Hi,
I am not totally ignorant of Mideast history. The Mideast, being at the junction of three continents, has been a region fought over throughout recorded history. And from all indications was that way in pre-history. The English supported the Arabs against the Turks in WW I for two primary reasons, to protect their interest in the Suez canal and to force the Turks to fight on a second front in order to reduce their effectiveness. Oil was of some interest, but since the British navy was still mostly coal fired and the other branches were not highly mobilized, the importance of oil was not that great at that time. However, England did have plans to convert to an oil powered Navy, and a source of oil close to the "center" of the Empire did become more important to the post WW I British policy. Fine, that shows the beginning of the importance of *Mideast* oil. However, that does not translate to the need for US intervention in that region. Iraq is not the only oil producing nation, and a flood of Iraqi oil would probably be offset by an almost complete shut down by the rest of OPEC. A much larger action would need to be taken to make enough of a difference to justify (and I use that in economic terms) the cost of the involvement. Further, the situation in regards to the need for oil is not substantively different now than it was in '91. With a largely US coalition in power and control of Kuwait and a large portion of Iraq, had the US any intention (I will not say "desire" for many in the USA - and elsewhere - desire to be the controllers of Mideast oil) of a military take over, that would have been the time to do so, not now with a large part of the world against us.
the other alleged motivations (democracy, weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorists, the evil actions of Saddam) are thin at best without solid proof.
I have made my opinions on many of those clear in the past:
- democracy -- I do not believe that democracy can be imposed on a population. As a reason for invading Iraq, this is pure nonsense. So, I agree with you.
- weapons of mass destruction -- this is a serious threat. And is a legitimate international concern. Combined with the provisions of the peace accord of 1991, the actions of the Iraqi government since then, the findings of the inspectors (this week's Science has a good summary on their work and findings up until the breakout of war), the reports of the intelligence communities, and the personal instability and history of Saddam this is a justification for the war. And, IMO, the only real justification. The need for rapid action is a combination of the weather (the need to avoid summer) and the fact that next year is an election year. I do not defend the justifications, but they are the realities of the situation.
- supporting terrorists -- while Iraq might support terrorists (or may have in the past), those putative terrorist would not have much to do with OBL who is diametrically opposed to secular rulers like Saddam. Terrorism is a red herring that the administration has used to get many of its policies implemented. Eventually, in a just world, this will turn around and bite them in the ass. But, "there ain't no justice".
- the evil actions of Saddam -- except as this relates to his use of WMD and his propensity to do so again, this is an internal affair. In my opinion, internal affairs is *never* a sufficient reason for external military interference.
So, for the most part, I agree with you.
many times, me thinks that GWB is going after Iraq because he can't find Bin Laden and thus this guilt by association is played out. they are both Arabs right? so why not? this reasoning is working for most of the country. so you see, i'm not entirely stuck on the oil motivation.
Yes. As I've posted before, this administration's foolish and failed attempts to do anything substantive about terrorism is an embarrassment to them. A "successful" war in Iraq is one way they think they can "regain face". Which is why I have felt all along (EDIT, actually from Powell's address to the UN. I had opposed the war prior to that) that the Iraq war is the right thing but being done for the wrong reasons. And the reasons are transparent, I think, to many of the world's leaders.
--Pete
I am not totally ignorant of Mideast history. The Mideast, being at the junction of three continents, has been a region fought over throughout recorded history. And from all indications was that way in pre-history. The English supported the Arabs against the Turks in WW I for two primary reasons, to protect their interest in the Suez canal and to force the Turks to fight on a second front in order to reduce their effectiveness. Oil was of some interest, but since the British navy was still mostly coal fired and the other branches were not highly mobilized, the importance of oil was not that great at that time. However, England did have plans to convert to an oil powered Navy, and a source of oil close to the "center" of the Empire did become more important to the post WW I British policy. Fine, that shows the beginning of the importance of *Mideast* oil. However, that does not translate to the need for US intervention in that region. Iraq is not the only oil producing nation, and a flood of Iraqi oil would probably be offset by an almost complete shut down by the rest of OPEC. A much larger action would need to be taken to make enough of a difference to justify (and I use that in economic terms) the cost of the involvement. Further, the situation in regards to the need for oil is not substantively different now than it was in '91. With a largely US coalition in power and control of Kuwait and a large portion of Iraq, had the US any intention (I will not say "desire" for many in the USA - and elsewhere - desire to be the controllers of Mideast oil) of a military take over, that would have been the time to do so, not now with a large part of the world against us.
the other alleged motivations (democracy, weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorists, the evil actions of Saddam) are thin at best without solid proof.
I have made my opinions on many of those clear in the past:
- democracy -- I do not believe that democracy can be imposed on a population. As a reason for invading Iraq, this is pure nonsense. So, I agree with you.
- weapons of mass destruction -- this is a serious threat. And is a legitimate international concern. Combined with the provisions of the peace accord of 1991, the actions of the Iraqi government since then, the findings of the inspectors (this week's Science has a good summary on their work and findings up until the breakout of war), the reports of the intelligence communities, and the personal instability and history of Saddam this is a justification for the war. And, IMO, the only real justification. The need for rapid action is a combination of the weather (the need to avoid summer) and the fact that next year is an election year. I do not defend the justifications, but they are the realities of the situation.
- supporting terrorists -- while Iraq might support terrorists (or may have in the past), those putative terrorist would not have much to do with OBL who is diametrically opposed to secular rulers like Saddam. Terrorism is a red herring that the administration has used to get many of its policies implemented. Eventually, in a just world, this will turn around and bite them in the ass. But, "there ain't no justice".
- the evil actions of Saddam -- except as this relates to his use of WMD and his propensity to do so again, this is an internal affair. In my opinion, internal affairs is *never* a sufficient reason for external military interference.
So, for the most part, I agree with you.
many times, me thinks that GWB is going after Iraq because he can't find Bin Laden and thus this guilt by association is played out. they are both Arabs right? so why not? this reasoning is working for most of the country. so you see, i'm not entirely stuck on the oil motivation.
Yes. As I've posted before, this administration's foolish and failed attempts to do anything substantive about terrorism is an embarrassment to them. A "successful" war in Iraq is one way they think they can "regain face". Which is why I have felt all along (EDIT, actually from Powell's address to the UN. I had opposed the war prior to that) that the Iraq war is the right thing but being done for the wrong reasons. And the reasons are transparent, I think, to many of the world's leaders.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?