Robert Scheer: Be Consistent—Invade Saudi Arabia

[marmar]

from truthdig:




Be Consistent—Invade Saudi Arabia

Posted on Mar 22, 2011
By Robert Scheer


It’s the black gold that drives nations mad and inevitably raises the question of whether America and the former European colonial powers give a damn about human rights as the basis for military intervention. If Libya didn’t have more oil than any other nation in Africa would the West be unleashing high-tech military mayhem to contain what is essentially a tribal-based civil war? Once again an American president summons the passions of a human rights crusade against a reprehensible ruler whose crimes, while considerable, are not significantly different from those of dictators the U.S routinely protects.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Moammar Gadhafi must now go not because his human rights record is egregious but rather because his erratic hold on power seems spent. After all, from the London School of Economics to Harvard, influential foreign policy experts were all too happy until quite recently to accept Libyan payoffs in exchange for a more benign view of Gadhafi’s prospects for change under the gentle guidance of what Harvard’s Joseph Nye celebrated as “soft power.”

But that revisionist appraisal of Gadhafi suddenly became an embarrassment when this nutty dictator—whom few in the world could ever understand, let alone warm to—was exposed by defections from his own armed forces to be akin to rotten fruit destined to drop. Libya’s honeymoon with the West, during which leaders led by Tony Blair and George W. Bush thought Col. Gadhafi might finally prove to be a worthy partner more concerned with reliably exporting oil than ineffectively ranting against Western imperialism, has suddenly been abandoned as no longer necessary. As with former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein before him, the Libyan strongman now seemed an awkward relic of a time that had passed him by, and easily replaceable. Not so the royal ruler of Saudi Arabia and the surrogates he finances in Yemen and Bahrain; their suppression of their peoples still falls within acceptable limits because of the vast resources the king manages in a manner that Western leaders have long found agreeable.

But this time, in the glaring light of the democratic currents sweeping through the Mideast, the contradictions in supporting one set of dictators while toppling others may prove impossible for the U.S. and its allies to effectively manage. The recognition, widely demanded throughout the region, that even ordinary Middle Easterners have inalienable rights is a sobering notion not easily co-opted. Why don’t those rights to self-determination extend to Shiites in the richest oil province in Saudi Arabia or for that matter to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza? ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/be_consistent_invade_saudi_arabia_20110323/

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. A well parsed piece.

[xchrom]

2. love robert scheer. nt

[KoKo]

3. Exposing the hypocricy .... This is a good read. K&R!

[FlyByNight]

4. The only consistency in American foreign policy...

...is that it's (purposefully) inconsistent - at least as viewed by the public. Privately, it's about oil, resources, bases and geopolitical posturing.

If Gadhafi had been a loyal and trusted murderer (like Suharto, the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, etc.), the Obama administration, as all other administrations, would have supported him right up until the US wouldn't have to - much like Egypt. Gadhafi hasn't been on the "trusted dictators" list, so he can go sooner rather than later. As Chomsky said, the Obama administration was following a playbook.

The US has supported far worse murderers in the world. The post WWII foreign policy history is utterly blood (and oil) soaked. Hell, US/UN inaction regarding Yemen and Bahrain are two immediate and contemporaneous examples of American hypocrisy.

Looking forward...

[bhikkhu]

5. That would be stupid

...as the Saudis have responded to protests, so far, by opening the coffers and expanding education benefits and so forth. Of course they are despots - the rich living off the work of the poor - but there is no immediate cause, and no dire consequences to doing nothing.

Why do people tend toward absolutism? That is - a desire to have one rigid law that applies to everything regardless of situation? Saudi Arabia is a unique country, and there is simply no occasion to desire to invade it, unless one sets some ridiculous standard that would implode any world order. The world order as a whole may be rotten, but it nevertheless supports and sustains 7 billion people, more or less. Petroleum is a big part of that, and there is truly no other energy source by which to sustain such a large population; hence, if you wreck Saudi Arabia by applying some unwise principle, you consign many more to deprivation.

In any case, there is simply no occasion for it, and I hope the Sauds are wise enough to keep it that way. Gadhafi had his army poised at the edge of a city of 600,000, which had broken from him, formed an independent governing council, and been recognized on the world stage. He promised "no mercy, no pity", and there is every likelihood that he would have reduced it to rubble by now if nothing had been done...so it was a humanitarian act that succeeded very well. There is nothing even remotely similar happening in Saudi Arabia, and the writer of the OP knows it.

[yurbud]

7. he meant it sarcastically to show that publicly stated reasons are childish lies

[bhikkhu]

8. I don't think they are, at least in Obama's case

I know France has led the push for the protestors in Libya, and against Gadhafi himself - I know nothing of their motives. But when Obama says that we intervened only when it was clear that Benghazi was hours from being brutally taken, and that there is no intention of invading, taking Gadhafi out, or creeping towards any mission beyond preventing military action against civilians, I believe him.

The facts that make Libya exceptional is that our weaponry is very efficient at destroying armor. Gadhafi's armor was parked on the outskirts of Benghazi - completely vulnerable and easily destroyed with little risk of collateral damage. There is no similar situation in the Congo, Bahrain, Yemen, or anywhere else. A big part of any decision to intervene is the likelihood of success, which in this case was never in doubt. Everywhere else that I can think of our particular military forces would be much less effective, and action much more problematic.

Libya doesn't have that much oil, and it means little to us. I know a great deal of policy does consider energy issues, but I think that "its all about oil" has become a reckless mantra of too many, little more than a clever way of sounding like an "insider" when possessing less than average understanding.

[raouldukelives]

6. K&R