Are you a national energy security zombie? During the first Gulf War, back in the early 1990s during the George H. W. Bush presidency, did you scratch your head (or worse) at all those crazy war protesters screaming No blood for oil!?
Because I did. Sure, Saudi Arabia was just south of the border from Kuwait, a country Saddam Hussein had raped and pillaged for months before being pushed back into place by a U.S. military that was still popular in the world back then. But defense of Americas access to Saudi Arabias oil wasnt the primary objective. At least thats how I and millions of other Americans preferred to see things at the time.
But then, a decade later, the rationalization became much more difficult didnt it? Then George H.W.s son (on the advice of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) got in on the act: Iraq, we were convincingly told, was harboring terrorists in the post-9/11 era and, worse, Saddam Hussein was well on his way to building a nuclear bomb. And so the U.S. was committed again to yet another bloody campaign into the heart of the Middle East. This time U.S. armed forces went all the way to Baghdad.
But this time the justification was much weaker, wasnt it? Nonexistent in fact. Because there were no WMD in Iraq, as President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director Tenet and all the rest of them lead us to believe.
But, on the bright side (playing devils advocate), Saudi Arabias oil continued to flow freely into the American gas tank, didnt it?
Today in 2010, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, the U.S. military is prepared to strike yet another trouble-maker in the Middle Eastanother looming rival of Saudi Arabia: Iran. The charge? Those Shia mullahs in Tehran are building a nuclear bomb
Stop. Just stop.
I recently published a book, Patriot Lost (currently available on Amazon), based on my time working at the CIA during the height of the Bush-Cheney administration. In it I assert that Dick Cheney, as manager of President Bushs national security and national energy policies, opted to turn a blind eye to (you cant be serious!) Saudi Arabias acquisition of nuclear weapons from the Peoples Republic of China. Yes, I'm serious.
As shocking as this might seem to some, it certainly passes the logic test. Not one, but two wars have been fought by the U.S. military, both of them serving in the end to guarantee Americas continued access to Saudi Arabias vast oil reserves. Why not some bomb power for the very country Washington has been so sickeningly obsessed with for over seventy years now, particularly as Saudi Arabias time eternal religious blood rival Iran gets closer and closer to having a nuclear capability all its own?
Just assume for a moment that I have my facts straight: Saudi Arabia is today a nuclear weapon state; highest-level policy makers in Washington are aware of this and yet are somehow (on the surface at least) prepared to take military action against Irans nuclear program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia gets the bomb for obvious reasons--along with this record $60 billion arms deal with the U.S. announced this past week-but Iran must be bombed. Just as Iraq was. No, hypocrisy knows no limits in today's Washington.
Hello, America. Is this sound foreign policy in your view? Or is it instead just one more chapter in what has been a stubbornly nearsighted, oil-addicted and bloody approach to the Middle East over all these many years?
And so again, the question: are you a national energy security zombie?
Because I did. Sure, Saudi Arabia was just south of the border from Kuwait, a country Saddam Hussein had raped and pillaged for months before being pushed back into place by a U.S. military that was still popular in the world back then. But defense of Americas access to Saudi Arabias oil wasnt the primary objective. At least thats how I and millions of other Americans preferred to see things at the time.
But then, a decade later, the rationalization became much more difficult didnt it? Then George H.W.s son (on the advice of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al) got in on the act: Iraq, we were convincingly told, was harboring terrorists in the post-9/11 era and, worse, Saddam Hussein was well on his way to building a nuclear bomb. And so the U.S. was committed again to yet another bloody campaign into the heart of the Middle East. This time U.S. armed forces went all the way to Baghdad.
But this time the justification was much weaker, wasnt it? Nonexistent in fact. Because there were no WMD in Iraq, as President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director Tenet and all the rest of them lead us to believe.
But, on the bright side (playing devils advocate), Saudi Arabias oil continued to flow freely into the American gas tank, didnt it?
Today in 2010, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, the U.S. military is prepared to strike yet another trouble-maker in the Middle Eastanother looming rival of Saudi Arabia: Iran. The charge? Those Shia mullahs in Tehran are building a nuclear bomb
Stop. Just stop.
I recently published a book, Patriot Lost (currently available on Amazon), based on my time working at the CIA during the height of the Bush-Cheney administration. In it I assert that Dick Cheney, as manager of President Bushs national security and national energy policies, opted to turn a blind eye to (you cant be serious!) Saudi Arabias acquisition of nuclear weapons from the Peoples Republic of China. Yes, I'm serious.
As shocking as this might seem to some, it certainly passes the logic test. Not one, but two wars have been fought by the U.S. military, both of them serving in the end to guarantee Americas continued access to Saudi Arabias vast oil reserves. Why not some bomb power for the very country Washington has been so sickeningly obsessed with for over seventy years now, particularly as Saudi Arabias time eternal religious blood rival Iran gets closer and closer to having a nuclear capability all its own?
Just assume for a moment that I have my facts straight: Saudi Arabia is today a nuclear weapon state; highest-level policy makers in Washington are aware of this and yet are somehow (on the surface at least) prepared to take military action against Irans nuclear program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia gets the bomb for obvious reasons--along with this record $60 billion arms deal with the U.S. announced this past week-but Iran must be bombed. Just as Iraq was. No, hypocrisy knows no limits in today's Washington.
Hello, America. Is this sound foreign policy in your view? Or is it instead just one more chapter in what has been a stubbornly nearsighted, oil-addicted and bloody approach to the Middle East over all these many years?
And so again, the question: are you a national energy security zombie?
