One Down Two to Go

Dost-mittar #165: Of all the theories, I have heard so far, yours makes the most sense.

I think the false reasons for the US invasion of Iraq are clear. I doubt we will ever know the real and true reasons. But your, “stepping stone” theory towards Saudi Arabia, sounds sound. Of course, killing thousands of people and destroying their infrastructure just to achieve aims in another country is why the USA is disliked so much, in the Middle East, to begin with.

I think Saudi Arabia is the key country in the region, for the USA. Interestingly, the more the USA allies itself with a Middle East autocratic leadership, the more terrorist that country seems to produce. Maybe that should ring some alarm bells in Washington. Iraq will now start producing a lot of freedom fighters. And wherever there are freedom fighters, there are some terrorists produced also.

Things started to go wrong for the USA, when the European populations opposed the invasion. This was unprecedented, since a majority of Europeans always support US foreign policy escapades (while a vocal minority opposes it).

By this time, the USA had all its forces already deployed around Iraq. It was too late to turn back. Deploying such a large number of forces, across oceans, is a nightmare. It is much tougher than fighting the actual war in Iraq. So the USA could not wait forever, for Security Council resolutions etc., and spend billions to keep its soldiers deployed. It had to attack.

But due to the unexpected grassroots European opposition (Muslim opposition etc. was expected, but ignorable), everything went away from plan, from that point onwards. Chalabi was actually landed in Iraq by the Americans. He tried to create an uprising, but was ineffective. From that point onwards, the Americans really had no exit strategy. The European nations, peoples and media were going to put the invasion under a microscope to ensure it actually was, “for the betterment of Iraqis.”

Compare this to Afghanistan, where the Europeans and Americans are allies, and hence no one really cares what is going on there. There is no microscope to ensure that the Afghans are being looked after. The brutal NA is now ruling them. They haven’t even been able to get the $5 billion they were promised, while $87 billion has been approved for Iraq.

Now the USA is literally stuck in Iraq. It has had to change its strategy from WMDs to, “betterment of Iraqis.” Betterment of a country with 22 million people, and no infrastructure is a huge task. Even if the USA was 100% sincere, even with all of its resources, it couldn’t do it. It would have to pump in 100 billion or so every year, into the Iraqi economy, with 2/3rd of that being used for US troops, until Iraq got its oil wells running again. While simultaneously losing soldiers on a daily basis.

It’s an un-doable task for anyone. Even for a superpower.

The long-term strategy of installing a pro-US leader in Iraq is not going to work, since the expatriate Iraqi Council members have been rejected outright. With the rest of the world demanding free elections, sooner or later, some form of Iraqi representation will come in. Right now, it looks like a Shia clerical leadership with an alliance with Iran. This is a nightmare for the USA.

A theologically motivated nationalistic govt. in Iraq, with ties with Iran, will be a bigger headache for the USA, than Saddam Hussain ever could be. So will the USA allow the Iraqis to express their free will and bring such a govt. into power? It is a lose-lose situation for the USA, now. If it tries to influence the democratic process, then we are back to square one. If it doesn’t influence it, Iraq becomes Iran.

I agree with you that the USA is concerned about the Saudi govt. being toppled. I don’t think it has anything to do with terrorist threats to the USA, or in reforming the Abduls. The guys who bombed the WTC were not Abduls. In their day to day lifestyles, they had more in common with hamidm than with Naqshbandi. So the problem goes beyond Abduls. The USA knows very well that all those threats are based on the USAs’ one-sided support to Israel. And the USA govt. has willingly accepted this risk, much to the benefit of Israel; but much to its own loss. Until the Israel/Palestine problem is solved, Arabs will always be anti-USA.

The Saudi situation and USA’s reaction has more to do with oil. Royal families eventually do get toppled. And if the Saudi govt. is going to get toppled, it will more than likely be through a grassroots religious movement in Saudi Arabia. This is why the Saudi royalty does everything to keep the Wahabi religious leadership happy. If and when the Saudi govt. is toppled, Saudi Arabia will become a wealthier version of Taliban Afghanistan. At that point, we may have a situation, where more than 40% of the oil of the world (Saudi, Iraq and Iran) will all be under strongly anti-US religious govts. (Khomenis in Iran, Shia clerics in Iraq, and Wahabis in Saudi Arabia).

This is the ultimate nightmare scenario that the US may have trying to avoid through the Iraq invasion (as you suggested). Yet it probably just accelerated it.

Obviously, the USA cannot have 40+% of the world’s oil, sitting under elected nationalistic govts., which would vote for OBL over George Bush in an election. So what will it do then? Only God knows. It cannot keep invading and sanctioning every country in the Middle East. Or maybe it can?

This brings us back to Israel. I think somewhere along the line, the USA govt. has to realize that it is not in its interests to continue to support Israel in a one-sided manner. It has to be more balanced. Israel is one of the most non-secular (to the point of religious aparthied) countries in the world. It is also a major violator of UN resolutions and is criticized heavily by all human rights organizations. All of this goes against US domestic values. It is the basis of the nuclear race in the Middle East. It is also the basis for all the anti-US feelings in the Middle East.

So the security of the USA, and the free flow of oil into the USA, lies not in Iraq. It lies in Palestine and Israel. The solution for the USA is to put pressure on Israel to agree to a Palestinian state. This will automatically take the air out of the Al-Q of the world. And it will result in credibility for the USA in the Middle East. But no US President can take on the Israeli lobby in the USA, and survive. It is almost as strong as the NRA.

The solution is not to invade one country after the other, in the area. This can even be counter-productive for the USA, as we may find out if Iraq elects maulvis.

anew #173 weak answer. points deducted.

Explanation: How can i be speaking about myself when it is you, not me, who quotes hadith at the drop of a hat; and it is you, not me, who quotes mike moore?

Let me help you find a better answer to my post: You could have written, for example, as follows:

``Thank you for the good advice, kindly gentleman Mr. Ahmed sir. You have opened my eyes and given my brain a jump start. From now on I shall start trusting my eyes and my brains which have been so hopelessly crushed by this damned pakistani education system i went through where i am taught to be a parrot and not the thinker that a man should be. Indeed, sir tahmed sahib, I now realize that the good Lord (who watches over all his children, incidentally - including those jews whom i used to rant against in the bad old days) made my eyes and my brains from the same mold as that of these hadith writers (who act as if they are mini-me versions of the good Lord) or any white guy like mike moore (who try to be funny, when they cant even find their own country). And if I may be so bold as to say so sir, my brain is even better than them: i live centuries after those hadith writers, and so have a quantum more knowledge than those pygmy brains. And i know of not just western culture, sir, but also of the east, sir and so am that much more knowledgeable than this mike moore (whose middle name is ``where`s my country, dude, i still cant read a map``).

Something like the above would have been a great answer. I`ll give you full marks for keeping your answer short though. a one liner!! you`re getting there, boy.

MaheshG:
``I would disagree. If that was the real intention then India would have gladly climbed aboard.``
India is not a stranger to Islam. Islam poses no danger to India or vice versa. India has friendly relations with almost all muslim countries. As has been repeated so often, no Indian muslim is in camp delta in Cuba.
This could all change, however, if Messrs Modi, Togodia and Co. have their way.

#135 by tahmed32 on December 17, 2003 9:30am PT
anew #115 chee! chee! chee! (as the villain says in bollywood movies). First you let hadith speak for you, and now you let mike moore speak for you.

(Tearing my hair out not)...When...Oh! when my Lord...will Brother Anew learn to speak for himself!!

(Calming down now and taking on a fatherly tone): my dear brother anew, i have faith that God gave you a brain as good as mike moore`s or one of those hadith writers. please try for once to write a rational sentence that rests on solid facts - you can do it. you have as good a brain as any of these dead arab men or living white men that you have speaking for you. trust me.

Tahmeed32 speaks for himself. What a waste of `Brain`!