Ted Koppel states the obvious in
his NYTimes op-ed:
Perhaps the day will come when the United States is no longer addicted to imported oil; but that day is still many years off. For now, the reason for America's rapt attention to the security of the Persian Gulf is what it has always been. It's about the oil.
Of course it's all about oil; there were and are a few dozen gov'ts uglier than Hussein's we could've invaded.
But what annoys me about Koppel's "revelation" is that he tiptoes so close to the elephant in the middle of the room, and promptly hides his face:
That is not to say that the United States invaded Iraq to take over its oil supply. But the construction of American military bases inside Iraq, bases that can be maintained long after the bulk of our military forces are ultimately withdrawn, will serve to replace the bases that the United States has lost in Saudi Arabia. There may be other national security reasons that the United States cannot now precipitously withdraw its forces from Iraq, including the danger that the country would become a regional terrorist base; but none is greater than forestalling the ensuing power vacuum and regional instability, and the impact this would have on oil production.
Gawd, gawd, gawd. Why doesn't anyone state the even more obvious point?
Why the hell did we leave those bases in Saudi Arabia?
Why?
Because that's what bin Laden launched 9/11 over.
And we gave him exactly what he wanted.
It's so crushingly obvious to me, that I beg any of you to throw anything more substantial than a lame administration talking point at me in BushCo's defense.
Why did we vacate Saudi Arabia so tidily then? The best you could do is argue the Saudis asked us to leave, because it was they who surrendered to al-Qaeda. Or that the general perception was those bases would indeed reduce petroleum security rather than enhance it, as it would serve as a provocation for the terrorists and a destabilizer for the al-Saud dynasty.
So we shouldn't fight them over there, then? We should fight them in some other area that they weren't in before instead? We should grant them this victory?
Bush could say to his loved ones in Riyadh "no fucking way" and keep those bases. There's no doubt about it. And the provoking terror talking point dies like a quail when compared to all the terror we're provoking in our alternative basecamp, Iraq, right now. A place that had no al-Qaeda prior to our little misadventure.
And through all of this, look as I have (and I haven't done any special research, so go ahead and delete this diary) I haven't seen anyone even pick up a lump of this elephant's dung. How can Koppel keep a straight face bringing up the obvious in the NYT Op-Ed page, and not point all of these blatant facts out, at least in passing?
Bush cut a deal with Osama. That's why they haven't hit us again here. Bush said, "Fine, Osama. We'll meet your demands of not desecrating your holy lands with our troops." and out they went. And Osama skiddleywinked out of Tora Bora, and even came to Bush's aid a few weeks before the 2004 election.
Please, please tell me I'm some tinfoil hatter. Because the facts are utterly obvious this time. These extraordinary claims are supported by ordinary evidence. Plain for all to...ignore? Are we too proud?
I believe this is the single greatest retreat in US history, even worse than MacArthur's departure of the Philippines (the Persian Gulf is a bit more critical to us now than those islands were then, and that retreat was reversed a lot sooner). George W. Bush, our "hero in the war on terror," our resolute, steadfast leader, ordered it. Osama bin Laden, whose crime against us was worse than Pearl Harbor, got him to yield it.
And everyone is sitting on their hands trying to look away.