BillHobbs.com - Blogging about politics and media from Nashville.

October 4, 2004

Was Saudi Arabia the Real Target in Iraq?

Yesterday's Boston Herald had a fascinating article about a new book that suggests that President Bush and his foreign policy team decided to go to war with Iraq in order to motivate Saudi Arabia to truly crack down on al Qaeda. If the book is right, then Saddam's WMD obfuscation was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq - and Bush and his team are fighting a much smarter and more sophisticated War on Terror than anybody gives them credit for.

"The Bush administration has been represented as strategically stupid but adept at political manipulation. The opposite is true," said George Friedman, president of Stratfor, a firm that delivers global strategic forecasting and open-source intelligence analysis to corporate clients.

Friedman's book, "America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and its Enemies," which goes on sale Tuesday, argues that midway through the war on terrorism, America has made major gains while al-Qaeda has failed in most of its goals and is on the defensive. Iraq, he argues, is a keystone of American strategy against al-Qaeda.

In the decision to invade Iraq, he argues, disarming a dangerous dictator and bringing democracy to the Middle East were secondary war goals. The factor that tipped the balance in internal Bush administration debates in mid-2002 was Saudi Arabia's recalcitrance in the war on al-Qaeda, he says.

America's invasion of Iraq put pressure on the Saudis that forced them to act against al-Qaeda sympathizers within Saudi Arabia in ways the Saudis had been unwilling to do, Friedman said.

In the past year, Friedman argues, it has worked. The Saudis, shaken by America's action, has engaged in a "civil war" against al-Qaeda, killing operatives, busting up cells and cracking down on the group's financial network.

"The problem is that the administration can't explain that this is blackmail on the Saudis. So it turns to WMD," Friedman said about the reasons given for the Iraq war.

buy the book

Posted in War on Terror | Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com

Comments

Thats something I've been arguing for a long time (longer than I've had a blog).

Essentially, by taking Iraq, we can establish a centralized stronghold in the Middle East from which to run operations and fight Iran, Syria, AND Saudi Arabi. The spector of a free Iraq next door will undoubtably do most of our work for us (hence the vacum like effect as fighters from these countries rush to destabalize Iraq), as the citizens of those countries demand more rights and power, but in Saudi Arabi Iraq also offers something more . . . . not only a platform for future middle east actions without the need to gain Saudi permission but also a source of oil (yes, there is is again, but please, no one would care about the middle east at all if it weren't for the oil) in case we found ourselves needing to go to war with Saudi Arabia itself.

The ability to conduct a war against them, and ensure that we still have access to oil, at the end of the day, provides the strongest pressure possible on the Saudi government to capitulate to our desires and decapitate al Quaeda leadership.

Posted by: countertop at October 4, 2004 09:22 AM

At least these arguments are headed in the right direction--that of the three reasons for engaging Iraq: neoconservative empire, sumptuous business opportunities, and the security of Israel.

Posted by: SemiPundit at October 4, 2004 11:35 AM

Semi,

How is anyone of sound mind supposed to counter your wild-eyed hypothesis? The idea we started a war in Iraq (in '91) as part of some grand master plan by the shadowy, evil Jew Neocons to secure Israel (or is it for lucrative bidness contracts?) is preposterous.

Were it true, it would show a level of shrewdness, foresight, and capacity for planning not seen since The Emperor created the Death Star. Which, according to MoveOn, is not possible in this bumbling willfully-ignorant Administration.

If this was all about the security of Israel, I think Syria, Lebanon, and Yassir Arafat would all be targeted before Iraq. The left likes to make every registered GOPer out to be Kool-aid drinkers, but I think we all know who is really goose-stepping to the party line.

Posted by: Ivan at October 4, 2004 12:56 PM