Posted on 11/27/2003 6:22:33 AM PST by SJackson
The oil embargo of the seventies, initiated by the newly formed OPEC headed by Saudi Arabia, accomplished three things; it scared the hell out of the US, it lifted the Arabs out of a defeatist malaise and it started the beginning of the end for the Arab regimes.
As a result, with the US cozied up to Saudi Arabia trying to secure its oil supply and keep it stable, the Arabs now believed they could affect their destiny, and the unequal division of wealth among Arabs within a regime and between regimes greatly destabilized the area.
The first regime to go was the pro-American (and pro-Israeli) regime of the Shah of Iran in 1979. America has Jimmy Carter to blame for allowing this to happen. For all his good intentions, he was rewarded by the hostage taking of all personnel at the US Embassy, which lasted for 444 days, with the US seemingly powerless to do anything. In reaction to this, the US got in bed with Saddam Hussein and backed him in the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran, which ended in stalemate. It also got in bed with Bin Laden, in order to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan.
In both cases, it lead to no good. Hussein invaded Kuwait, necessitating that the US to go to war against Iraq (Gulf War) to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia. After the defeat of the USSR, Bin Laden turned his sights on the US.
As a result of America’s involvement in the Middle East, it suffered many major terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Africa and Yemen, inter alia. Its only response was to turn tail and withdraw. These attacks and withdrawals were accompanied by increasing anti-Americanism and incitement to that end.
Finally, after the atrocious attack on 9/11, America had enough. A new strategy began to take shape in which the US would go on the offensive to protect its homeland and its international interests. And just this month, President Bush made an important speech in which he made clear that regimes had to go and democracy had to come. As part of this strategy, the US invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Now we must ask ourselves, “Is this strategy realistic? Can it succeed?” The short answer is “No”.
The dual aims of promoting democracy in the Middle East and beyond - in Pakistan and Afghanistan - is incompatible with securing oil supplies. The people in Afghanistan and Iraq, where constitutions are now being negotiated, appear not to be interested in creating democratic, secular, pro-American states. Rather, they want an Islamic State subject to Islamic law in which tribalism holds sway. While they may want America to stay and stabilize their emerging states, they still reserve the right to be anti-America and anti-Israel.
In addition, Syria and Iran are destabilizing the West Bank and Iraq. For progress to be made there, these countries must be neutralized. Finally Al-Qaeda is working to undermine the Saudi regime and to prevent the US from succeeding in Iraq.
The decision to invade Iraq was motivated by the need to protect America’s long-term supply of oil. The war was not about WMD, or liberating Iraqis, or the war on terror or, for that matter, spreading democracy, and certainly not about protecting Israel, as some have suggested. The US planners had the intention of transforming the Middle East, which meant that the regimes there had to either change or be changed.
Unfortunately, once the US was in Iraq, it went back on the defensive, rather than continue the offense and to subdue Syria and Iran. This wobbling has cost it in Iraq. Whether it realizes it or not, it has to finish the job it started. The problem is that the US is entering an election year and the last thing Bush wants is to have to defend starting another war. He may not have the luxury.
Now that Saudi Arabia is under attack, the US will have to dispense with the spreading of democracy and will have to protect the Saudi regime, to protect its oil supplies.
Just as the US is trying unsuccessfully to serve two masters, oil and democracy, they are likewise trying to use Israel both as a bargaining chip and a club, to advance American interests. This vacillation between two opposing ideas, in each case, is causing the US no end of grief.
Further to its lack of direction or resolve is the ambiguity of declaring a war on terror rather than on the terror masters. This is a fatal flaw in their action plan. The war must be fought against Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorists, and against Saudi Arabia for supporting Wahabism throughout the world. These regimes must change or be changed. Each one requires a different strategy. It is hard to imagine neutering them without defeating them utterly. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine them becoming docile even after a devastating defeat. And finally, it is hard to imagine the US administering such a defeat.
America seems to have decided that the best way to go is to get the present regimes to do its bidding. This decision is dictated, in part, by protection of Bush business interests, which are aligned with those of the Saudi regime. It is also dictated by the fear that oil flow could be disrupted or that the Saudis could repatriate a significant portion of their trillion dollar investment in the US. This seems preferable to destroying them and then looking for puppets to manage in their stead. But even so, it is false to think that the US efforts to buy them off by sacrificing Israel can come to any lasting good.
I submit that it is becoming clearer to the US that it is better served by keeping Israel strong to accomplish its ends, rather than to trade Israel’s security or land for Arab concessions. The US will better secure its oil supplies in the Middle East by being strong and by keeping Israel strong. It becomes clearer every day.
They learned this from the centuries of conflict with Papal Rome ..revisiting it after the outcome of the Yom Kippur war.
The Saudi's and their OPEC brethren were watching the war and planning their fiscal move on the Oil giants of the West.
The oil embargo was nothing more than a tantraum and retaliation for U.S. support of Israel in the Islamic's failed debacle in 1973.
The extortion continued as Carter pressed Israel to give up Sinai..and in the fall out of Irans regime overthrow..the *marketing of the Ayatollahs thinking and force projection into the Lebanon.
The concessions given to the varied Islamic demands simply emphasised the weakness in resolve of the west..and invited future tampering anf manuver to set the ground for future conflicts which brought slow langaushing death to the mid east.
If the west had dealt with Riyahd and Tehran in the early 80's..much of todays complex troubles might not exist.
Allowing safehaven for power projection just ensures that you will enivetably face the outcomes from leaving said power blocks free to learn the new terrain..and undermine.
The west still refuses to admit they are at war with Islam..the west still refuses to confront the power bases medium..that being the Mosque and the cleric.
BTW, his post is so vile, I hesitated to even respond.
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.