Thanks for all of the responses. I guess on some level I know that we’re not going after many groups for one reason or another, mostly political. This rubs me wrong for some reason.
The current party line trotted out for mass consumption by our current political leaders sounds like patriotism, or is supposed to anyway. I think what gets me is that underneath the high spun speeches what we’re attempting to accomplish amounts to little more than revenge. I’m not going to debate the right or wrong of revenge, it’s a personal dish and should be consumed by each in the quantity desired.
What bothers me most is that a nation, or a government, should not be in the revenge business, especially when the revenge is used as a means to an end. It’s pretty obvious, at least to me, that the end goal of the current “War on Terrorism” is to assert and maintain more control in a region that is historically in turmoil. Perhaps some good will come of it, perhaps not, but using the tragedy of the WTC disaster to further the country’s political aims feels wrong.
And what comes after? If the “War on Terrorism” is won in the Middle East, where might we set our sights next? Will we simply take the next worst on the list, or will we sit and wait for the next WTC? In the first case, we will be opening ourselves up to what amounts to imperial ambitions of the worst sort. In the second, we’re thinking like simpletons who can’t see past today.
Understand that I don’t really have a firm opinion yet either way, and I’m not looking to be convinced. Mainly I’m seeking the opinions of others, and in this forum, there are certainly some fine minds with opinions I’d like to hear.
Not sure I understand. You seem to be asserting that the real or potential instability that will occur in Saudi Arabia (and they are going to have a “regime change” of their own soon, with potentially far-reaching results – I agree with you there) and that is the centerpiece of our war strategy vis a vis Iraq?
That we’re going to war with a regime well-known for ruining oil fields it’s about to lose in order to secure oil, rather than just ending sanctions, letting them do whatever as long as they pump their ~2.5 MM BBl/day?
Or are you suggesting that we’re dragging the Sauds kicking and screaming into a war they don’t want with the idea that somehow this will secure the flow from them after King Fahd dies?
I’m honestly not seeing how going to war with Iraq has the prospect of lowering oil prices (beyond removing the “war premium” which wouldn’t exist if we never threatened them in the first place).
Then we’ll kill them, too. Every single one. And if they’re sponsored by States, we will remove sovereignty from those States. Every single one.
Listen – this is not a penny-ante war on drugs where we’re going to throw a few billion down a tube, spray some fields and claim moral superiority while the problem gets worse. This is a new world outlook. International terrorists will be hunted down and killed wherever they are. States that harbor them are done. Finished.
America will install a government of Iraq. There are a number of candidates who are, well, “attractive” is the best euphemism. It can reasonably suspected that this will instill a profound sense of gratitude on thier part.
Of course, the new government will be needful of sober and mature advice on structuring thier ecoomic environment, especially as regards oil. I expect such paragons of civic virtue as Haliburton and Exxon will volunteer to shoulder such burdens.
Further, there is little question that an ongoing US military presence will be neccesary, as the fledgling government beseeches us to protect it. So, in one respect, Iraq becomes the worlds biggest aircraft carrier, permanently on station in the Persian Gulf. Not to mention an enormously grateful and generous trading partner.
It is the kind of policy that Otto von Bismarck would have been proud of.
Well, I guess with this statement I can’t disagree with you. There will always be terror groups, militants and rogue Tim McVeigh types. Maybe we should expand the title of the war to “War on Terror groups who threaten American interests and lives and maybe a few more just for good measure”. Thats a war I think can be won.
Are they actively fighting against U.S. interests globally? Do they have acces to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? Can they be defined as terrorists or are they just right-wing militants who are at odds with rival militants? With my first post I was trying to distinguish a level of differing importance concerning the U.S. and particular terrorist groups. Islamic terrorists are the biggest threat to U.S. national security at the moment. Some of the posts here appear to be to “picky” about this war. As if our presence in Afghanistan isn’t justified because there are Colombians kidnapping Americans and we aren’t bombing them too.
I can see this doctrine failing the first time the US - with or without allies - comes up against a state with more than basic military strength, or the first time a terrorist group is found to have bases/training camps in ‘friendly’ countries.
I presume that by “States” you’re not referring to “United States”, since clearly the US government would have to commit suicide if it were to attack all countries that sponsor terrorism.
Seriously though, I really can’t see that working, short of total US dominance of every single area in the world that could possibly breed terrorists. Terrorism’s like a hydra: cut off one head, and three more will grow. What are you going to do? Kill the children so they can’t grow up to become terrorists?
I think it’s primarily a control issue – control the source, technology level, supply, and, inevitably, price. Even in the friendliest days of the Saudi-US partnership, Saudi was still OPEC.
As we know, Iraq has approx. 17% of known reserves vs. Saudi’s 23% - in anyone’s terms, that’s a big banana. If you have a friendly regime at source, underpinned with a US military presence protecting the regime, the oil and the contracts your buddies made with this new regime – and you have handy leverage on world market supply.
That’s important in itself. No question. But also remember that the big winner of 9/11 was Russia – in from the cold and a player again. If Saudi goes balls up, Putin/Russia – as the US’s main supplier – gains yet more importance and leverage. Back to the very top table - much nicer to be able control/manage Russia’s economic development by having a range of oil resources available:
No Saudi, no control and you’re fucked. Saudi, some control (fundies and OPEC exempted), Iraq, more control (friendly and (over Bush’s dead body) non-OPEC), Saudi and Iraq, you’re laughing. Last scenario means Putin’s potential power has brakes applied.
At the same time – different time scale, different game entirely – Putin and the US want access south through Afghanistan to Pakistan at some point for the Caspian thing – the mythical pipeline mentioned from time to time. Still fanciful at this point. Nonetheless, an integral part of the Bush/Putin deal post 9/11 (aside from current oil supply, fast track into NATO, G8, etc) was that those four South-Central Asian ex-USSR States (the four Stans) would house US military bases - which they now do on the pretext of the ’ war on terrorism’. Sure, maybe. And for now it’s little more than a token, dipping-the-toe-in presence. But there’s oil thereabouts, unaligned leaders, potential Islamic (majority) opposition…and it’s en route. And Putin’s wary because of Chechnya.
Put those together with what is now looking like a permanent US presence in Afghanistan (at Bagram) and you have the makings of a potentially immense (albeit long-term) Middle East/South Central Asian strategy…or at least something to aim for involving;
Russia, the four Stans, Afghanistan, Iraq (maybe Saudi) and the US – a ‘belt and braces’ policy focusing on control, both for now and for the future.
FWIW, I suspect that’s a leading reason why Putin feels so empowered on the Security Council right now (opposing the draft US Resolution re Iraq). He’s not putting the oil deal with the US at risk because 1) the US needs the deal in case Saudi goes poof!, 2) he wants Inspectors, not for the US to gain control of Iraqi oil, and 3) the long-term four Stan’s deal/current US presence.
Then you can throw all kinds of conjecture into the pot: Marginalizing/pressuring Iran, undermining anti-Israeli support, majority of known reserves world-widecontrolled or partially controlled (buggers OPEC)…
Hey, it’s all speculation, reading of the runes stuff…but these boys do have a plan. I think it’s about control and currently lean to an approximation of the above. WOMD, etc are just this year’s convenience/fad. Plus, there are a few pieces that fit. Just a question of how grand is the plan…YMMV
BTW, I’m pretty much with this guy. Heavy duty context and depth, worth a read IMHO:
