Is this analysis of current Geopolitics acurate?

Great Debates
21

What I think is odd about discussions like this is that they focus continually on Bush.
Say for the sake of argument that Bush was not a private citizen, but actually some sort of world leader. A man who had a public responsibility to a group of people. This is hypothetical, of course, because no such situation exists.
So, hapless citizen Bush is thrust into a position of some sort of leadership, and something happens that focuses his attention on an area of security, also hypothetical but lets say a few buildings fall down in a city, and some people die.
At this point, when pondering these events, the Bush mind strikes oil. Literally. ‘This would be a perfect opportunity to arbitrarily attack a nation for it’s oil, based on the outward excuse that no more buildings will fall down.’ It would be brilliant.
Unfortunately, lacking any sort of organization to investigate for him and provide him with information, Bush has to make up his own story. ‘The people who knocked over our buildings are located in that oil bearing country.’, he tells the nation.
Realistic? I think not. Bush makes decisions of this nature based on the same thing that every other president ever has, US intelligence organizations.

Here you go:

“We have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of Al Qaida, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train Al Qaida operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that Al Qaida leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.”
Senator Joseph Leiberman(D), Wall Street Journal, 2002

“We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaida going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaida members, including some who have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.”
-George Tenet, Director of the CIA, in a letter to Senator Robert Graham, Wall Street Journal, 2003 (A Clinton Appointee, BTW)

“This attempt at revenge by a tyrant against the leader of the world coalition that defeated him in war is particularly loathsome and cowardly.”
President Bill Clinton, following Saddam Hussein’s unsuccessful assassination attempt of Former President George Bush, Sr. 1993

And finally, my absolute favorite, just to prove GWB is so darned oil crazy:

JOURNALIST
“Mr. President, why do you think that only Britain is supporting our move? Or why have the allies all retreated from any support?”

PRESIDENT
“Well, I believe that – first of all, you have to ask them their position – but I believe that we have historically, at least in recent history, taken the lead in matters like this. And I think this was our responsibility at this time.”

President Bill Clinton justifying his non-sanctioned attacks on Iraq, White House Press Conference 1996

What I’d like to hear in this argument, and what is lacking evidence are the following:

  1. Any evidence that the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, MI6, and the Israeli Secret Service are lying. That’s what you call it when an inteliigence organization says something that’s not true, it’s called a lie. Serious allegation, right?

  2. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This can be branched into any of the following: Iraq poses no immediate threat to the U.S., There are no terrorists being harbored by Iraq, Iraq has not, would not, is not supported terrorists.

  3. Any mention by anyone of a relevent point on the following letters(Or perhaps a candid denial of the involvement in Iraq); ALF, ANO, PLO. This can be annotated by a mention of Abu Nidal.

  4. The terrorist training ground that does not exist at Salman Pak, has not been used by Hamas, and was not built by Saddam Hussein.

In your replies, please do not use cites from al-Baath al-Riyadhi, as my sources indicate they may be biased.

22

True enough. But then again, none of the same statements could be made about Grenada or Panama or Haiti or any other unilateral US intervention in the Americas. Or the Spanish American or Mexican American Wars for that matter. The US just does things in the Western Hemisphere when it feels like it. I am not saying that the US has any just cause to send troops into Caracas, only that a skilled PR campaign could make such a cause popular in a hurry. (Or even after the fact; the US could pluck Chavez out of the city long before anyone knew US troops even were there.) And all this is only a tangent to show that oil politics, not oil itself, lie closer to the core of the Bush policies with Iraq.

23

from OP: In the end, France doesn’t care about Iraq or prevention of war, it is just acting out in its best interests. France has every right to do so, but I believe its assumption of the moral high ground is repulsive.

Perhaps. However the French government’s actions, coincidently or not, seem to coincide with French public opinion on this issue. Maybe they should get a couple of points for that. :wink:

24

bbonden: “the US could pluck Chavez out of the city long before anyone knew US troops even were there.”

Yes, the US could but would they? I think you underestimate the ramifications of such a move. There was a certain amount of outcry a year or so ago when the US announced public support for a coup of Venezuela’s democratically elected government. I don’t think the US could expect to get away with any overt move to topple Chavez. And I don’t think Venezuela can be likened to very small nations such as Grenada, Panama, or Haiti.

In any case, though, this is, as you say, a tangent. We seem to agree on the larger point–that the current Iraq policy is not entirely reducible to oil interests; I just don’t think your Venezuela example is a very effective way of demonstrating why.

25

This is a little too abstract for my understanding.

(a) Why would the US ever need to promptly intervene in Saudi Arabia? Are you talking invasion (of course Saddam is ruled out post-Iraqi-occupation) or are you talking of the hypothetical scenario where the royal family collapses through some sort of revolution?
(b) Which countries do we need to “squeeze” in the region? Given how the whole world imports from that region, is the US after a world hegemony by grasping the “oily balls” (forgive me) of most nations?

(a) is national self-interest but a bad reason to wage war for given the large degree of hypothesizing.
(b) is simply arrogant, and brings back memories of pre-WWII imperialism. I doubt if the American people, leave alone the world, will stand for it.

26

litost:

(a) By intervention, I mean whatever psychological and diplomatic pressure maintaining a large occupying force next door could afford a suitably arrogant and ethically challenged administration. Primarilly, I was giving a nod to the OP’s supposition that the growing potential of a less America-friendly climate in Saudi Arabia plays a part in US planning; I think it does. Probably a safer supposition than possible intervention in Saudi Arabia would be that US motives include preemptive (and opportunistic) intervention in an equivalent oil-producing nation – Iraq.

(b) If you’ll reexamine what I said about “squeezing”, it was that any country which establishes control of the Persian Gulf region gains that strategic ability. This is the major reason behind the Carter Doctrine, stated overtly by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and maintained by each President since. The US doesn’t want that ability in the hands of an opposing (or potentially opposing) power. And whether the American people would stand for a foreign policy driven by cynical realpolitik is not exactly an unknown, given mid-to-late 20th century US history.
Boo Boo Foo: Well, I took it as a “you might want to know there’s a a ‘Kick Me Hard’ sign on the back of that bomber jacket you’re strutting around in…” type of comment. Sounds like friendly criticism to me!

27

Ditto the thanks thus far to Boo Boo Foo. Not that the news is at all surprising. That’s kind of how the US looks from the inside these days too :frowning:

28

(1) On who exactly in Saudi Arabia is the US occupation of Iraq going to have a tangible effect on? The people or the ruling government? The royal family has been and will always be friendly to the US. Why should the US play the stick-waving game with them? OTOH, if you are saying the people are increasingly growing hostile to the US, yes, 9/11 is a case in point. But, the occupation of Iraq is going to stem that climate!?! I hope you weren’t referring to the latter.
(2) Ah, your last line gets us back to the need for oil, not merely the control of oil. I think one reason behind the war could be control of oil fields and slowly weaning away from Saudi supply.

I am struggling to grasp the concept of strategic ability. Let us assume US does not want any opposing power to gain said strategic ability. But, which power right now has that ability? Why does that doctrine call for a war now?

You are right. It did take a lot of propaganda to convince them though. Now, as the lone power, would the US people stand for a continued military occupation of Iraq?

29

litost, you seem to be under the impression that I’m advocating an invasion of Iraq by trying to articulate what I believe are the real motives underlying that desire by the current US administration. I am not.

I agree that occupation of Iraq will hardly stem the tide of anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia; in fact, I think it will galavanize those feelings, not only in Saudi Arabia (where the rule of the Saud family is increasingly less certain), but in the Middle East and South Asia as a whole. (I’m worried particularly about Pakistan.) I also agree that US need for oil is a factor here; my thesis is that it’s not only and not primarily that internal need which drives the thinking (such as it is) of the powers in Washington.

Iraq/Hussein is the main worry for this administration, and No, the doctrine, if applied as Carter intended, IN NO WAY calls for war at this moment. I keep referring to the Carter Doctrine for the sole purpose of illustrating to those who’ve lapped up the treacly “liberation of the Iraqi people” justification that oil not only is a factor, it is the single most important political aspect of the current “crisis”.

30

Boo Boo Foo - First of all, let me say I agree. I know that American media is biased and more in the hands of various special interests than they would like to admit (although that is the subject of a different thread). I consider myself educated enough to realize the spin our media gives current events isn’t the whole picture. It’s part of the reason I’m here on this board, asking for insight. The opinions of our longstanding allies and friends in the world is valuable.

That said - I don’t believe that fact alters my perception of the motives behind the nation-states on the security council. My analysis may be missing the effect of our policies on sentiment towards the US, but if anything, the current admistration has shown that it doesn’t really care. Unfair trade, ham-fisted US policy, errors the US is making diplomatically reflect poor execution rather than poor motives.

On a side note, it is my hope that while most of the world may loathe the current administration, most of the world is intelligent enough to separate the administration from the country and people within.

I have to agree with xenophon41 on the US’ desire for the control of oil within the Middle East- he is arguing my opinion more eloquently than I could.

31

Not at all. I have read your posts elsewhere and know you are not advocating this war. I am just trying to get a grip on your thesis.

Which is what I am trying to understand. If control more than need is a factor as you hypothesize, are you saying the administration is blind to some of the repercussions listed above that you also agree are dangerous? I mean, US is already a major target… how could an administration (which will also seek re-election soon) pursue this “we-want-control” policy (an inch close to being imperialistic) given the circumstances we live in? IOW, can your thesis explain how the administration analyzed the situation and settled on such a policy?

32

That’s the trouble with policy that’s driven so much by ideology. Even the most intelligent ideologues work with blinders on. While this may be an unsatisfying answer to you, I can’t explain some of the blind spots of this administration without invoking the “ideology hypothesis”.

So, my thesis is that the motivation behind the Bushies’ actions toward Iraq are driven (in the largest part) by their desire to establish permanent American hegemony in the Gulf region in line with the ideology expressed by the current gang in power through efforts like the Project for the New American Century. Unfortunately, my thesis cannot support the wisdom of any particular application of that ideology (nor, as you kindly recognized, am I a proponent of said ideology); the best I can do is try and interpret current events in light of that prevailing mindset.

33

Another interesting observation I heard yesterday is this…

The USA is currently so influential on the world stage, both economically and culturally and militarily, that many countries are presently NOT saying much in the way of open criticism because of the unspoken fear that some sort of “retribution” might take place.

Conversely, Britain and Australia are totally open targets. Many, many countries will openly choose to slag off Britain and Australia should conflict arise because there will be zero chance of repercussion. Already, we Aussies are copping threats of “Islamic brotherhood” in the South East Asian region.

All I can say is blah blah blah blah. Such cheap shots will only steel us. Such is our resolve. The Bali Bombing was an open act of warfare if you ask me - and it’s all kinda linked.

And please note, I am NOT a hawk by any means… but if we choose to not act because we are afraid of repercussions… the bullies will win in this world. That’s my take…

34

From your post, it is not clear who the bullies are :wink:

35

Oh for sure… I hear what you’re saying litost… and certainly, if you were to merely look upon Australia’s support for the USA and Britain for action in Iraq in isolation, you’d be excused for making that point, without doubt.

But Bali changed something irreparably for us down here… it evidenced something inarguable - namely, Islamic conquest - through both peaceful AND intimidating means - has been on the march throughout the globe for a century now… even though the religion ITSELF is a profoundly peaceful one. My next door neighbour is a Moroccan architect - a totally lovely guy - as is his family. And some of the shit he explains to me about how the “persecution mindset” is taught to youngsters is just bloody frightening. It’s all ego - Muslims have the same personality flaws that we have here in the West… it’s just that the stimulii are different.

Also, there are some very, very dark forces afoot in the Muslim world who perceive the Islamic movement as a way of achieving another form of “colonial conquest” - and the countless number of bombings of Christian churches in Aceh Province by Muslim Extremists in December 1999 is a really blatant example of what I’m referring to here.

Sure, there’s a million threads on the SDMB at the moment pontificating on the merits of invading Iraq, and to be frank, I’m getting a little bit bored of 'em - because they somewhat drown out all the other interesting stuff which is happening in the world. Which is why this thread is different. This thread asked for insight and analysis based on the OP, and I’d like to think I’m providing some - in the context of how we Aussies perceive things. And ultimately, that perception is this - something has to be done - on a lot of fronts. And in particular, something has to be done about that “evil” segment of the Arabian world which would happily export a blatant form of Islamic colonial conquest by violent means.

Politically incorrect? Probably, but sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade, and it seems to me there’s a shitload of Arabian Islamic Clerics who are being treated like rock stars in the Islamic world at the moment, who are quite happy to cry foul if we dare criticise their actions - and yet, in secret, are planning some really evil shit behind our backs. And it filters all the way down the chain… every Islamic country in the world looks to Arabia to set the tone, as it were - coz that’s where the religion started - and it’s power trippers who are at fault here - they’re hi-jacking the religion. I really want to make that distinction you know.

Rightly, or wrongly, Australia has decided, after oodles and oodles of private intelligence sharing with both Britain and the USA to fucking get involved and Iraq is the starting point. Obviously, shitloads of people are unhappy about it, but I’m not - something has to be done, and it has to start somewhere - and Bali was an example of the end-game - not the cause. The cause, it seems to me, are those ratbag clerics within Islam who would cynically abuse their positions of influence for political power games by getting young impressionable men to do their bidding… and to prove my point… just look at some of the statements coming out of Egypt for example…

“An attack on Iraq is an attack on the WHOLE Islamic world! We will call a jihad…” And further, Saddam is openly courting this sentiment - basically he’s totally happy to play the religion card because it suits his needs - at the moment. And it’s all the excuse the militant ratbags within the Islamic Movement need to rationalise their extremist behaviour.

None of it is noble… obviously… and yet, equally, we Australians can no longer sit on our hands whilst South East Asia descends into increasingly sporadic displays of mob violence and random Islamic terrorist bombings. We’ve decided to back the USA in Iraq, and then, when the time is appropriate, we’re hoping the USA will aid us in identifying the shit holes in Asia. It’s a quid pro quo situation - I have no qualms admitting that.

But here’s the thing, OK? If we Aussies, Brits, and Americans do nothing… incidents like Bali and 9/11 are still gonna keep happening regardless - because the die has already been cast. A 100 years of Wahhabbist propaganda has been emanating from Saudi Arabia with an incessant “call to arms” against the infidels - and quite frankly, a shitload of brain washing has to be undone.

Iraq is in the center of it… a state which plays the “persecuted Islamic” card when it chooses, and also acts as a regional bully when it chooses. The problem is this - no one has the guts to call a spade a spade it seems to me.

36

Not disagreeing with the overall idea of fighting the dark forces. In fact, I find it strange when people say that what happens inside of Egypt is none of US/UK/Australia/whoever’s business. Maybe it wasn’t before 9/11, and maybe it wasn’t before Bali but clearly the trend over the last few decades indicates that something has to be done.

But, the fundamental problem with your thesis is the claim that Iraq is at the centre of it. Iraq is by no means at the centre of Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam likes to cash in on the victimization card but therein ends the similarity. The madrasas, the clerics frothing at the mouth, the sense of religious and economic victimization, the brain-washing, the sense of helplessness amongst the youth…none of these can be strongly associated with Iraq. (well, the brainwashing, maybe)

It is shameful that US, UK et al happily co-habit with the Saudi regime while closing their eyes, and throwing the dart on Iraq. One theory that runs counter to xenophon41’s with respect to intent is the notion that US is pushing for this war with a grand noble ideal in mind. There was a GD thread on this and the theory proposes that the democratization of Iraq will set off a ripple effect in the Middle-East resulting in stabilization of the region, governments which are willing to talk and cooperate, and ultimately in significant reduction in terrorism. From that angle, yes, this war on Iraq could be termed “action” against Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism it breeds, but is weak reasoning given the number of variables and uncertainties.

37

But you know what’s great litost? It’s that you can disagree with me on some points, agree with me on others, and on others again, you can educate me as well. And best of all? You and I, and all the other great people who post here can do so, safe in the knowledge that we have no compunction to blasted pull out a gun, and or notify one another to the secret police.

And that’s why the Western World, ridden with flaws that it is, remains the nicest part of the globe - at a humanity level. Obviously, the globe itself is beautiful all over, but at a humanity level, stable democracy is definitely the way to go. So, my perception is this - that something we agree on which has to be done? It seems to me that Iraq is the starting point. And in many respects, President Bush has done a really, REALLY godawful job of justifying the case. I would far have preferred your last scenario - namely, that democratising Iraq is the start point of undoing a 100 years of brainwashing.

Plus, Iraq’s leadership really has played the “rock star” angle too. Saddam’s defiance of the UN resolutions for 12 years has enabled him to become the darling of Arabia (in some respects). In other respects, he remains villified too. So my earlier statement that Iraq is at the center of it actually pertains to the “underdog” role he’s currently playing if truth be known.

I just wish we’d all ‘fess up and be honest… “Iraq”? You’re goin’ down first, mate… coz you’re easiest “big asshole” we can identify - for now…

Please be aware however my fellow Dopers - I sincerely and honestly wish that we didn’t have these problems in the world. I truly wish that the biggest problem in the whole world was trying to stop the New York Yacht Club from bending the rules again in attempting to defend the America’s Cup. But alas… some ugliness has crept into the world since 1983, and a decision has been made to start cleaning it up…