I just read a long article in the Atlantic Monthly on the Saudi goverment, the politics of the royal family, the corruption and influence peddling and ties to U.S. politics. It doesn't bode well for the region or our influence there. The Saudi regime is U.S. friendly but is unstable and borderline schizo. Our dealings with them are equally schizo.
My wife's theory is that our move on Iraq is totally strategic - and I suppose by that, it is imperialist. With a strong foot-hold in Iraq, you can project power deep into the region all along the Iranian and Saudi Border all the way to Soviet E. Asia. Who needs Turkey if we can have Iraq for an ally and bases? Furthermore, we can protect Saudi and Iraqi oil fields with our own forces.
There is no question it is about oil, but not in the naive way so many think. The global economy and regional oil reserves are joined at the cranium. If Osama wanted to bring about a revolution, and bring the U.S. to its knees he would have targetted Saudi oil production not the WTC. Without the Saudis, the price of oil could go to over $100 a barrel - those would be tough economic times indeed.
The U.S. and the western developed world would be hit harder than anybody else. Its not about whose oil it is or which government or company makes money producing it, its about making sure no one threatens the supply. We cannot afford for the valve to be turned off - the economic engine of the world depends on it and 6 of the 8 cylinders of that engine are ours. I don't agree with the war, but there will be benefits to winning it.
As for democracy in the region, I actually think democracy could work in Iraq and Iran, but if the Saudi royal family was thrown out and replaced with a democracy today they would vote in a Bin Laden type faster than you can say Ayotollah. I doubt Jordan, Syria or Egypt would elect very U.S. freindly governments if they had democracies tomorrow.
I am a bit uneasy about regional democracy taking hold too fast - that part of the world isn't exactly happy with us and won't be for many election cycles. Be careful what you ask for, for it may be given.
My wife's theory is that our move on Iraq is totally strategic - and I suppose by that, it is imperialist. With a strong foot-hold in Iraq, you can project power deep into the region all along the Iranian and Saudi Border all the way to Soviet E. Asia. Who needs Turkey if we can have Iraq for an ally and bases? Furthermore, we can protect Saudi and Iraqi oil fields with our own forces.
There is no question it is about oil, but not in the naive way so many think. The global economy and regional oil reserves are joined at the cranium. If Osama wanted to bring about a revolution, and bring the U.S. to its knees he would have targetted Saudi oil production not the WTC. Without the Saudis, the price of oil could go to over $100 a barrel - those would be tough economic times indeed.
The U.S. and the western developed world would be hit harder than anybody else. Its not about whose oil it is or which government or company makes money producing it, its about making sure no one threatens the supply. We cannot afford for the valve to be turned off - the economic engine of the world depends on it and 6 of the 8 cylinders of that engine are ours. I don't agree with the war, but there will be benefits to winning it.
As for democracy in the region, I actually think democracy could work in Iraq and Iran, but if the Saudi royal family was thrown out and replaced with a democracy today they would vote in a Bin Laden type faster than you can say Ayotollah. I doubt Jordan, Syria or Egypt would elect very U.S. freindly governments if they had democracies tomorrow.
I am a bit uneasy about regional democracy taking hold too fast - that part of the world isn't exactly happy with us and won't be for many election cycles. Be careful what you ask for, for it may be given.
