Random Thought
The reason the US makes consistently bad foreign policy decisions or none at all because of intraparty or interparty squabbling is that too few people care about foreign policy beyond fighting wars. The only time the masses care about foreign policy that doesn't directly involve our security is when someone throws some domestic issue intio it, such as abortions in China and UN aid for population control, or drugs in Colombia. When was the last time you heard any politician talking about a long-term plan for foreign policy that didn't revolve around defence? The public doesn't care, so we either have no coherent foreign policy or some demagogue stringing people along. The latter has actually happened. Why else do you think we invaded Cuba, Hawaii, the Philllipines, and Haiti, all in 1898?
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
Bush wants to depose Saddam because Iraq has oil-though not for the reasons you'd expect.
It appears that it will be far safer to simply contain Saddam, rather than overthrow him, in terms of the terrorist fallout his weapons could create. Why did Bush want to overthrow Saddam? I think the reason is oil, but not because oil is money, but because oil is power.
Think about what control of the flow of oil wrought in the '70s with the oil embargoes. Think about how many third-world nations are willing to support the latest Arab jihad in the UN, such as declaring Zionism racist. What reason did any of the nations outside of the Middle East have for supporting a tirade against a nation they have probably never officially communicated with. There is only one reason: the Middle East has oil, and they need it. In the past the Arab world has not shown itself reluctant about embargoes, and their influence is waning now (witness the failure of their secon Zionism is racism resolution to pass) only because they have not embargoed anyone recently.
If we establish a more moderate, pro-Western World government in Iraq, the flow of oil from there should counter the influennce of Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Empirates, and Iran, because it would not be subject to the same political control. This could have far-reaching implication for foreign policy.
However, because of this, Arab terrorist groups will probably do whatever they can to destroy a pro-West government. It is worth noting that the Shah of Iran fell just after an oil embargo.
It appears that it will be far safer to simply contain Saddam, rather than overthrow him, in terms of the terrorist fallout his weapons could create. Why did Bush want to overthrow Saddam? I think the reason is oil, but not because oil is money, but because oil is power.
Think about what control of the flow of oil wrought in the '70s with the oil embargoes. Think about how many third-world nations are willing to support the latest Arab jihad in the UN, such as declaring Zionism racist. What reason did any of the nations outside of the Middle East have for supporting a tirade against a nation they have probably never officially communicated with. There is only one reason: the Middle East has oil, and they need it. In the past the Arab world has not shown itself reluctant about embargoes, and their influence is waning now (witness the failure of their secon Zionism is racism resolution to pass) only because they have not embargoed anyone recently.
If we establish a more moderate, pro-Western World government in Iraq, the flow of oil from there should counter the influennce of Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Empirates, and Iran, because it would not be subject to the same political control. This could have far-reaching implication for foreign policy.
However, because of this, Arab terrorist groups will probably do whatever they can to destroy a pro-West government. It is worth noting that the Shah of Iran fell just after an oil embargo.