The Blame Game – ‘Oil or Bust’ Edition

Saudi Arabia is responsible for the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq¹, and in terms of funding², has for decades been facilitating the flow of funds from collection plates to madrassahs in places like Pakistan, and also to finance jihad³ – holy war – in countries like Iraq. When the topic of fundamentalist Islam, or what the far right refers to as Islamofacism, is brought up in political discussion, the common mistake that is made, perhaps willfully on the part of those who make it most often, is to discriminate based on factors outside the realm of religion. A case in point being the frequent naming of groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, none of whom represent a US partner in trade, as opposed to the Saudi government with whom certain US firms profit through oil/gas services contracts⁴. Any question regarding why our foreign policy is incoherent in this regard, can be answered quite simply by identifying which states we already do business with, and which states we do not.

To recreate the circumstances that provided us leverage in establishing such a rich arrangement with Saudi Arabia would be extremely difficult, as the preface to all this was a perceived threat of invasion during the first Gulf War, where Saudi Arabia feared the ability of Saddam Hussein to invade their kingdom just as he had Kuwait. US protection from this threat is what kicked open the door, and as we are realizing the hard way in Iraq, without such circumstances in place prior to the use of force, the opportunity for rich trade agreements, particularly in the oil/gas services industry, become much more difficult to secure. Going on over four years now, we are no more closer to securing such deals with Iraq as we already have in place with Saudi Arabia than we were before the government of Iraq was first elected⁵. The pattern up to this point is unmistakably one of purposeful delay, as the Iraqi parliament understands all too well what is expected of them. At the end of 2006, Iraqi politicians saw that the American public turned on its President and his policy in Iraq. This correctly indicated to them that the best strategy would be to neglect the goal of reaching an agreement on the disbursement of energy resources, and whether or not foreign companies would be granted contracts to extract it.

When Vice President Cheney visited Iraq in June, he was hoping to return with assurances that the energy law would be passed prior to the Iraqi parliament’s planned vacation⁶. Obviously the Iraqis are perceiving their position as one of strength, and ours as one of weakness, growing weaker with each bloody day that passes. To gain leverage against the Iraqi government, Cheney must identify a strategy that will force their hand. Being that the government is predominantly Shiite, it is clear that one of his moves is to align US forces with the Sunni militias; those who are manned and funded out of Saudi Arabia. The political implications of this policy are twofold. First there needs to be a reason stated for embracing an enemy we had been fighting for years already, not to mention one that is responsible for thousands of US casualties up to this point. This political need is the genesis of a current campaign to fold ‘Al Qaeda’ and ‘Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia’ into one[⁷][⁸][⁹]. The story goes, that in spite of the analysis which ranks Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia fifth on the list of most dangerous enemies in Iraq, it is in the interest of both the Sunni insurgency and the US military to eliminate this threat first and foremost. Second there must be a political reason for choosing one side over another, as a close examination will soon reveal that both the Sunni insurgency and Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia are in fact supported by Saudi Arabia. This necessitates the demonizing of Shiite insurgents, not because of Moktada al Sadr’s ability to short circuit the state of Iraq if he chooses to, but because of the Iranian support and influence they enjoy.

Notice that the separate factions of Sunni and Shiite are not singled out here, but rather they are accused of being manipulated by outside forces. The idea is to create a perception of this country that would be enjoying peace, freedom and democracy if it weren’t for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Iran. This strategy is reinforced by the absolute refusal to categorize the daily carnage as a reflection of the internal differences between parties within Iraq, which had been present since before our occupation. It is not a new strategy, as throughout the rise of this insurgency, the administration would regularly attribute what looked to be the makings of a failed state to the influx of “foreign fighters” streaming into Iraq through the Syrian, Iranian and Saudi Arabian borders. The administration has never really been willing to accept that a civil war was taking place, or that the terrorism which constitutes the main tactic resulting in death within Iraq has been the preferred method of attack for Iraqis on both sides of the cultural divide. Truth being that Iraqi Shiite and Sunni attack with IED explosives, car bombs, kidnappings, suicide bombers and chemicals, often against their fellow Iraqis, including women and children. The administration intends for the American public to consider such tactics to be the work of outside forces against the Iraqis, and that the attacks happen because of an ideological difference between terrorists and those who love freedom, liberty and democracy.

Creating an abstract crossfire of deceit and obfuscation to explain what is happening in Iraq, it is then time to change the subject entirely, by predicting the result of what would be left behind if we were to leave. Noting that the Al Qaeda thread being woven through everything pertaining to Iraq is most prevalent ever since the notion of Congressional action became a reality, it is this specter of terrorism, the humanitarian cost and the effect on morale within our military that are cited as reasons for why a withdrawal of our troops is irresponsible. Making it much more difficult to accept these arguments in 2007, is the evidence up until now clearly shows that none of these three drawbacks have concerned us up to this point. In regards to terrorism, humanitarian issues and the morale of our military, all three have either been on the back burner or disregarded entirely, yet they are now supposed to resurrect and become important all of a sudden to those very same political players who had neither the time nor the patience for any of them up until this point. Most clearly in the case of humanitarian costs, there isn’t a Republican in Congress who still supports the President, having also highlighted the crisis of over two million Iraqi refugees¹⁰ now spread throughout the Middle East or the stingy US policy preventing even those Iraqis who risked their own murder and the murder of their family by providing intelligence to the military being denied asylum in the United States. Those same Republican Senators recently voted against the Webb amendment, which would have required the military to provide troops at least a year of rest time in between deployments. And just this past week it was reported that not only has Al Qaeda’s operational capacity grown since 9/11, but that there was an opportunity to conduct an operation in the tribal region of Pakistan that could have scored in the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden’s second in command; this operation had the full backing of the CIA and US Army Special Forces, but was canceled at the last minute by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [¹¹][^11a].

Taking all of this into account, while recognizing that it is merely the tip of the iceberg, it is very hard for most Americans to take Republicans seriously when they lament the ‘possible’ outcomes that would transpire if we were to withdraw from Iraq. Much like a murderer’s jail house repentance, aided by a new found admiration for one deity or another, it’s difficult to merely accept on faith that they are sincere, and not just saying what they think society or the parole board wants to hear. A more convincing argument would have to involve some sort of denunciation of the decision making process that led us into this war in the first place. Lest we believe that so many Republicans are accepting of the fact that intelligence was cooked, the post-war plan (spread the honey) a naive mix of free-market theories and conservative Utopian dementia¹², and now a sincere longing to get it right for the sake of all those poor people over there in Iraq. I think a more realistic analysis would have to count both Iraq’s natural resources and a degenerate gambler’s inability to step away from the table. In terms of the latter, Senators McCain and Lieberman, whose backroom deal to share a Presidential ticket having been made (my gut tells me this) a long time ago, who now flail and sputter violent predictions of what’s to come, how it would be fun to kill Persians for a while, yet assessing Iraq’s security situation today as positive, reassuring, not so bad, safe…

So the chess match as it stands now, has Cheney staring down Iran with his hand buried deep inside the top hat, and the rest of the world kicking back with their feet up enjoying a bowl of popcorn. For well over a year now the programmed audience laugh-track has been following the President, Vice President and Secretary of State around wherever they go, and in April an event took place of a magnitude thus far under-noticed in our national discourse. Whereas almost 40 years ago we faced a hostage crisis involving Iran lasting 444 days, just recently Iran took hostage 15 British sailors and returned them in 13 days. Naturally, Vice President Cheney was unhappy¹³ over the fact that the situation was able to be resolved without the need to drop bombs. And now the game is the same as it was before, with the military in charge of an insinuation and false witness campaign aimed at making sure Americans understand that every troop killed our wounded in Iraq who wasn’t done in by Al Qaeda, was definitely done in by Iran.

“Message discipline” is the political terminology used to describe this strategy of telling precise lies en masse, and no group of human beings on this earth do it as well as Republicans. What each of them must now face up to, is the fact that they are betting whatever they’ve got on a White House lugging around more baggage than it can handle. With the wind at its back and public support on its side, the outcome has always been an arrogant, abysmal failure. Now all that’s left is this energy bill, which the Iraqi government either passes or it doesn’t. Since our military is experiencing 130 degrees in full battle rattle day after day, while this government is vacationing in milder climates, for their sake let’s hope that an Iraqi timetable is not what continues to necessitate our presence, but that Democrats in Congress will carry out their duty to the Republic and the Constitution, by impeaching both President Bush and Vice President Cheney as soon as possible.

Of course, before we’re finally there, it’ll be at least another couple months of our top media heads feigning mental retardation, as Tim Russert was this week when he pointed out that Prime Minister Maliki made a statement saying that US forces could withdraw from Iraq at any time, then turned to Lindsey Graham and asked why we’re still there.  Certainly the man is not that stupid, nor is every other news anchor dumbing-down our airwaves day after day with this question – “Why are we still there?”  The answer being so obvious, it’s almost worthy of a Jane Goodall documentary.  Bush and Cheney have had so much time to scheme and kill for oil on our dime, yet here we are without a drop of it thus far; only a broken military and our empire on life support. They are incompetent and focused solely on the juice that lies beneath, nothing else. Bush and Cheney are a lot of things, but I’d bet that neither of them ever had a true a wildcatter spirit working from within.  These foreign policy certitudes they rode in to town with, entirely stupid ideas, now having managed to complicate everything so badly, it becomes clear that they are not only unable to let go of their ideological security blankets, but in terms of strategy, they’re regularly outplayed by every head of state they come into contact with.  Seemingly unable to see a couple moves ahead, once the original script was played out and they were forced to improvise, things only got worse from then on.  In other words…once the stupid ideas were all used up, these stupid men were really in over their heads, and nervous that they’d end up looking like the fools that they are.

Clip the wings of a bird and they can sometimes manage to kill it, but when either of these cocksuckers have to win in a game that is not rigged…well, the evidence surrounds us.

References:

1. No Author. 7/16/2007. The Economic Times, “S Arabia the biggest source of foreign jihadis in Iraq“, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International__Business/S_Arabia_the_biggest_source_of_foreign_jihadis_in_Iraq/articleshow/2206172.cms
2. No Author. 12/6/2006. Associated Press, “Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunni insurgents, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm
3. Napoleoni, Loretta. No Date. Saudi Finance, “Sleeping With The Enemy“, http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm
4. http://www.the-saudi.net/business-center/links-usa.htm
5. Lando, Ben. 7/13/2007. UPI, “Iraqi Kurds Say Politics Revised Oil Law“, http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3580/Iraqi_Kurds_Say_Politics_Revised_Oil_Law
6. No Author. 7/14/2007. AP, “Iraqi parliament, facing deadlines, to go on holiday“, http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/07/14/news/national/doc469865a76973d087863819.txt
7. Hoyt, Clark. 7/8/2007. The New York Times”Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner“, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08pubed.html?ex=1184731200&en=811dcda87ef7c65f&ei=5070
8. Greenwald, Glenn. 6/23/2007. Salon, “Everyone we fight in Iraq is now “al-Qaida”“, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/index.html
9. Gordon, Michael R., Rutenberg, Jim. 7/13/2007. The New York Times, “Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert“, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13qaeda.html?ex=1341979200&en=ae55e2b9e1b3034f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
10. Strobel, Warren P. 2/8/2007. McClatchy Newspapers, “US Faced with a Mammoth Iraq Refugee Crisis“, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0208-03.htm
11. Mazzetti, Mark. 7/8/2007. The New York Times, “U.S. ABORTED RAID ON QAEDA CHIEFS IN PAKISTAN IN ’05“, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A17F6385A0C7B8CDDAE0894DF404482
11a. 7/9/2007. deadissue.com, “Casting for 9/11, ‘The Sequel’“, http://deadissue.com/archives/2007/07/09/casting-for-911-the-sequel/
12. Klein, Naomi. September 2004. Harpers, “Baghdad year zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia“, http://harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
13. 4/5/2007. deadissue.com, “Riding on Old Yeller“, http://deadissue.com/archives/2007/04/05/riding-on-old-yeller/