Comments on: Means, motive, opportunity

By: Ruben Mancillas

Ruben Mancillas — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:53:48 +0000

Whether we be allied with or warring against Eastasia or Eurasia, don’t forget the political benefit to be gained from being embroiled in an endless conflict. Rallying round the (fireproof and amendment ready) flag and calling into the question the patriotism of any and all who would question the motives for our foreign policy is a technique that Bush’s senior advisors used to perfection during the Cold War and are no doubt eager to cast other (admittedly, oil rich) regimes into the ready made cast of “evil empires.”

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:43:50 +0000

It’s definitely easier to sabre-rattle Syria, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia with big-ass, permanent bases in their backyards. But to what end? Maybe it’s to protect ourselves from terrorism somehow — threaten strikes if we find ties to terrorist acts, for example. One problem with that is that Islamist terrorism is primarily a non-state threat, especially these days. Apparently even the Iranians aren’t really into sponsoring it anymore. Worries about a geographically cohesive, Middle Eatern, Muslim enemy call for asking: Whom would such a coalition threaten militarily? Israel is the only real choice there, and although I agree with many critics that U.S. foreign policy is unduly influenced by Israeli interests, I don’t think that’s the primary reason we invaded Iraq.

Why worry about a Middle East from which the U.S. is essentially shut out? Because that’s where the oil is. Iraq itself has large and relatively untapped reserves, and the whole region, especially Saudi Arabia, possesses between one-half and two-thirds of the world’s reserves.

Or put it another way: Why is the Cheney administration (like the administrations before it) so preoccupied with the Middle East? How is the Middle East different from all other regions? It’s the oil.

By: brooke

brooke — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:11:21 +0000

Nice post, Dave. I think you hit the nail on the head in your closing sentences. The US is in Iraq for the long haul, which I think was the point all along. But I suspect it wasn’t just for oil. Have you encountered any scenarios in which oil doesn’t play the primary role? It is a compelling argument to be sure, but I can imagine a scenario where the Iraq invasion was done to establish a strategic political and military foothold in the heart of the Arab world, with the bonus of getting control of some oil (but not that much, really) and enriching Haliburton and all those other companies in the process.

It makes it much easier to sabre rattle at Syria, Iran, Jordon and even Saudi Arabia if you’ve staked out a big-ass military camp in their backyards. It also makes it easier to spy on them. And given that we’ll most likely be in the so-called “Global War On Terror” (GWOT) for much longer than we’re relying on oil from this region, and many of the terrorists are coming from these countries if not sponsored by them, it seems like any post-9/11 military “strategery” would want to examine ways of breaking up any major Arab-bloc type situation. The US got sort of hosed on the whole Iron Curtain thing during the Cold War, and this might be an attempt, however misguided, to prevent a similar geographic and political obstacle in this on-going GWOT.

Just a random thought from the fringes out here in SF…