Much has been made of the Bush administration's silence about Saudi Arabia, where most of the September 11 hijackers originated. At the same time, government and intelligence officials (always, ALWAYS, off-record) hint that there is proof that the hijackers received material support from foreign governments. And I don't think those governments include Iraq.
It's always been in the back of my mind that maybe, just maybe, the Bush team is planning an eventual attack on Saudi Arabia, which will turn into a gi-normous Middle East conflagration. Certainly, the U.S. is making all the right moves in that direction. It captures a vital oil source, creates an army of occupation which is an excuse to move troops into the region, and it nails down an airbase location that cannot be taken away by a willy-nilly foreign government.
All you do is wait for another terrorist attack which is bound to occur after American occupation of an Arab country (which just may coincidentally destroy some Islamic holy sites). Publicly connect the dots and invade.
As critical as I am of the current administration, I do not think they are so stupid as to fight a war solely for monetary gain (although that may be a supporting factor). That leaves a mainly military reason, and I have outlined one possible military reason, or an ideological. Currently, I'm disposed towards an ideologic reason; the U.S. is making an example of Iraq to support a unilateral foreign policy extending the Monroe Doctrine to both hemispheres and breaking the power of a United Nations which is now posed to harm the United States more than any other nation.
Still, Iraq as a foothold in the region is at least interesting and different from what anyone else seems to think, so I'd toss it out there and see how plausible people think it is now.
(11:32 PM)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home