"Practice to Deceive" - Is it really about Saddam and WMD?

Don't know, the same reason the right is always reffered to as war mongering nazis.

Go figure.

All Saddam had to do was put all his banned weapons in a big parking lot and let the UN inspectors come in, record the stuff, and destroy it - much like South Africa did. But he didn't.

Exactly. And none of this would have happened. US would not have attacked, and the anti-war zealots wouldn't have anything to complain about.

But of course, it's all the USs fault!!!

Why is there all this talk along the lines of "I don't think there is some evil consipracy blah blah blah ..."?

The article didn't once use the word conspiracy. My brief comments about the article did not either. The article simply argues that the stated reasons ... or to put it another way ... the reasons given for public consumption .. are not the true motivations for this conflict ... especially in the long term. IOTW, there is a long term strategy of which this is only the first step. I see all these "dismissive" comments ... but very little in the way of debate.

Anyway, I said that I agreed with 95+% of the article. I'll now address an area where I disagree. Namely, the notion that the goal is to spread "democracy" throughout the Middle East. IMO, the historical record demonstrates that the US (and other European colonial powers) have never supported real democracty in the Middle East (and I'm not talking about Israel). In fact, they have actively subverted it. Case in point, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran was deposed by the US and Britain in the early 1950s. Why? Because he led and effort to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. An industry that at the time was 100% controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company of Britain. After the US and Britain did its dirt, the Shah ... who previously had limited power ... was an outright dictator ... and the US had a 40% cut of the oil profits for its "assistance". Of course, the Shah went on to implement a police state that brutally repressed its people for decades ... backed and supplied by the US and other Western countries ... until the revolution in 1979 that led to the US Embassy Hostage situation. This was the genesis of radical, political Islam ... created as a direct result of Western desires to control oil resources in the Middle East.

Another case in point, in the 1990s in Algeria (not the Middle East I know) there were democratic elections, certified as free and fair. But guess who won? The "radical Islamic" party. And a year or so later when the Algerian military staged a coup, the US (and the French) didn't say sh*t! Why? Because they didn't like who won! So much for the so-called "standard bearer of democracy".

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf States .... are any of these democracies? Or are these countries run by dictators who have agreed to ensure an uninterrupted supply of cheap oil to the West in exchange for absolute power at home, enormous wealth, and support from the West?

Does the US really want to see democracy in the Middle East?

If a free election were held today in Saudi Arabia who would win ... the Crown Prince or Osama bin Laden? Right or wrong ... which one has the support of the masses? Which one is more likely to advocate raising the price of the oil so that the wealth derived benefits the many instead of the few? Which one is more likely to call for the removal of US troops from Arabian soil? The answer, of course, is Osama bin Laden ... and that is why the US will never support real democracy in the Middle East. The US government has spent way too long supporting corrupt regimes that often brutalize their people in order to control the oil supply. The people over there have eyes ... and memories. And there's no guarantee that a free election will result in a government that is "palatable" to the US.

The bottom line is that the US is, and has always, been interested in controlling the oil. History proves that when there is a conflict between what the US perceives to be in its economic interest and the ideals of "freedom and democracy" that it espouses ... the economic interests win every time.

OAW

A few brief comments. First off the discussion of conspiracies was relative to one of the posters, not the article.

Second it is unfair to compare events during the cold war with those of today. During the cold war we often supported governments or insurgencies we'd have preferred not to simply because of the Soviet Union and her expansion. A lot of those wars were, in effect, vicarious wars between the US and the Soviets. I believe everyone agrees we supported a lot of people we disliked, Sadaam Hussein being one of them.

Now, does that make folks in the mid-east a little less trusting of us? Of course, as do the actions of the French and British around the time of the first world war. I'm certainly not criticizing folks in the mid-east for being leery.

However to suggest that the aims of the US now are the same as during the cold war makes no sense. After all the context is completely different. Most of the motivation is gone. Folks on the left keep bringing up the "war for oil" mantra, but that simply is nonsensical. If all we cared about was oil and economics then we'd simply support all the current mideast governments and go for cheap oil. So the purported motivation actually undercuts the purported actions.

If you look at the neo-Con position, you'll find that they want several things. First to break the bake of a rising Pan-Islam empire before it gets to the point it will be a real threat. The best way to do that is convert the aggitators to a democratic society where a reformed Islam can be supported instead of the violent fundamentalist versions. Secondly to help the remaining areas of the earth without democracy obtain it.

Now is there some naivite in all that? Of course. I'm not convinced that there is a gulf between democracy and fundamentalism. Witness western Pakistan. (Although Pakistan isn't fully democratic)

So I'd say that the article is close to the truth, but is putting a more negative spin on motivations than I think apt.

As OAW pointed out, it is not the oil itself we're after, but control of the oil.
It has been a US/UK policy since WWII.

Mmm, what's nonsensical is to ignore the only reason the West ever bothered to give two shytes about the region in the first place.



Pan-Islam empire?? Is this counter-conspiracy theory? And what form is this empire taking? The Arab League?

I'm hoping your use of the word "convert" isn't a Fruedian slip. You've also confused a tiny but vocal minority with a very conflicted and confused majority that has no love for radicals but can't help but enjoy seeing the US get some blowback. What is really risky is alienating the majority in our attempts to crush that minority. How we resolve the conflict is more important than anything else because of this risk.

I'm also leery when you say "reformed Islam". The world is full of very devoted Muslims who operated comfortably and happily in a modern, westernized world. That's like saying Christianity needs reform because of The Army of God nutjobs.



On the contrary, I think the article admits that the Idealism behind this agenda is quite compelling. It's the execution of that plan and the apparant blindspots in addressing the potential unintended consequences that scare many of us shytless.

This passage from the Marshall article at the top of this thread:


The following passage from this article today:

Are Iran and Syria next? What if they don't shape up? Will we go after them, since we're already in the neighborhood?

Thank you. This is exactly what I was thinking.

Why is freedom and liberty good enough for us, but not for Arab nations? I'm sure liberals sincerely believe what they believe because they think it is best for the US and Arab nations. But, on the face of it, it sounds racist.

No, taking down murderous regimes like Saddam's isn't easy. But, are we saying that because we will lose American lives it's not worth it? Are we saying that because it's too hard it's not worth it?

Maybe, just maybe, instead of taking a negative view of this possible scenario, we could take a positive view:

Post-Taliban Afghanistan and post-Saddam Iraq set good examples of what is capable of happening when awful regimes are removed from power. The UN takes up the cause and other freedom-loving nations join in the coalition.

I love what President Bush said: "Freedom and liberty is not America's gift to the world. It is God's gift to humanity."

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that (on second though...). Yes, it's idealistic. But, simply saying it can't be done is not enough to not try.

Again, you're confusing criticism of method for criticism of Ideal.

Sure it's an appealing Idea. Of course they deserve freedom and liberty to dictate their own course. But that also means we must allow them to dictate their own course, not impose it.

If we really wanted democracy and liberty in the Middle East, we stop payment on the next check to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Israel (until they comply with law and UN resolutions), etc.

Iran is reforming. Bahrain is reforming. Left to their own devices and free from economic exploitation, Arabs have clearly made moves away from anti-modernism and anti-westernism.

I realize that many want us to forget the mistakes of past and consider the new policy to be making amends for that, but that ignores the reality that we have no credibility for this psychological battle. By going to a military solution, we simply reinforce the misconception (or prove the ugly truth, depending on how you view it) that America wants to rule over Muslims. We are reinforcing the perception of Colonialsim. We must admit that we are guilty of Colonialism in the past to disastrous results. To ignore that is to not recognize how to move forward.

Will we demand free elections in Saudi Arabia? Will we demand that Egypt allow UN monitors to oversee the next election and abide by the honest outcome (Mubarak won't get 98% in a real election)?

If we want representative government to flourish in the Middle East (or anywhere), we should be talking about the best way to do it that serves their interests, not ours.

As OAW pointed out, it is not the oil itself we're after, but control of the oil.

The nature of the oil market has changed dramatically since the 70's. We now have Canada, Venezuela, the North Sea and much else producing oil. Further oil is a commodity. The role the mideast plays simply isn't the same as it once was. That is not to discount the role of oil in the least. Clearly it is one reason why we worry about the mideast and not some countries in Africa. However the bigger issue is terrorism and Israel in terms of strategic views.

The distinction between oil and control of oil is not that significant. Basically the US wants to ensure that oil isn't used as a weapon against the west. That doesn't necessarily mean control of oil, except in an indirect sense. Certainly we don't want a powerful OPEC holding the west hostage.

Pan-Islam empire?? Is this counter-conspiracy theory? And what form is this empire taking? The Arab League?

There are two senses of a Pan-Islamic empire. Clearly Sadaam wanted to be the leader of such an empire. He was fairly open about that but miscalculated in the original invasion of Kuwait. (Although clearly that was a more complex situation) The more worrisome kind of empire though isn't Sadaam's secular empire but a fundamentalist revolution across the mideast. Once again those religious forces, of which the loose Al Queda network is but a part, have been fairly open. This isn't really a conspiracy theory per se. (Although clearly Al Queda is a formal secret society and organization) A lot more of it is just common views among a subset of the Arab world.

The only big issue is which was the wiser path. To attack Iraq/Afghanistan or hope to change the hearts of the arab world by appeasement. I think good cases can be made on either side.

I'm hoping your use of the word "convert" isn't a Fruedian slip. You've also confused a tiny but vocal minority with a very conflicted and confused majority that has no love for radicals but can't help but enjoy seeing the US get some blowback.

It isn't a slip. I don't mean convert in religious terms but in ideological ones. During the interm between the end of the cold war and gulf war and 9/11 the mideast and other areas did become more radicalized and more started adopting more fundamentalist religious views. Yes, it is still a minority. But there definitely wasn't an amalgamation of the Islamic world and the west. We just weren't paying attention. Instead there was starting to be a division. (And, within the west, there was starting to be an ideological gulf between the US and the rest of the western world as well)

Once again, I don't think that is terribly controversial. The big issue is getting Islam overall to adopt a position that allows more individual liberties, much as Europe came to adopt after the period of the initial reformation - counter-reformation movement. Although one can strongly suggest that even in Europe it was more the loss of Christianity as a significant part of peoples worldview with a move towards secularism that finally achieved this. In that regard though there are many different views. Most have good points. However there clearly isn't a situation like what we have in Europe in the Islamic world outside of Turkey.

I think the article admits that the Idealism behind this agenda is quite compelling. It's the execution of that plan and the apparant blindspots in addressing the potential unintended consequences that scare many of us shytless.

I agree. And certainly there is ample places for things to go wrong. Certainly today there are many scary things going on. There is the danger of an expansion of the war to include Syria. There is a danger of Korea blowing up. There are reports that in the coming days Iraq may launch a coordinated all-out attack on Israel from Syria/Lebannon. Further there are many reports that American troops are stretched far too thin and that the war plan has gone horribly awry. (Although some strongly suggest, based upon a fairly limited number of attacks - only 5000 bombs - that this is a feint to lure Sadaam)

But I'd be the first to admit that it is a risky gamble. That, more than any "ethics" is why I think a lot of world governments opposed the war. Certainly it was why I was always somewhat ambivalent about Bush's plan. I also am rather worried that it appears that Bush followed Rumsfeld and didn't keep the Powell doctrine of the 1990's. Although, some have suggested that we don't really know what the plan is and that we shouldn't judge it by what we've seen. (However I honestly do think that Bush thought the war would be over by now)

I'm also leery when you say "reformed Islam". The world is full of very devoted Muslims who operated comfortably and happily in a modern, westernized world. That's like saying Christianity needs reform because of The Army of God nutjobs.

I was more thinking of the reformation and counter-reformation and the era immediately following. There really is a similar situation in Islam. How many democratic Islamic countries are there? The closest is Turkey, but Turkey clearly doesn't have good religious freedom. (Although it has improved) In the rest minority religious views are persecuted and there is not freedom of speech, civil rights, and so forth. At one time people had hope for Jordan, but the Israeli/Palestinian situation and then Iraqi refugees changed a lot of that.

Simply demanding Saudi Arabia have open elections wouldn't do it. You'd at best have a civil war that would last a long time and more likely result in a fundamentalist state rather than a democracy. Same with a lot of other Islamic nations. One goal (among others) is to establish a democracy in Iraq so that other countries can become democratic. It'll put pressure on them for rights.

Whether it will work is a big "if" though. It is in the best interests of many surrounding nations that it not work.

for the record, if you're referring to me, here, reread the thread.

Finboy said he refused to believe a conspiracy (first reference).
I only stated that "It is precisely your inability to accept it as a possibilty which allows it to happen."

meaning that as long as we pretend a conspiracy CAN"T happen, we don't investigate it....that allows it to happen.


or else...what was your point?

I don't think it's "unfair" at all. The historical record speaks for itself. In fact, it's not limited to the Middle East. The US (and other European colonial powers) have followed the same patter all over the world. The US had the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba killed in the Congo, Central Africa ... and installed the dictator Mobutu ... who proceeded to run the country into the ground and rape the national treasury for billions .... but I suppose that's "OK" because he was "anti-communist". The US supported the dictator Batista in Cuba for decades ... but when Castro ran him out and nationalized the economy ... then all of a sudden a dictator in Cuba was no good! The only difference was US business interests made money off Batista ... and they didn't off Castro. The same "policy" was applied to other Carribean Islands ... where US policy was based upon the interests of the United Fruit Company ... as opposed to support for "freedom and democracy". How many dictators has the US supported in Central and South America .... Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.?

The fact of the matter is that most of these events took place before the Cold War began! But since you bring up the Cold War, let me address that. The bottom line is that the Cold War was nothing more than a fight between two camps of white people (e.g. Europeans who collectively make up about 11% of the world's population) ... to control the resources of the entire world. Period. Dot. End of sentence. Just as England, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, et al competed with each other during colonial times for control of the resources of Africa, Asia, and the Americas .... so to did the West and the Soviet Union compete for control of the same resources in these modern "neo-colonial" times.

The "ideology" is incidental at best. The real "danger" of communism wasn't the system in itself. Rather, it was the expansionism of the Soviet Union and its desire to enlarge its sphere of influence that was the threat. Of course, the US (and the West) was, and is, "expanionist" as well. The conflict was simply a result of this economic competition.

So IMO, the fact that the US previously supported the Shah or Saddam during the Cold War is irrelevant. The motivation was, and continues to be, control of the economic resources of the region.



As well they should be!



Again, see my comments above. However, someone pointed out quite astutely that the issue is control of the oil, rather than simply having access to it.



Break the back of a rising Pan-Islam empire you say? Well taking out Saddam doesn't seem to smart of it's about that ... after all, Saddam is about as anti-Islamic extremist as they come. In fact, that's why the US supported him against Iran! But again, I've pointed out why the US does not want real democracy in the Middle East in my previous post ... so I won't repeat it here. See my post above if you're interested.

OAW

Once again if your main arguments outside of the coldwar come from the prior era of true collonialism (i.e. Teddy Rosevelt) then I think you are really grasping at straws. The world has seriously changed idealogically the past 100 years. Comparing the United States of 1900-1930 to the United States of 1988-2001 seems very misplaced.

There have been all sorts of idealogical revolutions you may have missed. i.e. the civil rights movement being but one of them. Further the neo-con movement, of which this thread is ultimately discussing, is very different than the various idealogical movements at the time of either Roosevelt. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party are radically different in beliefs from what they were 80 years ago.

Ancient history is ancient history. And the one things about the United States that is constant is how quickly it evolves. But the changes between 1960 and 1985 were so dramatic to both political movements that I'm amazed you overlook them.

Put it an other way, I'd not judge German actions of the past year because of the actions of Germany in WWI or WWII. Yet you are suggesting more or less the equivalent logic relative to the United States.

One more point to sum it all up ...

The only reason that "radical, fundamentalist Islam" in the Middle East is considered to be a "threat" to the US is because of the danger it poses to US control of the economic resources of the region.

If the US economy ran off fuel cells do you think we'd have US troops in Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Would we have carrier groups in the Persian Gulf? The countries in the Middle East could pray to Allah 100 times a day, all the women could be made to wear head to toe covering black robes in the hot sun, and the governments completely controlled by the radical clerics .... and the US wouldn't give a sh*t. Why? Because there would be no money to be made over there.

If you want to understand the motivations behind US foreign policy, all you need to do is one thing ....

Follow the money.

OAW

I think he's talking about the economic interests that drive political interests, not ideology.

Ideology is just the tool of getting what we want. Controlling wealth is an interest that has adopted and endless variety of Ideologies to accomplish it's goal.

I was in Bulgaria from 1992-1994 right after it's democratic adventure began. What I quickly realized (along with Bulgarians) is that nothing changed. The same people who controlled wealth before the Communists came to power were the same people who became communists who are the same poeple who are now "democratic". They just change colors when it becomes necessary.

Economic interests have dictated foreign policy in the middle east (amoung some religious and strategic interests) and will continue to do so. The Ideology employed to maintain that relationship (their resources for our gain) might change from Manifest Destiny to Paternal Colonialism to Peace, Freedom & Democracy, but all of those Ideologies are in service to perpetuating the economic status quo.

If the US economy ran off fuel cells do you think we'd have US troops in Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Probably, for the same reasons we have troops in Korea. Certainly how we act towards the mideast would be different though. But I honestly believe that 9/11 changed everything. I don't think you can underestimate the psychological effect that had. To simply suggest that it all descends down to economics is insufficient.

Heaven knows economics drives a lot. I agree, for instance, that a lot of France, Germany and Russia's actions are driven by their own economic interests in Iraq. But I also believe that they had honest ethical and ideological concerns as well.

But I'm not discounting economic issues. I think they are part of what goes on. But how economic interests are viewed is intrinsically tied to political ideology - otherwise all American politicians would believe the same thing about foreign policy. Which they clearly do not.

Further it suggests that human beings are rather simple creatures whose actions are easy to determine based upon economics. Such dialectics have fallen out of favor in academia if only because of the postmodern attack on marxism and other kinds of materialistic hegelisms. (Speaking philosophically and not in terms of the pejorative meanings usualy given "marxism" in the United States)

Economic interests have dictated foreign policy in the middle east (amoung some religious and strategic interests) and will continue to do so.

Explain, using only economics, Al Queda and the Talibon.

ClarkGoble,

I think you and I analyze US actions in the world's from two different standpoints. It seems that you tend to focus on the changes in ideology that the US has experienced over time. I, OTOH, tend to focus on US behavior that the US has engaged in. As I said before, IMO the ideology is "incidental". Something merely used to inspire the general public ... has very little to do with the real reasons behind a policy.

I mean let's be real about it .... it's much more "sexy" to describe the Cold War in terms of "the communist threat to our way of life" or "godless communists out to enslave freedom loving people all over the world" .... as opposed to "economic competitors for the natural resources of the world needed to fuel their respective economies". Is it not?

I guess what I'm saying is that the more things change ... the more they stay the same. As the song says ...

"It's all about the Benjamins!"

OAW

It's not that economic driven policy created radical Islam (although many agree that Colonialism is directly related to the outgrowth of radical Islam), it's that they target the US as an enemy because our policies in the region.

If the US had only some passing interest in the Middle East and had never exerted direct military force to tip the scales of power in our economic favor, Al'Queda would be killing the heads of Arab states and each other not targeting the West.

It is our involvement that makes us a target, not our isolation. It is not appeasement that has failed as a policy, it is overt and covert manipulation and expoitation that has failed as a policy.

I'm obviously a minority when I say that 9/11 shoudn't have surprised anyone. It was not a new conflict. It was not a new enemy. It was not a new war. It was not the result of apathy or uninvolvement.

The only thing new about 9/11 is that the war that has up til now been fought on their soil was brought home to Americans.

We have troops in S. Korea for one reason. Actually two. South Korea ... but more importantly Japan are integral trading partners to the US ... and N. Korea is a military threat to them. Japan has a long history of imperialism and the Koreans (as well as the Chinese) have been on the receiving end of it. But Japan is on "our side" now ... and any major disruptions to the Japanese economy, and to a lesser degree the S. Korean economy, would have a devastating impact on the US economy.



And just how much money do you think will be made in the effort to "rebuild" Iraq? Billions no doubt! France, Germany, and Russia have existing contracts with Iraq for a variety of deals. They stand to lose these deals and have them replaced by contracts with US and British companies. As always, "to the victor goes the spoils". To suggest that the US and the UK don't have an economic motivation here ... but only Russia, Germany, and France do is the epitome of naivete. Sure the US doesn't have a lot of contracts with Iraq now, but you can rest assured that they will have a boatload of them once the shooting stops!



Well I didn't say anything about "human beings". I said the US and other European colonial powers. The fact of the matter is that the behavior of these entities has been remarkably consistent over the years. Sure, things have changed around the edges ... on a superficial level in some cases ... and substantively in others. But the game has remained the same. The question is this, has colonialism really ended? My contention is that it has not. Rather, it has only changed its form. Namely, from an outright political control to an economic control.



Al Qaeda exists as a force to fight against the presence of outsiders in the Middle East. Whether those outsiders are US troops or Israelis. The reason they fight is because said outsiders have a long history of dominating the region ... including its economics. Al Qaeda essentially seeks self-determination for Arabs. The overthrow of corrupt Arab regimes supported by the West. The return of Palestine to the Palestinians. And the removal of US troops from the region in general, and Arabian soil in particular. IOTW, Arab control of Arab land.

The Taliban exists for a similar reason. They were formed intially as a response to repel outsiders as well. In this case it was the Soviets who sought to control the region.

OAW