The Australian's analysis; what Iraq is really about

I had speculated on this board before that the WMD's and his links to global terror were in reality only a pretext for taking down the Hussein regime. The REAL reason for invading Iraq was, in my opinion, to take down Iran.

But Mr. Devine in "The Australian" has a fellow named Friedman who says the real target is not Iran. It's Saudi Arabia.

WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion

November 26, 2004
WHY are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism.

For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.

Although the US believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs were ultimately "a cover for a much deeper game". The big game began with the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and the US enlisting the assistance of Saudi Arabia in backing the Afghan resistance. The Saudis provided financing and guerilla fighters. They influenced other Islamic countries to send guerillas.

This international brigade included members of Islam's moneyed and educated elite (including Osama bin Laden) - the core of al-Qa'ida.

When the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, this elite had become knowledgeable veterans of guerilla warfare, full of swagger about defeating the world's second superpower.

The oil billionaires back home, impressed with themselves for "bailing the Americans out", financed the warrior elite and the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida ("the Base" in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves - attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad - were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam.

This, al-Qa'ida believed, would stir the "Islamic street" to a confrontational mood with the West and rebellion against non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, establishing the foundations of the great federation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the US, confident of its hegemony, had concluded that "war was now optional", that no power existed that could force it into war.

The passive US response to its early pinprick attacks emboldened and frustrated al-Qa'ida. The jihadists, Friedman writes, "needed to strike a blow that would be devastating, [breaching] the threshold between what was tolerable and intolerable for the US". Their initiative was the September11, 2001, attack on New York and Washington, which shocked and disoriented the Americans. Their first reaction was to speculate almost in panic about a September 11 with nuclear weapons.

This began an obsession with WMDs. US actions were practical and reasonably prompt, however. The US persuaded Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to make inventory of their nuclear weapons and strengthen security on them.

Rather astonishingly, as Friedman reports it, the US pressured Pakistan - the Muslim country most advanced in nuclear weaponry and the one in closest contact with Islamic fundamentalism - into permitting US soldiers dressed as civilians to place a guard on its nuclear stockpile. To disabuse Islam of the illusion that the US was weak of will and, on the evidence of Vietnam, unable to sustain a prolonged war, the Bush administration decided to strike its own devastating blow in response to September 11.

The invasion and speedy subjugation of Afghanistan staggered the jihadists. But the US, having succeeded only in dispersing al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, rather than eliminating them, believed it needed to strike another heavy blow.

By then it had identified the jihadist campaign as "a Saudi problem". Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.

The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.

"From a purely military view," Friedman adds, "Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran."

So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.

The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to

al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on."


Interesting theories. I don't really believe the core message of the analysis though. I believe our govt. is still convinced that the Saudi royal family can hold power and keep the country relatively stable, and will only move against SA if radical Wahhabist revolution is imminent. I still think the main target is Iran; a nuclear Iran is unacceptable in the eyes of the Bush Administration. But we are quickly getting to the point where we will need to do something about it.

 

I couldn't agree more.

A nuclear Iran disrupts the balance of power
in the Middle East greatly...

Interesting read....

 

Interesting. I'm not sure what all Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell expect to accomplish in the long run. I'm a believer in the Iran theory as well. I think this Saudia Arabia theory could be applied across the board in the Middle East. A stabilized, democratic Iraq could weaken Saudia Arabia's importance in America, which is long overdue.

The best line is this:

I'm very interested in what Iran's next move will be. They've stepped forward and then back over the last few weeks.

 

Likewise, I'm glued to this too.

I'm thinkin' they need another STRONG leader like Khomeini to step up that the entire freakin' world can hate on ALL AT ONCE.

If we need to go to work there too (hope not, prepare for the worst) it will at least make it easier on us...

Check it - the F'n Frenchy's will back out on THAT too,
spineless bastids..... :cuss:

 

Them having a group of leaders is certainly to their advantage, especially when it comes to the public relations department of preparing for a war. I hope they do the right thing, I really don't want to go to war with Iran. That could get ugly real quick, but if it's needed - it's needed. Our best asset over there is the 70% approval rating for the U.S. and the pro-democracy citizens. An overthrow could be a solution, a disatrous one.

The EU hasn't done a bad job dealing with Iran. They slacked off for awhile, but they've stepped up again. France could still veto any Resolution at the UN, but I'm not sure of their money interest in Iran.

 

Very interesting and some good points. Its amazing to think about how much happens behind closed doors that the American people never know about. I think you'd have to be ignorant to believe that the US went to war with Iraq just because they had WMDs. People were scared at the time, worried about their futures and the futures of their children - they would have backed the President if he said we should invade Russia (ok, slight exaggeration...) This idea of an Islamist world Federation is also very interesting and something I've had on my mind for quite a while. The Quaran states that there are 2 ways to attack a country - from the inside or from the outside. Islam is spreading across the world at record paces, no longer spread by the sword, but by immigration. They are so abundant in France, France refused to back us (who knows if those spineless F*&#s would have anyway) in anything close to being anti-Islam. I have no doubt in my mind that these crazed dissilusioned people would think of such things mentioned above. Thank God W. had the balls to go over there if this is true. Where would this country be with Kerry in office???

 

do you guys really think that the fundamentalist muslims really have plans for a world islamic state, with bin laden or whoever as the caliph? i dunno, that seems too stupid and unrealistic, even for the brain of a religious person. i mean i know they would like that, but i dunno if they would thinm of that as a goal that could ever be accomplished?

but i guess if you do believe that the muslims think that way, and i do not know, then you would definitely want to support the war in iraq, as well as a greatly expanded war on radical islam as a whole. but then again, could that even ever work? we are not dealing with something you can defeat, like fascist nationalism, or even an ethnic or racial war, but a religion that spans the globe and is spreading. the enemy isnt even in it just for money or power, as there is the sort of undefeatable factor of religion. you could shoot millions of people and kill all the leaders, but you cant kill a religious movement easily. it is a virus of the mind, you cant just stamp it out.

it is a scary situation, and even an amazing genius like me has no idea where this whole business is going.

 

dammit supermartin without your amazing help we're doomed!

 

To address your question Martin:

Al-Qaida's goal has always been a united Islamic Caliphate with radical Wahabbist/Taliban style Islamic law as the philosophy and government and Wahabbist spiritual leaders in charge. Is that a realistic goal? I'm not sure exactly. As the article stated, the reaction of the "Islamic street" has not been nearly what Al-Qaida had hoped for. However, radical Islamist sentiment is there, and if you walk the streets of any large city in the Islamic world, even in more progressive, pro-American countries like Kuwait, Iraq, and Turkey, you are going to hear a lot of, "Well, I disagree with violence and fundamentalism, but that Osama Bin Laden, a lot of what he says is the truth." I just can't get a feel for how powerful the religious fundamentalism resonance is.

I honestly believe that the average Muhammed the Muslim or Ahab the Arab, is not, at heart, a bad person. He just wants to live his life, make a little money, live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood, with no violence or shooting or a mean govt. with a mean secret-police always comin' around making trouble, and be able to send his kids to good schools, where they get good education, and they go on to live a better life than what he had. Just like us. Where Muhammed and his fellow Arabs and Muslims get led astray is that they too often give in to their own prejudices and fears and backward ways, kinda like the way white Southerners were prior to the 1950s. White Southerners had to be prodded by the federal govt. to get past their obsession with superiority to the "colored people" for them to prosper and for our region to move forward into the modern era. In the same way, Muhammed and his fellow Muslims need an outside impetus to do the following things to live in peace and prosperity:

-GET OVER THE FREAKIN' JEWS HAVIN' A FREAKIN' COUNTRY! Israel is theirs. DEAL. WITH. IT.

-Non-Muslims are people too, and they have rights too. Are you so afraid that your belief system will collapse under scrutiny or due to comparison that you cannot even tolerate the existance of other religions in your midst? You need to be broken of that real quickly, or you are gonna get left behind in the global economy and nobody is gonna want to live in your country.

-Women are people too, and they have rights too. Female genital mutilation, beating women, and treating them as nothing more than cattle is a bad thing. You need to get over that as well, Muhammed.

Basically, Muhammed the Muslim has to be convinced that A) making peace with Israel and the Jews, B) making peace with non-Muslims and allowing complete freedom of religion, and C) granting more rights and freedoms to women are good things, and will not mean the end of the world, and are, in fact, in his own best interests, and then we have something to work with, and Muhammed will be less inclined to support power-hungry demogogues, mad ayatollahs, and psycho terrorists who inevitably play on the people's inner prejudices and use them to usurp power. That's the key.

As of right now, though, the problem is that Arab/Islamic culture is, at it's heart, an honor/shame culture, kind of like urban gang warfare, where your average Arab man's most prized possession is "his rep" or his honor, ie., how big and bad he is. And when the Arabs are humiliated and shamed, either collectively, when Israel or the U.S. whips their tails in a conflict, or individually, such as when Muhammed's daughter dares to tell him that she will marry whomever she dang well pleases, they feel their "rep" has been trampled on, and the only way to reclaim their "rep" is to go out and prove how big and bad he is, by whippin' some poor fools butt, or beating that smart-mouthed little tramp until she understands who wears the pants in this family.

Such is the problem with Islamic/Arab culture and how to change it.