At 19:42 27/08/02 -0400, Brad McCormick wrote: <<<< I think [the KH hypothesis] makes a lot of sense. I can't be sure it's true, but it seems to "connect the dots" a lot better than the other alternatives we've heard.
So, Keith, let me ask you to shed light on one more question, which looks to me like the question behind the question you answered so reasonably: Why doesn't Dubya implement measures to dramatically raise the MPG of America's motor vehicle fleet and also to drastically cut the number of miles driven, thus resulting in multiplicative improvements? Why? Why Why? Any insight? >>>> The KISS principle, I suggest. Why should Bush confuse the American public with a more complex argument about American long-term dependency on oil imports, etc, as well as deeply upset the automotive industry? On the BBC radio news this morning, Rumsfeld is reported as saying that if America is on the "side of the right" it doesn't need "unanimous international support" in its campaign against Saddam Hussein. He even compares the American administration with Churchill in standing alone against Hitler! More historically apt is that Bush has (so far) pulled off a confidence trick that's equivalent to Hitler's. Just as Hitler persuaded the German public that the Jewish bankers were the cause of Germany's troubles, so Bush has persuaded the American public that Al Qaeda's actions have been fomented by Saddam Hussein. Even some of the press are believing him! Particularly the gutter press in this country. I suggest that, beside some of the Saudi royal family, only three non-Americans are fully in the picture as to what Bush is actually doing. One is Blair and the others are Putin and Jang Zemin. Blair has come out enthusiastically on Bush's side (though he's been silent recently for fear of splitting his government), and Putin and Jang Zemin are silent. Of course, both the latter have their own big problems with intransigent Muslim minorities and are pretty savage towards them. (America has just put the East Turkestan Islamic Movement on its list -- one of China's bêtes noires.) Both Russia and China are heavily involved with the Middle East (Russia is close to signing a US$40 billion trade treaty with Saddam Hussein, and Sinopec has large joint venture contracts with Saudi Arabia) so they must have been briefed in depth about Bush's policy because there's been nary a peep from them. They don't appear to have any worries about the Middle East. But, elsewhere, with criticism rising, the tension is now so high -- particularly within Saudi Arabia -- and intellectual arguments by M.E. specialists (and some generals) within America are so cogent, that Bush cannot wait much longer before he takes some action or else his whole policy will just collapse. (Although it's only an unimportant side-bet of mine, I still think Bush will land troops in Kuwait on or before September 11 for home-consumption reasons.) Wolfowitz has said that America will "end states" that harbour terrorists. In effect, through its 13,000 mosques and its predominant influence in 24,000 schools, the Wahhabi sect -- quite as extreme as Taliban -- is a production line for a string of fanatics and potential anti-American terrorists for as long into the future as one can imagine. Unless the boil is lanced within Saudi Arabia then no American President can be sure that his country will not suffer further attacks similar to last September 11. I think the Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz propaganda campaign cannot be sustained for much longer without some dénouement. Yesterday, the Saudi ambassador spent the day on the Bush ranch. (I am not too sure, but I think that the ambassador is the son of Prince Sultan, who is the Defence Minister of SA and is supposed to be the most powerful supporter of the Wahhabi clerics). My guess is that Bush read the Riot Act to the ambassador and told him that unless SA overturns its present constitution (the Basic Law that subordinates the government to Islamic law) and allows the modernist wing of the royal family (headed by Crown Prince Abdullah at present) to take untramelled decisions both as to the stalled gas projects and also future policies with regard to Al Qaeda and support for Palestine, etc, etc, then Bush will land troops in Kuwait next door to Saudi Arabia and will be prepared to send specialist troops into SA in support of the modernist wing in the event of an insurrection or coup by them or by the Wahhabi wing in the SA government (which already has power without responsibility). You wrote "I can't be sure it's true". I can't be sure either either but, dangerous though Bush's present policy is, it seems to me that inaction by Bush is even more dangerous (that is, from Bush's point of view concerning the American economy). There might have been other ways of tackling the whole issue of the Middle East earlier this year, but I think that the American administration concluded that peaceful culture change in the Muslim countries is impossible. There has to be revolution within Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and other oil-bearing Muslim countries, in order to split the religion and the state -- similar to Kemal Ataturk's in Turkey in 1928. (Ominously, there are signs that Turkey itself is now slipping back into Islam-dominated politics.) I'm not excluding the possibility that Americans troops will invade Iraq. This is quite probable, in fact, given the momentum of Bush's propaganda, but it will be slow and careful (and probably stop well within the southern Shia Muslim region), making sure that there will always be sufficient American troops available on the SA border to support the modernists in SA if they are necessary. But, on balance, I think the balloon (in SA) will go up within days or weeks. When he's sure that the modernists have complete control in SA, then Bush will modify his anti-Iraq propaganda tack and seek new UN resolutions for further decisions about weapons inspections. Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
