All About Oil....
The Real Case For Iraq Is Not About Planting Liberty In A Distant Land. It Is About Preventing An Economic Collapse Here And The Loss Of Liberty Everywhere.
By Perry Hicks and Keith Burton - GCN 9/15/07
The anniversary week of 9-11 could be expected to be a very busy news cycle. With the first new video from Osama Bin Laden in three years, four-star Army General David Patraeus, Commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq making his troop surge report before Congress, and President Bush’s television address about the war, the newswires and airwaves were indeed busy.
Unfortunately, much of the news and commentary about the week’s events centered around the central questions of whether or not America should be expending lives and treasure establishing a democracy in Iraq. In addition, questions were raised whether or not the president and his chief combat commander were truthful when reporting on the progress made so far.
As weighty as these questions sound, they are sideshows to the real reason we are in Iraq, why we need to have a presence there, and what the consequences would be to America if we were to suddenly pull out.
Because the Administration has failed to inform the American people what the invasion of Iraq was actually about, the public is unmotivated to go to Iraq and fight for something they don’t understand. Furthermore, the president’s political enemies embodied in the Democrat Party are able to keep the controversy raging over the war, despite a long record of their pronouncements being wrong time after time after time.
What is worse is that Democrat Congressmen and Senators, by virtue of their high offices and membership on key legislative oversight committees, know the reasons and instead of showing national unity to defeat a common enemy, actually make arguments for policy that aid the enemy and assist them in achieving their goals.
And they do it all for spite because George W. Bush defeated them twice at the polls.
Radical Islam’s Central Political Objective
After the United States invaded Afghanistan and took down the Taliban, a treasure trove of Al Qaeda documents fell into the hands of the CIA. These documents detailed a plan, with short, medium and long range objectives of resting control of Iraq away from Saddam Hussein and through a process create a Caliphate.
This Caliphate would be established to dominate the region and topple all the governments in the Middle East. The remnants of the former countries would of course be absorbed into the Caliphate and the process would be restarted on the enlarged Caliphate’s new neighbors.
Of course, Iraq’s oil resources with its attendant wealth would provide enough resources to put Al Qaeda’s goal of destroying Israel within reach.
Such a Caliphate could quickly span from the Western Sahara, across North Africa, the Middle East, and with great bloodshed on to Southeast Asia and Indonesia. A Caliphate is the only form of government that enjoys universal approval within Islam.
Contrary to socialist claims that the invasion of Iraq “murdered” a healthy and viable society, Saddam Hussein’s Sunni Muslim reign was a pathological one that could only be maintained against a Shia Muslim and Kurd majority by terror. Even so, Iraq’s ever crumbling infrastructure meant that it was only time until Saddam’s control of the country would end.
The real reason the Unites States originally invaded Iraq was to contain Iran and prevent Al Qaeda from attempting to establish a Caliphate in Iraq.
The ramifications for such a Caliphate would be truly ominous. An economically devastated and religiously faithless Europe wouldn’t find in itself the strength to stop a Muslim invasion like it did in the Middle Ages.
Europe’s fall would come well before the Caliphate attained its full global size or before total control of Middle East Oil became a reality. As GCN noted in Part I, national economies are very sensitive to oil supplies and the twin Oil Shocks of the 1970s demonstrated that as little as a five percent decrease in supply could have devastating effects. A fifteen percent decrease could plunge an economy into a deep depression.
The Caliphate would only have to withhold a small portion of oil supplies to the West in order to begin the process of disrupting their economies. With China’s oil demand rising at such a rate it is projected to match the United State’s by 2030, the Caliphate need not go without revenue while waging economic war on the West.
Iran Far Greater Threat Than Al Qaeda
The twist to this scenario is that contrary to some media reports that Sunni Muslim Al Qaeda is stronger and more capable than ever, the terror organization has actually been decimated.
While Osama bin Laden is still in hiding, presumably in the tribal border regions of Pakistan, as is his second in command, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, commanders of Al Qaeda in Iraq have been killed twice by coalition forces. Huge numbers of their fighters have been killed or captured, as well.
One only has to analyze the recent bin Laden video to realize that Al Qaeda’s Number 1 leader is not physically well and his organization’s global reach has been reduced. Osama bin Laden is forced to remain in hiding, unable to communicate effectively with the outside world, for fear of giving his away his location.
In the video, bin Laden says as much about Al Qaeda as he makes no threats about impending new attacks on American soil. While he says the quickest way to end the war is to ratchet up the fighting, evidence on the ground indicate the bombings and murders in Iraq are the responsibility of Iranian operatives, not Al Qaeda.
Iran, supported by its ally Russia, has sought to fill the power void created by our suppression of Al Qaeda. Iran has deployed agents to foment discord in Iraq and to continue bin Laden’s strategy of trying to slowly bleed America to death. It is America’s military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq that keeps pressure on the Iranian government and some hope alive for their own dissidents.
As demonstrated in Vietnam, Osama bin Laden believed America does not have the political will to stay the course in a protracted war. If bloodshed can just be kept up long enough, Americans will defeat themselves and unilaterally withdraw from Iraq.
Note that since the Iranian revolution of 1979 and during the administration of Jimmy Carter, a long list of terror attacks had never garnered a response from the United States until 9-11.
With Shia Iran moving to dominate the entire Persian Gulf and the Mid East beyond, destroying Israel would be a medium range goal. Russia could and has shown intent to assist Iran in this regard by muscling Europe by cutting off natural gas as it did in 2006.
With Iran the dominate power in the Persian Gulf, it would not take long before there would literally be a New World Order.
Failure to Inform Is A Failure to Motivate
No American president could allow events to advance to such a level of no return and President Bush has actually said so. However, in his address to America recently he inexplicably never mentioned the Caliphate, never acknowledged Peak Oil, and never explained how the loss of oil supplies would end our way of life and threaten our freedom, not just here at home, but enslave free people across the globe.
Instead, he spent the seventeen and one half minutes of his speech speaking to the subject of creating security for America by building a democracy in a distant land, and the mixed, but mostly positive returns, seen so far from his troop surge policy.
By failing to tell the American people just what is really at stake on the short, medium, and long term, the president allowed his critics to focus the public’s attention on what are essentially side shows to the central core dangers.
This failure to communicate cannot be better illustrated than the circus that erupted over the report about the effect troop surge has had on Iraqi security.
Three Ring Circus
When Army General David H. Patraeus, Commander, Multi-National Force Iraq, came up to Capitol Hill to deliver his troop surge report to Congress, he was treated shamefully during his testimony before both houses of Congress.
Rep. Tom Lantos, (D-CA) Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee disparaged the report’s finding even before it was presented. Lantos has been calling all along for an immediate troop withdrawal just as he did so in his written statement.
However, Lanto’s rhetoric became nasty and personal when he told General Patraeus in front of cameras that whatever it was Patraeus was selling, Lantos personally “wasn’t buying it.”
Lantos even went as far as to twist the nature of Patraeus’s presence before Congress as one of having been sent by the president and not what it actually was, a summons.
After President Bush announced in January his plan for a troop surge, Congress passed legislation requiring a report be made to Congress by no later than September 15th of this year.
In the Senate hearing, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) all but called General Patraeus a liar when she said his report required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”
Her brazen accusation came even as she was running away from still another Chinese campaign funds scandal of which she claims she had no knowledge that the champion Democrat fundraiser, Yung Yuen "Norman" Hsu, was a fugitive from justice.
But what requires a real “willing suspension of disbelief” is that just this past August, before a Kansas City Veterans of Foreign Wars group, Sen. Clinton actually said, “We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar (the Anbar) province, it’s working…”
To acknowledge the troop surge is working should have been no surprise since even some liberal media had reported seeing progress on the ground in Iraq this past summer.
That media includes CBS News Anchor Katie Couric, and Brookings Institute analysts Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. O’Hanlon and Pollack went as far as saying in a New York Times op-ed piece the U.S. could win the war.
Attacks on Administration Aid Enemy
Such disingenuous attacks destroy the people’s political will to continue the fight on to a victorious conclusion. By no coincidence, this is the outcome sought by the enemy. By definition, these unwarranted, insincere attacks on the president are mounted purely for the purpose of political gain, and owing to their giving tangible aid to our enemy, meet the definition of treason.
The bin Laden’s video was dismissed by a majority of the mainstream press as “rambling,” not because bin Laden is somehow becoming detached from reality.
A translation of the video shows that his script wasn’t materially different from those of years past and that from an Al Qaeda perspective bin Laden was making perfect sense.
The media dismissed it because the message revealed just how embarrassingly aligned the socialist goals of the Democrat Party and its allies are with Al Qaeda and what has become known as the Islamo-fascist movement
In order for this mounting threat of Islamo-fascism to be defeated, and the danger of the collapse of western civilization, the United States desperately needs the kind of unity it had in the days immediately after 9-11; the unity which harked back to the focus United States expressed immediately after Pearl Harbor, more than a half century ago.
To intentionally destroy that unity for personal political gain or worse yet, to actually undermine the U.S. Constitution, is criminal and must be dealt with soon if we are to survive as a nation.
In Part III, we will explore why the severity of these threats is downplayed and the global ramifications if they are not acted on before it’s too late.
Seeking to Buy Nasdaq Stock Exchange - WorldNetDaily.com
About the Authors.....
Perry Hicks is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel. Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics. Perry is a former college professor and is a senior writer for GCN on stories of national importance with local interests. His articles can be found in the GCN Archive Contact Perry at: firstname.lastname@example.org