Trivia question:

Why is James Baker completely at ease when traveling to Saudia Arabia?

Bonus: Who else is completely safe there after the Saudi royal family donated heavily to his center in Texas?

Why was the CIA told NOT to investigate Saudi ties to terrorism back in the late 80's?

To the Baker question, I'd say it's because he's a high-profile foreign dignitary. High-profile foreign dignitaries are very safe in Saudi-occupied Arabia.

Having Jim Baker assassinated while visiting would be embarrassing to the princes, and they react rather badly to being embarrassed.

Let's not have this Saudi business become a counterpart to the World Zionist Conspiracy, okay?

I am a regular financial contributor to President Bush and the Republican Party. So when the whole idea of going to war with Iraq came up in the summer of 2002, I felt I had earned the right to comment on it. I sent an email to the White House expressing my disapproval for the idea.

Three months later, after examining the issue, I again sent an email to the White House expressing my reluctant approval of the impending War in Iraq. So what changed my mind? Obviously, contrary to some assertions by leftists, not all Bush supporters are mindless sheep following where ever the "Shephered" leads us. I know I am not.

I never bought into the idea that 9/11 and Iraq were directly related. I never thought that it was impossible that Sadaam helped out the terrorists of 9/11, but even if he did, his assistance was probably peripheral at best. So for me, even if a "smoking gun" is found connecting Sadaam to the terrorists, I will still be skeptical of its importance. To wit, I believe the terrorists would have attacked with or without Sadaam's help, so any help he might have provided is incidental.

No, what changed my mind was that I began to look at the Middle East from a strategic viewpoint rather than merely wanting retribution for 9/11. The Middle East had been a simmering cauldron of bitterness and resentment for at least 40 years. Now that terrorists had extended their reach to include the North American continent, it was necessary to directly address the issue. Prior to this time, it really was somebody else's problem. 9/11 had made it our problem; and unlike other nations, the USA solves our problems rather than ignore them.

So what was the solution. To any halfway sentient American, the obvious source of the problem is Saudi Arabia. The Arabian peninsula is the epicenter of the terrorists power. But there was a problem. If we directly attacked the Saudi problem, it would trigger a world wide shortage in oil.

As an engineer who has worked in contruction, sales, and manufacturing, I am well aware of the strategic value of oil. Most Americans, indeed most people are truly unaware of just how important oil is to the modern way of life. I compare it to the body's need for oxygen. Without oxygen, we would die. And without oil, our modern society would screech to a halt.

Without oil, food could not be transported to market, processed, packaged or otherwise sold. Millions, even billions, would die of starvation. Without oil, 100% of our jobs would cease. Oil is necessary for the production of electricity, so those who lost their jobs and had no food would also be in danger of freezing to death in cold climates, and heat stroke in hot climates.

Our buildings are now built without adequate ventilation. I know. I help build them every day. My business is air conditioning and heating, and I make my living off the fact that people want controlled environments. So without oil, which lubricates fan bearings, helps produce refrigerant, and gas which fires boilers, many buildings would become uninhabitable.

The societal result of this would be chaos, riots, and destruction on a wide scale. People would literally be killing one another to get food to feed themselves and their families. Portions of houses would be destroyed to feed fires to keep people from freezing. And no hospitals would be able to handle the chaos because they would be dark, the machines would not operate, and medicines would be unavailable because they could not be transported.

Any strategic plan that took on the Middle East problem had to take into account the value of a ready and reliable supply of oil. I do not believe we went to war over oil. But we could not have gone to war without seriously considering the impact a shortage of oil would have on our lives.

The net result of this thinking is that we could NOT attack the Saudi problem until we obtained and controlled an alternative source for oil. The power the Saudi's had in their hands was the power of oil. It was the source of Sadaam's willingness to go to war with Kuwait in 1990.

Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991. We had a legal case there. Also, Sadaam, though successfully contained, remained a menace. Finally, we could not overtly converse about the real problem until after we had protected ourselves from the Saudi's power to disrupt our lives and economy.

So Iraq was the logical place to start. It can be compared to attacking the Nazi's in North Africa two years before we invaded Europe. Iraq is not the center of the problem. Indeed it is not even the real goal of the war on terror. Rather it was where the enemy was weakest. It also allowed us to become battle tested, and helped divert attention away from the true strategic goal.

If we stop in Iraq, my entire train of thought will be invalidated. But I do not think we will. Saudi Arabia is our ultimate destination. I believe it always has been. It is not the next step. Iran is. But once Iraq and Iran have been pacified, and become reliable sources of oil supply, we can turn our guns on the true source of the problem. North Korea, Syria, the horn of Africa, Lybia, even the Palestinian/Israel fiasco are only sideshows, and are not strategically important.

The Europeans have been fooled into believing the Palestinian problem is the root cause of the terrorists problem by their residual anti-semitism. There is no big Jewish problem. It is really only a symptom of the true problem, not the cause. The cause of the problem resides in Riyaad, not Jerusalem. And as I said before, we Americans like to solve problems, not just treat symptoms.

So am I surprised that the heat is being turned up on the Saudi's? No. I expect no less. I don't know exactly how the problem will ultimately be solved. I don't know how many lives will be lost. But I do know that there is at least one American who will not be satisfied until the problem is fully and completely solved. And that means the Saudi's had better get out of our way, or get on our side, or be buried.

Dean,

Let me be clear. I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that we MUST go to war in Iran or Saudi Arabia. But the problems there must be solved. Just as we never actually had to go to war with the Russians to ultimately solve the Soviet Communist problem, we do not necessarily have to start another war in the Middle East. But the option must remain open.

Also, Americans are perfectly willing to live with a despicable system as long as there is no direct threat to the USA - witness China. China is just as communist and Russia was, but they have no grand designs for world domination. They don't need to be contained because they are not really trying to expand.

We can live with the Israelis and Palestinians killing each other for the next 1000 years, and though it may be important on a humanitarian level, from a defensive point of view, that conflict is strategically insignificant - same as Africa.

Just because I don't approve of how my neighbor raises his children doesn't mean that I will interfere. I may offer advice out of neighborly concern, but as long as his family doesn't threaten mine, I can live with the disagreement. In the same way, terrorism was not really an American problem until after 9/11.

True, Americans died, but only while trying to be neighborly in assisting others (Europe, Middle East) with THEIR problem. The natural reaction was to withdraw when hurt, because truthfully, we had no dog in the fight. So blaming Clinton is as stupid as blaming Reagon. But when we were attacked, it changed the whole situation.

Now, we have a strategic interest, and we will make sure the dispute is solved in our favor. End of story. Whether that means economic pressure, diplomatic pressure, military pressue, or a combination of the three does not matter. We will win. We will never give up. We will live in peace, or you will die in War. That is how we do business in America.

Scott:

Nice analysis.

Correct me if I'm wrong; you are saying the root of the problem in the Middle East is our reliance on an "unstable source of foreign oil." Is that right?

And, again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your analysis is that stabilizing Iraq's oil supply is the key to "disarming" Saudi Arabia. Is that right?

If I understood you correctly, then might an alternate solution be a reduction, and eventual elimination, in the demand for foreign oil altogether?

I know, I know -- hydrogen fuel cells are decades off, the cost of development would be massive with no guarantees, etc. Ethanol is more expensive and less efficient, etc etc. And please understand, I'm not a member of the Green Party or anything like that. Nor do I believe that the Bush family or the Cheney family is going to personally profit from the war, blah blah blah.

Maybe I'm bringing this up because I'm old enough to remember that people have been talking about the strategic importance of our reliance on foreign oil since the first oil embargo in 73 and then again in 79.

It's deja vu all over again.

What do you think?

Completely in agreement with you, Ara. In fact, Jerry Pournelle (a conservative who has been generally against invasion) pointed out that for $80 billion, he could have guarenteed energy independance for America...

Hey Scott, here's my recommendation to you:

Even though Ara is a friend, he has never, in the entire time I've known him, even once, allowed himself to be pinned down on exactly and precisely he'd like to see done about the Saudis. Except that photo-ops with Saudi princes are a bad idea.

So answering him is, generally speaking, an exercise in futility. He has no real opinion, except that Bush Sucks, Even Though He Supported This War From The Beginning, Whatever That Means.

Ara,

Fuel from oil is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to our reliance on oil. Even non-fossil fuel electrical plants use lubricating oils, and plastics in the production of electricity. Medical technology is completely reliant upon oil, from plastic implants, to latex gloves, plastic syringes, chemical research for new medicines, etc.

Most manufacturing is powered by electricity, which is mostly produced by coal fired plants. But all manufacturing requires plastics and copious amounts of lubricating oils.

Our aircraft might one day be able to be powered by something other than Av-gas, but the skins of our new aircraft are made of plastic polymers, which come from oil. This technology reduces aircraft weight and reduces the required fuel consuption. The same applies to automobiles.

Our food supply is reliant on fertilizers, sanitation techniques, chemical preservatives, etc., all of which are totally dependent upon oil. It is naive to classify our oil dependence as merely a fuel problem. It is simply impossible to exhaustively list all the products, procedures, and devices that are in some way dependent upon oil.

Even the so-called organic farmers use plastic products, where synthetic clothes, and depend upon oil in ways that would truly shock them if they took the time to consider it. They walk on carpets made of synthetic fibers in their houses, have insulation in their homes that is produced using ungodly amounts of energy (have you ever been to a fiberglass insulation factory?), and transport their food to market by way of oil.

Bottom line is modernity itself is currently dependent upon oil. Maybe someday that will change. But speaking as an engineer, and looking at it from a scientific point of view, that day is so far distant as to be unforeseeable now.

And even if we can one day arrive at that point, there is no good reason to think that we would want to give up all the conveniences that oil provides. It is truly a wonderful substance when viewed from the correct perspective. Only those who view oil through the narrow perspective of pollution byproducts see oil as evil.

And even the reduction of oil produced waste is dependent upon oil produced products. One of the characteristics of oil based products is their environmental resiliance, i.e. they don't break down easy. It is this quality which so frustrates environmentalist. But it is also the quality which makes oil produced products so reliable, so robust, and so valuable - two sides of the same coin.

The key is to diversify our dependence. Strategically, from a long-term viewpoint, it makes sense to deplete OTHER countries natural oil supplies before ours. But we really should strongly consider drilling in the Alaskan wasteland (calling it pristine nature is a leap.) And yes, the engineer and scientist in me would love to find other sources of fuel. But I am unwilling to cut off my nose to spite my face.

If we were to decrease our dependence upon oil to simply satisfy those who theorize that we use too much, many people would die premature deaths. That is no exageration. It is simply fact. That is not a step I'm willing to take to satisfy the theoretical moral values of those who do not even have a clue of what they are really asking.

Ara,

I re-read your question.

********
Correct me if I'm wrong; you are saying the root of the problem in the Middle East is our reliance on an "unstable source of foreign oil." Is that right?
********

The answer to this question is "No." Our dependence on oil is what it is. The root of our problem in the Middle East is similar to the problem we had with the Soviet Union. They have 1) a philosophy diametrically opposed to the way of life we enjoy in the USA, and more importantly 2) they have an imperial desire to impose their viewpoint on us by force.

All those who accuse the USA of imperialistic intentions are just blind to our willingness to live peacefully with communist China. It is the imperialist intentions of the Fascist Islamists that is the root of the problem.

Our dependence on oil from the region is only a complication to be overcome in solving the problem. That is a lot different than being the problem itself.

Scott: I think your estimation regarding our (and the rest of the worlds) dependence on Saudi oil is slightly exaggerated. The statement that "If we directly attacked the Saudi problem, it would trigger a world wide shortage in oil." is no doubt true in the (very) short-term, but for a small investment we could easily ramp-up production in other regions to account for the lost 10-15% of world-wide production provided by the Saudis. In fact, we could probably boycott Saudi oil entirely for not much more than the cost of the war itself. And I certianly don't believe that Iraqi oil is in any way a 'cheap' alternative to Saudi oil... especially since it will be many years (if ever) before we can expect Iraq to be a "ready and reliable supply of oil" in any significant quantity.

(I'm not negating in any way that we need to lay down the law with the Saudis to 1) become more democratic and 2) become more cooperative in fighting terrorism...but I think (hope?) Bush is doing that behind the scenes in much more subtle ways.)

The root of our problem in the Middle East is similar to the problem we had with the Soviet Union. They have 1) a philosophy diametrically opposed to the way of life we enjoy in the USA, and more importantly 2) they have an imperial desire to impose their viewpoint on us by force.

Well, I don't see the Saudis doing anything to us by force right now.

But if you define imperialism as "the extension of a nation's authority by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations" then I would agree -- oil exports allow them to get, keep and grow their power over us.

Our dependence on oil from the region is only a complication to be overcome in solving the problem. That is a lot different than being the problem itself.

That, I would suggest, is a distinction without a difference.

If we eliminate our reliance on Saudi oil (and I wouldn't stop there, I'd favor ending our reliance on foreign energy sources altogether), if we eliminate our reliance on Saudi oil then I think it goes a long way to solving the other problem -- that of Saudi imperialism.

Drain the swamp -- i.e., end our reliance on Saudi oil.

Ara -

I'm very much in tune with Scott on his "big picture" thinking, something I am just stunned that the entire "Bush is a moron" brigade cannot grasp down to the last of them. I've been comparing the North Africa campaign for some time.

But interestingly enough, I haven't even thought that much about oil. My entire driving premise is WMD, creeping ever closer to the hands of God knos who.

For me, THAT is the primary reason to deliver a two by four across the skull of the entire middle east, and force them to acknowledge that they CANNOT continue to do business in the manner of the last four decades. They can't. It's over. Period. We ain't advising, we're telling. If they do, these tyrannies will simultaneously get the weapons, grow terrorist freaks like mushrooms, and soon enough put the two together. And if that happens, I cannot imagine the aftermath, except to say that I can see the population of the earth going from six billion to three or four billion in short order, due to WMD, disease, ethnic genocide, economic devastation of a 1930's scale or worse, etc.

I disagree with Scott that "We can live with the Israelis and Palestinians killing each other for the next 1000 years". I think if that is not largely solved in the ten or twenty years, the WMD will come out, Tel Aviv may diseappear, and following that, Mecca, Medina, Damascus, and God knows what else. (If the Israelis have not quietly informed Arab governments of that, that damn sure should... tomorrow).

But it is interesting that he and I have come to the same strategic conclusions for entirely different reasons.

Long before 9/11/2001, I've been advocating an Energy Independence Manhattan Project. We need to get our hands on and develop every damn energy source we can: Texas oil, Alaskan oil, Russian oil, Venezuelan oil, oil from everywhere on this planet _except_ Saudi Arabia, coal, gas, nuclear power, fusion power, solar power, geothermal, wind, whatever, you name it, everything it takes. And double, quadruple my taxes to pay for it if necessary. This addiction to Saudi Arabian oil is as deadly as dope, as deadly as strychnine. Saudi Arabia is our #1 Enemy, the source of all Islamic terrorism. We must get to the point where we can cut off all trade and all aid to Saudi Arabia, let the scum stew in their own juices. It's time for Atlas to shrug. If you say what I'm advocating is impractical, then you're saying the survival of America and Western civilization is impractical. We are at War.

Andrew,

I only meant to imply that the reason not to directly deal with Saudi Arabia first was due to the oil crisis they could cause, however brief. My expose on the importance of oil was not specific to just Saudi oil, but too many people just don't understand oil's overall importance to our way of life.

Also, I agree that the likelihood of WMD winding up in the hands of people willing to use them is also unacceptable.

Relative to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, my point was that the conflict is strategically insignificant in isolation. Of course, it cannot be so isolated. And that is why the Administration makes attempts to address it. But it is a peripheral issue, despite accusations of a Zionist conspiracy. Its strategic value lies in the fact that it is further evidence of bad will by our true enemies. I believe once the true issue is solved, Middle East tyranny, the Palestinian conflict will sort itself out in short order.

The bottom line is the need to think strategically about how to defeat the enemy. I am very comfortable learning more information from other sources that helps my strategic thinking, and as long as we make progress, I am not dogmatic about any particular strategy. I simply believe attacking Saudi Arabia directly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would have been a mistake. Similarly, letting them off the hook would be a bigger mistake.

Ara,

Although I am defying Dean's advice, I will offer one more comment to you specifically. Treating symptoms and trying to cure causes are two necessary tasks. But they are completely different in focus. Treating symptoms is done to mitigate short term effects. Treating causes is focused on curing the problem.

Enriching the Arabs by purchasing their oil cannot be a valid cause of their hatred for us. It is their hatred that is the cause of our problems. Our dependence on their oil is a treatable complication, but depriving them of our money will not mitigate or overcome their hatred. Only a fool would argue such.

My brother-in-law is an oncologist. Sometimes people might get a cancer related cough. Certainly, an expectorant can be prescribed to help mitigate the nuisance of the cough. But a cough suppressant has no chance of curing the cancer. Surely you can see the difference.

Ara,

What would you call 15 of 19 hijackers who were Saudi's, financed by a rich Saudi spoiled brat, and taught their philosophy in Suadi financed madrassahs flying airplanes into buildings on 9/11?

Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but I would call it the Saudi's trying to impose their world view on us by force.

Ara has one true point.

We appear to be less friendly with the House of Saud.

Maybe having a handle on the world's second largest oil reserve has given us the independence to whisper in their ear.

"Clean up your problems or we'll shut you down. And how long will you last if you can no longer pay off the terrorists?"

Folks, if you have access to back issues of Discover magazine look up an article on an oil manufacturing scheme. It's associated with turkey processing plant waste management. You might be able to find the article at the web site.

What does it mean? It means that in a few years the US can be oil independent. As a matter of fact, we could become an oil exporter. When that happens Saudi Arabia becomes more a problem than an asset, and invasion and occupation the only real answer to the threat.

But expect a Wahabist takeover before that, and a few years of Wahabist tyranny. When American forces enter Mecca to liberate it from the fanatics Muslims world wide will be cheering us.

Scott:

Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but I would call [9/11] the Saudi's trying to impose their world view on us by force.

Are you suggesting that the nation of Saudi Arabia instigated an act of war on the USA?

Enriching the Arabs by purchasing their oil cannot be a valid cause of their hatred for us.

Didn't say it was.

It is their hatred that is the cause of our problems. Our dependence on their oil is a treatable complication, but depriving them of our money will not mitigate or overcome their hatred. Only a fool would argue such.

Fortunately for both of us, I never suggested anything of the sort.

You seem to be the only one who thinks that their hatred for us is the central problem to be solved.

Look Scott, I'm not a psychiatrist. I have no clear idea as to why they hate us. Even if I did, I'm not sure that it would matter.

Here's the thing: the money makes their hatred truly toxic. Without the money, Osama bin Laden would be considerably less powerful the next time.

Yes, I know; the bin Ladens got their money from construction. But how do you think their construction projects were financed?

Bottom line: Murderers need three things to do the deed -- Means, Motive and Opportunity. We can remove the means and reduce the opportunity. Neutralizing the motivation is a much longer-term project.

We'll have time for that later.