crack down on these terrorists in a serious way (see below), shouldn't we be coming down like a brick wall on the Saudi govt.? Why aren't we? Is the World's oil supply secure (as it relates to the region)? What about military security from Iraqi aggression, WMD or otherwise? As this synopsis from the World Tribune point out (not certain of the pub but this is common knowledge stuff here):
Saudi Arabia increased military spending to $27 billion in 2001 but is still incapable of defending itself, according to a new report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies... Saudi weaknesses, the report said, include the conduct of large-scale military maneuvers and the failure to train above the level of battalion. The report also cited what it termed the "questionable" leadership of the Saudi ground forces command... The institute also warned of growing instability as a result of political unrest and a declining oil-based economy. Saudi Arabia has failed to win either local or foreign investments needed to provide enough jobs to satisfy the demands of a young population... "Although Crown Prince Abdullah is keen on accelerating the return of major Western investors, hurdles - including declining oil prices, attacks on foreigners, perceived regime instability and lack of counter-terrorism cooperation - persist," the report said.
As I pointed out in another thread, the current architects of Gulf War 2 were pushing for a regime change back in 1998, before international terrorism was even on the horizon as the defining threat to the American way of life:
In 1997 a group of prominent Republicans and neo-conservatives (including Cheney, Jeb Bush and a number of individuals who are now Bush foreign policy staffers(Rumsfeld, Bolton - Colin Powell’s staff; Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld’s staff; Armitage - Powell’s staff; Khalilzad - UNOCOL consultant/new Bush Admin. Afghanistan envoy) organized the
Project for the New American Century. Among the "urgent" needs they identified was a regime change in Iraq, due to Hussein's WMD programs and their potential threat to the regions oil supply, our ally Israel, and other moderate states. They sent a letter to Clinton in 1998 outling what they felt should happen, well before 9/11 came along to actually make it possible to achieve. Here’s a quote.
The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
And just how secure are Saudi reserves from the internal stability angle? Perhaps this is where 9/11 comes into play the strongest. Why aren't the Saudi's cracking down on the internal terrorist supporters with a vengeance? There is A LOT of good coverage here at the PBS
Frontline site, but again, nothing that isn't being covered elsewhere if you really want to find it. Here are some excerpts
Frontline: There's a letter from Crown Prince Abdullah to President George W. Bush, apparently in August of this year, which was revealed the other day in Saudi Arabia, in which the Crown Prince says, "A time comes when peoples and nations part. We are at a cross-roads. And it's time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look for their separate interests." It doesn't sound like a very solid ally.
Brent Scowcroft (U.S. national security adviser during the Gulf War): Well, look, the Saudis are worried. They're very worried. Because Osama bin Laden is probably a deeper threat to Saudi Arabia, to Egypt, to Jordan, you name it, than to the United States. Osama bin Laden is going after us to get us out of the region, so he can deal with the regimes that he sees in the region, or replace them with purists. The Saudis are concerned.
Or,
Frontline: I'm going to meet with former Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker, who for instance, was heavily involved in the sale of the F-15, F-16 fighters just before he left office in 1992. He has returned to the region, as a lobbyist, if you will, for various groups, like the Carlyle group. What should we ask him?
Vali Nasr (Islamic fundamentalist expert): Well, we should ask him, where are we going with Saudi Arabia? This is a country that's under tremendous amount of stress. Sept. 11 has exposed contradictions and massive fissures in its relationship with its society that we were unawares about. And now are those exposed. It's not business as usual.
Saudi Arabia has the world's largest petroleum reserves, Iraq has the second largest. Can you see how having a friendly, pro west regime would add stability to the world's oil market? Does this make any sense, perhaps more sense than trying like hell to establish any possible terrorist link with Iraq while ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda is at heart a Saudi financed and manned organization?
So why the lies? Well, they're not lies. There is a grain of truth, and for "ethical" PR, unfortunately, that's all you need. The doomsday scenarios are possible, but perhaps not as likely as they're being presented.
(cont.)
