Re: [Futurework] The real target of the war in Iraq was Saudi Arabia

[William B Ward]

Keith,   You were right on.   Another reason is that Saudi Arabia has been funding Palestinian resistance for 40 years.   Re Robert Baer, I would feel a little embarrassed to hang out in a pub with a guy who admitted that he was out of the loop for 20 years while working for the CIA. Doesn't the US public have some recourse to getting part of his salary back?   Bill   On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:00:52 +0100 Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It amazes me just how long it is taking the penny to drop. The > following > (except for the penultimate paragraph) is much the same as I was > writing to > FW roughly this time last year when it became apparent that, > whatever the > UN or anybody else said, the US were going to invade Iraq. > > KH > > > <<<< > The real target of the war in Iraq was Saudi Arabia > Jeffrey Sachs > > > The crucial question regarding Iraq is not whether the motives for > war were > disguised, but why. The argument that Iraq posed a grave and > imminent > threat was absurd to anybody not under the spell of round-the-clock > White > House and 10 Downing Street spin. But the actual reasons for > launching the > war remain obscure. The plot thickened with the release last month > of the > US Congressional investigation into September 11. It seems > increasingly > likely that Iraq was attacked because Saudi Arabia was deeply > implicated in > the terrorist attacks. > > Two truths have long governed US energy security. The first is that > Saudi > Arabia is the key to world oil stability, the accommodating supplier > when > markets get too tight. It would be a potential threat to the world > economy > if Saudi oil flows were disrupted. In 1973-74, with the Arab oil > embargo, > the Ford presidency was brought down by the disruption of the US > economy, a > point not lost on two young senior officials at the time, Donald > Rumsfeld > and Richard Cheney, respectively Gerald Ford's defence secretary and > White > House chief of staff. Pentagon and academic planners began making > contingency plans for the military seizure of the Middle East > oilfields. > > The second truth is that Saudi Arabia has been a spigot of private > wealth > for key US figures, and for the Bush extended family in particular. > The > Saudi royal family lacks political legitimacy at home, so it buys US > > protection from abroad. The Saudis purchase Washington influence > through > consultancy contracts, big defence outlays on US military hardware, > > lucrative speeches for Washington insiders, investments in US > businesses > with influential figures, and the like. A long line of US senior > officials > has benefited, with the Ford, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush > White > House and Pentagon at the front of the line. Saudi business has > helped to > make multi-millionaires of Henry Kissinger, Frank Carlucci, James > Baker, > George H.W. Bush, Mr Cheney and dozens of other insiders. > > September 11 threatened these two truths. Within hours of the > attack, the > White House apparently understood that senior Saudi intelligence > officials > were probably involved and that 15 out of the 19 terrorists were > from Saudi > Arabia. They were no doubt stunned to realise that parts of the vast > Saudi > royal family were not only corrupt, but also deeply intertwined with > > anti-American terror and extremist fundamentalism. A new book by > former CIA > agent Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil*, details how the US > government > had systematically turned away from the growing evidence of Saudi > complicity in fundamentalist terrorism, thereby frustrating the kind > of > investigations that might have headed off September 11. > > To say that Saudi complicity in September 11 led the White House to > war in > Iraq is speculative, but several insiders have suggested that the > conflict > was incubated, perhaps hatched, in the immediate aftermath of the > attacks. > There are at least four plausible channels that together might > explain the > speed with which the decision on Iraq was taken after September 11. > First, > September 11 was a dramatic confirmation that the stability of Saudi > oil > was in jeopardy. The regime was unstable and perhaps even a lethal > threat > to the US. The only quantitatively significant alternative to Saudi > oil was > Iraqi oil, but that option was barred as long as Saddam Hussein > remained in > power. The long-standing contingency plans to seize Middle Eastern > oil were > probably rolled out within days of September 11. > > Second, a substitute had to be found for the US military bases in > Saudi > Arabia. Like Saudi oil, the bases too were now under threat, > especially > because the US presence in the Saudi kingdom was known to be the > principal > irritant for al-Qaeda. Iraq would become a new base of US military > operations. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, has already > explained > during an interview with > > Vanity Fair that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were but a > bureaucratic > pretext that hid other core motives for war, including the reduction > of the > US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Mr Wolfowitz's remarkable > statement > seemed bizarre at the time it became public but was allowed to pass > in the > US without scrutiny. But it makes full sense in the context of a > White > House debate about the US's response to a teetering Saudi regime. > > Third, the Bush White House needed to issue a powerful threat to the > Saudi > leadership: one more false step and you're finished. Attacking the > next-door neighbour was no doubt judged to be quite persuasive. A > direct > diplomatic attack was probably ruled out by the deep and > inextricable links > between the White House and the Saudi leadership. Finally, there was > > probably a strong hope that the public could be diverted from the > true > roots of September 11. The Bush administration needed to turn the > public's > eyes away from the intelligence failures and head off the danger, > however > slight, that Saudi associates of the Bush family and friends would > be > implicated in the attacks. Mr Hussein was the perfect target: a true > > despot, long-standing public enemy of the US and a wastrel of energy > > resources needed by US consumers. > > Perhaps the Iraq war had roots other than September 11 and Saudi > Arabia. > There is even a tiny, if fading chance, that the ostensible motive > -- > weapons of mass destruction -- had merit. But if the Iraq war was an > > opportunistic response to September 11, it is crucially important > that we > know it. Thousands of lives and perhaps $100bn have gone into this > war, > with little to show for it except an enraged Iraqi public and > enormous > costs of occupation extending into the future. > > The US media have so far shown little interest in connecting the > dots. > Meanwhile, the administration continues to play on the public's > post-September 11 fears and its pride and comfort in US military > might. Yet > the questions do not fade away. The administration's seeming > unwillingness > to examine the Saudi connections and the enormous costs of Iraqi > occupation > are now causing concern even among the president's stalwarts in > Congress. > The issues are too big to be swept aside, even by the powerful > currents of > patriotism, fear and spin. > > Financial Times; Aug 13, 2003 > > * Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold our Soul for Saudi > Crude, by > Robert Baer (Crown Publications) The writer is director of the Earth > > Institute at Columbia University > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > >