Posted on 12/15/2004 12:18:13 PM PST by jeffvail
Adapting the Exploitation Model: Does the US have NO plan, or a NEW plan?
What are the Bush administration’s plans in Iraq? On the surface, everything is going badly. The Jan 30th elections are destined to fail, and there are huge structural obstacles to overcome before Iraq can become a stable, peaceful nation. On top of that, the Iraq situation is so closely intermingled with two neighboring crises, in Iran and Saudi Arabia, that it will be exceptionally more difficult to deal with any single problem in isolation. Does the Bush administration have a plan to deal with this web of problems? Are they just blazing ahead with a plan that they know won’t work for lack of any viable alternatives? Or… are they pioneering an entirely new strategy in international relations: Intentional Instability? In order to answer that, I must first lay a foundation in the Exploitation Model of Foreign Relations...
Read the rest of the article HERE
(Excerpt) Read more at jeffvail.net ...
The elections won't fail..primarily because there will be ample protection in the areas where we know the voting outcome will be to our liking.....and the places that won't vote the way we want, will have no protection, and be deemed no vote zones.
I don't comprehend your linkage how keeping Iraq unstable helps our access to oil and negatively effects Iran. Isn't the opposite true?
Those who profit from Iraq's instability are Iran, Saudi and all other oil producers. It's profitable for Iran to suppress Iraqi oil production since in a cartel, or any other market, depressing a competitor's production is profitable. E.g., those professional, well-timed and piece-meal hits on Iraqi oil pipelines.
Before 2003 the Arab oil producing states had the UN Sanctions regime, which they voted for willingly, working to suppress Iraqi oil production.
What I do know is that close to 85% of active military supported the President in this year's election (U.S.A. Navy Times - August or September issue 2004), and my take is that if the active military supports the President, then they must support the mission. Many of you claimed that Afghanistan would not be able to elect a President, and they did. Many of you claimed hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, and that didn't happen. Many of you claimed that an interim government could not be elected in Iraq, and they did. From what I have read over the past few months, something like 90% of the country of Iraq is secure for elections. Nothing is perfect, but your defeatist attitude does not help our troops. Look, I don't want to debate you, you will never in a million years convince me that your agenda is the right course for our country to take. All I have to do is read the NYTimes and I know your position. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S.A. has liberated 40 million people from tyranny. I know what's it's like to live in a country with no freedoms. My father was born and raised in Cuba, and he told me what it's like, and it's no picnic, my friend. There's no more rape rooms and there is no more death camps in Iraq. Now, if the liberals would stop sympathizing with murderous dictators like Fidel Castro, maybe the U.S.A. would liberate the Cuban people too. And don't get me started on the oil for food scandal. Saddam is out of power for good, and we're all better off for it.
Mr. Vail, we have experience with people who claim they have access to high-level secrets.
If true, your statement was extremely irresponsible, as you are now an intelligence target for our enemies.
If untrue, you've both discredited yourself and made yourself a target for our enemies.
Neither option is appetizing.
I rate your post a "5."
That is very true. Oil for Food was win-win-win all around. It kept Iraqi oil production suppressed, and fed the graft machine in New York and capitals all over Europe. Sanctions restricted competition among companies doing business in Iraq, which raised the rates they were able to charge. And the overall effect was to keep Saddam firmly in power.
Sanctions also had the effect of giving Riyadh veto power over much of our foreign policy. It was a circular problem, in that we contained Saddam to protect the Saudis, and we needed Saudi territory and Saudi permission to enforce the sanctions. Removing Saddam freed us from the Saudis, and has taken away their ability to demand a say in our policy decisions.
I notice that Riyadh has been a lot more polite lately.
And, if we are able to pull the rabbit out of the hat (which I grant is an "if"), a secular democracy in Baghdad will shake Riyadh to its core. It is already sending shockwaves through Tehran and we haven't even held the elections yet.
In any case, Iraq isn't going to agree to any OPEC quotas on their production, and that is bad news for Riyadh and Tehran both. Iraq's production increases are going to come right out of their neighbors' market share. They both know it, so the pipeline attacks will continue for at least a while longer.
I learned more from your short reply, than the writer's bloviated hypothetical theory of American colonization. In fact, I learned more from you than I have learned from The New York Times. And they call us conservatives stupid. Thanks for the ping.
Where's Mr. Vail?
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.