Is Iraq just a pawn?

After watching some comments made by Presidential Candidate and Senator Bob Graham on of all show Real Time with Bill Mahar (a show by the way that is not as good as PI despite the ubiquitous use of the word "shit"), an idea is beginning to stir... Let's assume that the 900 page intelligence report on 9/11 by Congress is factual, and that the censored sections indeed point to Saudi Arabia, and that his statements to the fact that the said unnamed country has direct ties to the 9/11 terrorists, then we must start looking at the overall strategic picture of the Middle East and the United States.

If you have ever played a macro world strategy game like Risk or Axis and Allies, you will know that countries are not the location of single wars, they are battle fields within the context of a much larger war. I think the last 50 years have led Americans to believe that wars are confined to singular political boundaries - hence the "Korean War," the "Vietnam War," the "Gulf War" and now the "Iraq War" - but anyone who is capable of seeing the bigger historical picture knows that this is never the case.

So where am I going with all of this? Well, assuming Saudi Arabia is the most to blame in the Middle East for 9/11, then why wouldn't the United States just simply declare war on them, as opposed to going after a Iraq [again]? The answer is quite obvious - oil. That should come as no surprise to any anti-War pundit. In fact, those pundits have been saying that from the beginning. But it may not be due entirely to the greed of Washington and the special interest groups that prey there. That would be far too reductionist.

Bottom line, the United States can't simply declare war on Saudia Arabia without first securing a new source of oil. Iraq is largest producer of oil in the world (Saudia Arabia is the fourth) - and with the country of Iraq "secure," the United States is in an unprecedented position to start pressuring Saudia Arabia for change and new levels of coorperation. If we simply started by blaming Saudia Arabia they would undoubtedly cut off their oil supply to the United States which could cripple our already very precarious economy.

I just hope that the move against Iraq fits into a larger strategic picture for the Bush Administration. Because, right now it really looks like going against Iraq was a bad idea - especially given that Iraq apparently was never as big a threat as we "thought." But you know - a good strategist always thinks a couple moves ahead at least, and has played out in their mind all the possible outcomes of any one move. I just hope that the people running our government have played enough Risk and Axis and Allies to learn that one simple lesson.



Monthly Archives

Close