Follow the Money
For months, the Administration line on Iraq is that the trouble-makers are either diehard Saddam loyalists or foreign terrorists coming in over the borders with Iran or Syria. While this may be true in part, it conveniently places most of the blame on folks who are already our enemies, and spares the American people the troubling idea that indigenous Iraqis, whom we were told would line the streets and throw flowers at our troops, are actually the ones trying to kill us. After all, what twisted concept of national pride, misguided religious factionalism, or shame in having to be liberated from one of their own countrymen by foreigners could possibly motivate people to bite the hands that are feeding them freedom, albeit in small and measured doses?
Leave aside that question for a moment and consider the idea of these foreign terrorists. Iraq borders six countries: Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It also has a port on the Persian Gulf, but one can probably assume this is being heavily secured by the British forces in Basra. Bush would have us believe that most of the trouble is coming from Syria and Iran because they’re, like, evil, right?
And maybe so. It’s certainly not past the methods and motives of Iran and Syria to introduce their own operatives to make trouble, either to give the US a black eye or to advance their own interests. Syria is still run by Ba’athists, although of a different stripe than Saddam. Likewise, Iran favors Shi’ites over Sunnis, but the Sunni population of Iraq apparently has a distinct identity from Iran, being Arab rather than Persian in ethnicity. However, precisely because they are the most likely suspects and Iran in particular is now sandwiched between two United States military colonies, it would seem the most risky and foolish for them to provide overt aid to mercenary insurgents.
Besides, it’s assumed we’re talking about fundamentalist fanatics like Al Qaeda here. Whatever you can say about Iran and Syria, they both for their own reasons have no love of Osama and his ilk. Iran was actually showing signs of enthusiasm in cooperating with international anti-Al Qaeda efforts in the weeks following 9/11, before it was entirely clear that Bush had his own agenda and didn’t want anyone’s stinking help.
So where might jihadis be coming from? The only place you can safely rule out is Kuwait. Although the royal family there might have misgivings about having an American puppet regime on its borders, it stands to lose the most from chaos in Iraq, and it will likely be the first target of a new Iraqi regime eager to avenge the shame of occupation by pursuing revanchist policies toward its weaker neighbor.
Jordan likewise seems like a safe bet except for one thing. Upwards of 60% of Jordan’s population is Palestinian – which, for arcane political reasons, has never been assimilated into the mainstream of society there. As the so-called peace process with Israel grows bleaker by the day, the rage of these people increases to levels unhealthy to the maintenance of the Jordanian monarchy. As the pressure grows, even a reasonable man like King Abdullah might see the wisdom in turning a blind eye as the most violent and fanatical of these people make their way out of his country, for “whatever reason.” But Jordan’s border with Iraq is small and probably easily patrolled.
Turkey’s objectives in Iraq have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, who certainly has no friends in Ankara, and everything to do with the Kurds. However, the Turks understand that this will have to wait until the Americans are gone and scores can be settled the old-fashioned way, in private.
Then there’s that other country. The one with a vast, difficult-to-secure border in the middle of a desert. The one who supplied the money, manpower and motivation to the 9/11 hijackers, and whose private wealth is sponsoring virulently anti-American efforts across the Muslim world. Of course, the Saudis are our friends dating back to the days of FDR. They are friendly, well-dressed, well-spoken people who throw the best parties in Washington DC, and whose ambassador was like a friendly uncle to George W. Bush as he was growing up. How could they possibly have anything to gain from an American disaster in Iraq?
Well, first of all, there is a faction within the Administration that does not view Saudi Arabia as a friendly uncle. Whoever wrote those 28 pages that were redacted out of the 9/11 report, and whoever read them, understands the score. For them, the whole purpose of the Iraq invasion was to send a message to the Saudis and to establish a democracy on their doorstep, which the autocracy would find exceedingly disturbing. So there are good ideological reasons that our “friends” might be playing paddy-cake with their native son Osama behind our backs.
Then there’s this. Depending on who you ask, Iraq has either the second or third largest proven oil reserves in the world (Iran is also up there). Guess who’s number one? The decade following the Gulf War was a good one for the Kingdom. With one of their largest rivals out of commission and the other under a constant cloud, the Saudis had basically unlimited power to control the price and production of oil. If Iraq resumes full production any time soon, how long do you suppose that will last? And how many Rolls Royces and private jets will that cost the (literally) thousands of spoiled royals? Like Jordan, the Saudis probably also see Iraq as a great dumping ground for its crazies, who are a grave threat to their internal order and authority.
Saudi Arabia not only has the means, motive and opportunity to be the greatest external threat to a stable postwar Iraq, but they also have the most to lose by far if America’s reconstruction efforts are even partly successful. I’m not entirely convinced that all of Iraq’s problems are external. But if even some of them are, wouldn’t it be productive to start looking in the right place, rather than at targets of convenience?
10:31:52 AM 
|
|
