Bush Administration officials are saying that it is becoming more clear that the Saudis are interfering in Iraq by passively allowing Sunni insurgents to cross the border into Iraq, and actively supporting the Sunni insurgents inside Iraq. It’s clear that Pakistan is a safe harbor for al Qaeda, and can’t or won’t drive them out.
Why won’t we invade or threaten to invade either of these countries?
If we threaten those countries then we will definitely not have any friends left.
You usually have a cogent point somewhere, but I haven’t a clue what it is from your post.
Care to try again? Use small words, please, so I can follow along.
You usually have a cogent point somewhere, but I haven’t a clue what it is from your post.
Care to try again? Use small words, please, so I can follow along.
We are fighting (is that word too big?) the war on terrorism in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is actively involved in supporting the fighting in Iraq, against our efforts. We will not invade Saudi Arabia because they have lots of oil.
Pakistan is not attempting to eliminate al Qaeda. We will not attack Pakistan because to do so would royally piss off lots of Muslim countries that control lots of oil.
Hope that helps.
Does anyone on earth think that our government’s policy in the middle east is not strongly influenced by oil?
No, that really didn’t help much at all. Sorry. I think you are saying:
We invaded Iraq because they have lots of oil.
We won’t invade Saudi Arabia because they have lots of oil.
We won’t invade Pakistan because they don’t have lots of oil.
I guess I am a little slow today, because I am not really getting a common thread from the above.
ajfrankle, you are much more sane in this thread than the other one. I just wanted to let you know, so that you don’t think I disagree with you automatically in the future =)
I guess I am a little slow today
So it would appear.
Do the Saudis have an embassy in Iraq? I say we send in a team to snatch 5 or 10 of their diplomats.
If we threaten those countries then we will definitely not have any friends left.
I know the feeling.
Ken…
First of all, we have a bad enough rep in the Muslim world without invading Saudi Arabia. That country is home to Mecca and Medina, and our deployment there in 1990 as part of Operation DESERT SHIELD is one of the reasons given by Osama Bin Laden for attacking America…to drive the infidels off of the holy land. Were we to invade Saudi Arabia, we would probably lose every last Muslim on earth as a “Crusader” nation bent on subjugating Islam to Christianity.
We don’t invade Pakistan because that nation as ally is hanging on by a thread. US troops on Pakistani soil splashed all over the news would probably result in the fall of the Musharraf government and the rise of radical Islamists in the government, who would then own Pakistani nukes. Its better for us to conduct covert ops in the territories where Al Qaeda is thought to be operating rather than an outright invasion of Pakistan.
Does that answer your question? Its not about the oil, its about understanding what’s going on over there.
Spot
It is about both things
.
**Its not about the oil, its about understanding what’s going on over there. **
Then it must be about the oil because we went into Iraq with no clue as to what was going on there. Prior to the invasion, Saudi Arabia warned President Bush that if we get rid of Hussein “you will lose one problem and create five new ones.” The administration did not understand the repercussions of an invasion.
From an Arab perspecitve, it is ALL about the oil (many feel it is also about wanting to get rid of Islam). Notice how quickly we were in and out of Afghanistan. Even with the growing strength of Al Qaeda there, we are still focussing on Iraq, not because we love Iraq, not because we understand what’s going on, but because of the strategic importance of oil.
The Arabs keep telling me that if the war is all about terror and getting Al Qaeda, why are we not stopping what is happening in Afghanistan, why is bin Laden still alive and why are we sitting back while the tribal areas of Pakistan are swarming with al Qaeda training grounds?
The Arab world is convinced it is about the oil and it is getting harder and harder to argue with them.
"why are we not stopping what is happening in Afghanistan, why is bin Laden still alive and why are we sitting back while the tribal areas of Pakistan are swarming with al Qaeda training grounds? "
What is your answer?
Uh, Casey, we are still in Afghanistan in a big way. There are as many troops over there now as when we invaded. I very nearly had to deploy there for 6 months this year. The US military is committed there in a big way…thousands of troops and many aircraft. The notion that we aren’t doing anything in Afghanistan because of Iraq is ludicrous. NATO is also deployed in Afghanistan in a big way, with thousands of troops and many aircraft. Why do you think we have “left Afghanistan”? That is completely, utterly untrue.
**Then it must be about the oil because we went into Iraq with no clue as to what was going on there. Prior to the invasion, Saudi Arabia warned President Bush that if we get rid of Hussein “you will lose one problem and create five new ones.” The administration did not understand the repercussions of an invasion. **
Huh? How does it logically follow that we went into Iraq because of the oil “because we had no clue what was going on there?” Gross incompetency on pre-war planning for the post-war phase does not prove we went into Iraq for the oil.
**Even with the growing strength of Al Qaeda there, we are still focussing on Iraq, not because we love Iraq, not because we understand what’s going on, but because of the strategic importance of oil. **
**The Arabs keep telling me that if the war is all about terror and getting Al Qaeda, why are we not stopping what is happening in Afghanistan, why is bin Laden still alive and why are we sitting back while the tribal areas of Pakistan are swarming with al Qaeda training grounds? **
Al Qaeda has largely been booted out of Afghanistan. The folks we are fighting in Afghanistan currently are largely Taliban fighters who want to regain control of at least the southern part of the country. AQ is operating in (as is being reported in the news) in NW Pakistan, in territories that even the Pakistani army is afraid to operate in. See my previous response for why we don’t invade that country. Do you really think that is the answer? A full fledged US invasion of NW Pakistan? Do you think the Musharraf government would last if we did that? And do you think that a US friendly government would replace Musharraf if that were indeed to happen? AQ is also in Iraq in a big way…allowing them to declare victory over booting the US out of Iraq would be a huge coup for them, and disastrous for us, therefore the amount of attention Iraq is getting. Bin Laden is alive for the simple fact we have been unable to find him. Look at how long international terrorists like Carlos the Jackal were able to elude capture if you think that its easy to find and get folks who don’t want to be found.
Its easier for the Arab world to believe that the US wants their oil or that its about the US against Islam because that is what they have been brought up to believe. Read “Future Jihad” by Walid Phares…an extremely interesting and illuminating book on jihad and what, exactly, we are fighting.
Here’s one thing I don’t understand…if this was all about the oil, then wouldn’t it have been easier to have just cut a deal with Saddam? Why invade and invite all of those headaches? And how about invading Venezuala, or Mexico, or Canada, from whom we get more oil than from the entire Persian Gulf? If it was all about the oil, then why not invade Saudi Arabia? Their oil infrastructure is far better off than Iraq’s.
Spot
Lots of annoying facts in there, but I can address this one:
"If it was all about the oil, then why not invade Saudi Arabia? Their oil infrastructure is far better off than Iraq’s. "
I answered this one above:
We invaded Iraq because they have lots of oil.
We won’t invade Saudi Arabia because they have lots of oil.
We won’t invade Pakistan because they don’t have lots of oil.
I hope that clears it up for you.
According to Casey, the Arabs he talks to don’t understand why we don’t invade more countries with their blessings, starting with Pakistan.
Actually, I think the reason we won’t go into Pakistan is as much about their nukes as about their oil. If we were to invade Pakistan, they would not hesitate to use them. The US also uses Pakistan more than you realize for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The best thing we could do in the Mid-East is to get out and let China/India worry about them - they need the oil more than we do.
Uh, Casey, we are still in Afghanistan in a big way.
Not nearly big enough though. If we had $150,000 troops there instead of Iraq, the Taliban would never have been able to regroup.
The folks we are fighting in Afghanistan currently are largely Taliban fighters who want to regain control of at least the southern part of the country.
Who do you think is financing the Taliban?
Its easier for the Arab world to believe that the US wants their oil or that its about the US against Islam because that is what they have been brought up to believe. Read “Future Jihad” by Walid Phares
I have read the book and in doesn’t really matter if what they believe is right or not, it’s what makes them want to kill us. If we are in the Middle east to “win the hearts and the minds” maybe we should focus a little more on trying to understand rather than forcing them to see the world from our perspective.
If we can’t do that, maybe we shouldn’t be there at all, which is my point.
Here’s one thing I don’t understand…if this was all about the oil, then wouldn’t it have been easier to have just cut a deal with Saddam?
But, he’s a really bad guy and we had to get someone since we couldn’t find bin Laden. No one ever said our invasion of Iraq was built on something that makes sense. Most people still can’t figure out why we did it.
And how about invading Venezuala, or Mexico, or Canada, from whom we get more oil than from the entire Persian Gulf?
Because they weren’t responsbile for 9/11, and it would have veen even more difficult for Cheney/Rumsfeld to tie 9/11 to Canada, than the awkward attempts to link Hussein to 9/11.
** If it was all about the oil, then why not invade Saudi Arabia?**
Too many business ties to Saudi Arabia, at least for some people. Besides, we are now selling Saudi Arabia weapons which I find interesting. We sold Iraq weapons in the late 1980’s and now they are being turned against us. I wonder why we think it will be different with the Saudi’s.
I wonder why we don’t just stop selling arms to countries like that but maybe that’s just me.
Not nearly big enough though. If we had $150,000 troops there instead of Iraq, the Taliban would never have been able to regroup.
Any group will be able to regroup as long as they have a sanctuary. We allowed North Vietnam to use Laos and Cambodia as sanctuaries from which to operate, and even with 550,000 men in South Vietnam we couldn’t eliminate the Communist insurgency in that country.
Too many business ties to Saudi Arabia, at least for some people. Besides, we are now selling Saudi Arabia weapons which I find interesting. We sold Iraq weapons in the late 1980’s and now they are being turned against us. I wonder why we think it will be different with the Saudi’s.
We didn’t sell Iraq much in terms of weapons…that is a huge myth. The vast bulk of their weaponry was French and Russian. We have been selling the Saudis weapons for years and years…it didn’t start now, we have been selling them arms since probably the 1970s. We arm the Saudis as a counterbalance against Iran.
I have read the book and in doesn’t really matter if what they believe is right or not, it’s what makes them want to kill us. If we are in the Middle east to “win the hearts and the minds” maybe we should focus a little more on trying to understand rather than forcing them to see the world from our perspective
Don’t disagree necessarily, but we also can’t design a foreign policy around somebody’s elses warped world view. The one thing that does seem crystal clear to me is that we must deny the jihadists a victory, or they will sell that to the rest of the Islamic world as proof that their way is Allah’s way.
Spot
**Any group will be able to regroup as long as they have a sanctuary. We allowed North Vietnam to use Laos and Cambodia as sanctuaries from which to operate, and even with 550,000 men in South Vietnam we couldn’t eliminate the Communist insurgency in that country. **
I would agree but I think if we had 150,000 troops in Afghanistan, it would make an Al Qaeda sanctuary near the border a little less bold, and it would certainly prevent the Taliban from regrouping.
**We didn’t sell Iraq much in terms of weapons…that is a huge myth. The vast bulk of their weaponry was French and Russian. We have been selling the Saudis weapons for years and years…it didn’t start now, we have been selling them arms since probably the 1970s. We arm the Saudis as a counterbalance against Iran. **
Okay, good point but (and there’s always a but :)) it seems whenever we (not only the U.S but the west) engage in selling arms it seems to come back and bite us. In 2007, we are selling arms to Saudi Arabia as a counterbalance to Iran, but what about in 2010? Will the home of bin Laden come back to haunt us?
I’m also concerned with the reaction from Israel. It can’t be looked at highly in Jerusalem right now that we are selling such sophisticated weaponry to the Saudis.
I remember the big fuss about Iraq, the fear that WMD would get into the wrong hands. In fact, we started a war over that possibility. Having modern weapons in the Middle East is just a bad idea. I’m not sure why we are so sure that the bad guys can’t get their hands on the weapons in Saudi Arabia, but we were positive the weapons could end up in the wrong hands in Iraq.
I still remember where bin Laden and a few of the other hijackers came from despite our best attempts to throw smokescreens, and pretend they were not really from S.A. They came from Saudi Arabia and if we think that was an isolated group of disgruntled “islamo-fascists” (haven’t heard that term in a while, and it used to be an administration favorite) then we are deluding ourselves, again.