Archive for January 15th, 2007
Greg Palast is reporting on his website that a primary reason for Bush’s blind insistence on more troops for Iraq is the pressure he’s getting from the Saudis.
Here’s my question: Who asked the waiter to deliver this dish? Who asked for the 21,000 soldiers?
We know the US military didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. (Outgoing commander General George Casey called for a troop reduction.)
We know the Iraqi government didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. (Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is reportedly unhappy about a visible increase in foreign occupiers).
So who wants the occupation to continue? The answer is in Riyadh. When the King of Saudi Arabia hauled Dick Cheney before his throne on Thanksgiving weekend, the keeper of America’s oil laid down the law to Veep: the US will not withdraw from Iraq.
According to Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi who signals to the US government the commands and diktats of the House of Saud, the Saudis are concerned that a US pull-out will leave their Sunni brothers in Iraq to be slaughtered by Shia militias. More important, the Saudis will not tolerate a Shia-majority government in Iraq controlled by the Shia mullahs of Iran. A Shia combine would threaten Saudi Arabia’s hegemony in the OPEC oil cartel.
In other words, it’s about the oil. (emphasis in the original)
Just like we always knew it was. It has been about the oil from the very beginning, and despite all the noise about Bush’s Bubble, a Neocon Nirvana, Our Dear Leader’s Legacy, and Daddy-Dissing, it’s still about the oil.
I wonder how the right wing feels about US policy being determined by a foreign govt – and an Arab govt, at that? I wonder how The Decider feels about having decisions of US foreign policy dictated by Riyadh instead of in his talks with God? I wonder how Americans would feel if they knew their president was defying them because the House of Saud told him to? Read the rest of this entry »