Like many other FWers, I'm still trying to make sense over what Bush's plans for the Middle East are. I've been advancing the idea for some weeks that Bush is not after Saddam Hussein at all, but will be sending troops to Kuwait in order to be on hand if and when Saudi Arabia explodes in some sort of fundamentalist uprising in the event of (or even before) the death of the aging King Fahd with the possible consequence that the very large exports of oil to America will be stopped.
I'm feeling quite lonely because I've not seen this idea being specifically mentioned by anyone else. One of the strongest reasons for my view is that, although Saddam Hussein is disliked by the other principal Arab countries, they will feel bound to support him in the case of an American invasion. Also, such an action will almost certainly provoke a coup d'etat in Saudi Arabia by those members of the Saudi royal family with close links to the fundamentalists and the al Qaeda network, thus probably causing the very effect (cessation of oil exports) that Bush really fears. What has bothered me in the last few few weeks is that not a single eminent authority in America has been making the same point. And then, all of a sudden, in last week's Wall Street Journal, Brent Scowcroft, Bush's father's closest advisor on foreign affairs, has said so, closely followed by Norman Schwarzkopf (commander of Desert Force One in the last Gulf War), Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger, Bush's father's Secretary of State, and several important Republican Congressmen. Why have they suddenly come out with something that's so very obvious, something which they must have believed all along? Such a high-powered group (with or without Bush's father) would surely have been able to defuse George W's (apparent) Iraqi plan long ago before it became such an idée fixe. And why should Tony Blair, at the present time risk alienating half his Parliamentary Labour Party and half his Cabinet -- indeed, risking his government and his whole reputation for what could be the biggest disaster since WWII? (Because cessation of Saudi Arabian oil would also bring Europe to its knees as well as America?) Tony Blair is a very adroit politician. He would not risk all this unless there was something else involved beyond Saddam Hussein's so-called "weapons of mass destruction" which have now become such a spectre in the press that they have even acquired an acronym of their own (WMD). The whole affair is really a nonsense if taken at face value. What other strands of evidence are there that the Bush strategy is really aimed at the invasion of Saudi Arabia and the protection of the oil wells in the event of a fundamentalist take-over? Here are a few: 1. King Fahd, whether he is seriously ill or not, is staying out of the country (since May) for a purpose. Although King Fahd has failed in trying to reform Saudi Arabia (though he has had some partial successes) he is at least still King and if he doesn't die in the near future, and if the fundamentalists erupt and are subsequently squashed by America, then he can legitimise a provisional government led by America. 2. The American airbase in Qatar has been extended and can receive any amount of material and American troops. However, be it noted that it couldn't receive and support a large invasion force unless the troops were immediately to strike north towards Iraq -- and thus pass through Saudi Arabia itself! 3. America is building up several small forces of troops (2 - 3,000 in each case) in the smaller independent States of the Gulf -- the United Arab Emirates which partially ring SA to the east and south. None of these would be any use as land forces in the event of an American invasion of Iraq. These troops are apparently well supplied with helicopters, according the the press reports I've seen. These could, of course, be used to transport these units to Iraq but why bother when it would be so much easier to place them in Kuwait in the first place? However, these troops (which I suggest are specialist, commando-type troops) are well positioned to fly into Saudi Arabia if necessary to take over the oil wells. 3. A ex-CIA official, now an advisor, said some months ago (I've forgotten where I read this now) that when he accessed the CIA files on Saudi Arabia they were blank. He suggested that all information on SA had been moved elsewhere. 4. And then, why was the Rand report (talking of the evils of Saudi Arabia) allowed to emerge into daylight? I rather think it was frustration on the part of Perle that American plans against Saudi Arabia are not being more openly spoken about. 5. Why have so many apparent Iraqi invasion plans been allowed to leak? In the preparation of Gulf War I, there was no leak of any plans beforehand. Nor would you expect it. They can only have been leaked in order to frighten the Saudi Arabia royal family -- to get a move on and clamp down on the Al Qaeda network, or else. 6. Why was a delegation of an Iraqi government-in-exile group spurned when visiting America recently by being allowed to see only low level state department officials? Why did Blair allow a large meeting of various groups of anti-Saddam Hussein dissidents occurred a week or two ago in London unless they are of no importance in Bush plans? Why is there no evidence at all that America is presently encouraging any group which would be able to take over Iraq. 7. Why has Bush gone against his free trade principles in giving protection to the US steel industry and farmers? Because any nation, thinking itself possibly to be involved in a prolonged war, needs to guarantee its production of armaments and food, the two main strategic supplies. The above are some additional straws in the wind. I still think that the Bush's plans will be seen to be concerned with Saudi Arabia alone and little to do with Iraq. After all, American fighter planes are patrolling northern Iraq already and occasionally shoot up radar sites on the ground. At any time they could penetrate more deeply into Iraq and cause large amounts of destruction which would weaken Saddam Hussein's forces with hardly any loss of life. Of course, given the constant rhetoric against Saddam Hussein, Bush would be delighted if some opposition group within Iraq would take over and bring about a regime more friendly to America. Oil exports from Iraq to America could also be increased. But that, by itself, would make no difference to America's present vulnerability in being dependent on SA oil. Saudi Arabia would still be in a state of great instability -- and getting worse by the week as more young SA males join the population of the unemployed. So all in all, if you've read this far, I still think that there are some highly secret planning groups in America who are developing strategies concerning oil wells in the event of a fundamentalist revolution.* The Middle East tension cannot be contained much longer, so I still think that, despite the opposition of Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf et al, American forces will be landed in Kuwait (probably on September 11 I still think). If then, Saudi Arabia explodes -- highly likely -- then Bush can easily explain to his gullible public that the Iraqi invasion is on hold for a moment while he deals with Saudi Arabia. "Oh, and by the way," he'll say in his folksy way, "this is where the Al Qaeda really are. You'd like me to kill this gang first, wouldn't you?" The punters will buy it. CNN will have a wonderful time showing American troops cleaning up in SA. The US public will even forget all about Saddam Hussein being a bad guy if Bush never mentions him again. Keith Hudson *It's very interesting (and significant), I think, that there has been no comment from any top executive from any top oil company in the last few months. You would think that they would have some opinion on the future of oil supplies in the event of an invasion of Iraq. They are keeping very mum. And I think they are doing so because they are, in fact, liaising with the planning groups in America so as to be able to lay on sufficient numbers of experienced engineers in the event of the capture of SA oil wells -- which would almost certainly be sabotaged -- in order to bring them into production quickly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
