October 3, 2004
DID HE DO ANY REPORTING TO GET THOSE PULITZERS:
New tome: War vs. Saddam hit al-Qaeda hard (Jules Crittenden, October 3, 2004, Boston Herald)
Beneath all the public reasons for invading Iraq lies a secret war agenda that has paid off in the war on al-Qaeda, according to a leading intelligence analyst.``The Bush administration has been represented as strategically stupid but adept at political manipulation. The opposite is true,'' said George Friedman, president of Stratfor, a firm that delivers global strategic forecasting and open-source intelligence analysis to corporate clients.
Friedman's book, ``America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and its Enemies,'' which goes on sale Tuesday, argues that midway through the war on terrorism, America has made major gains while al-Qaeda has failed in most of its goals and is on the defensive. Iraq, he argues, is a keystone of American strategy against al-Qaeda.
In the decision to invade Iraq, he argues, disarming a dangerous dictator and bringing democracy to the Middle East were secondary war goals. The factor that tipped the balance in internal Bush administration debates in mid-2002 was Saudi Arabia's recalcitrance in the war on al-Qaeda, he says.
America's invasion of Iraq put pressure on the Saudis that forced them to act against al-Qaeda sympathizers within Saudi Arabia in ways the Saudis had been unwilling to do, Friedman said.
In the past year, Friedman argues, it has worked. The Saudis, shaken by America's action, has engaged in a ``civil war'' against al-Qaeda, killing operatives, busting up cells and cracking down on the group's financial network.
``The problem is that the administration can't explain that this is blackmail on the Saudis. So it turns to WMD,'' Friedman said about the reasons given for the Iraq war.
It's a pretty enough theory and goosing the Sa'uds probably didn't bother anyone, but WMD was a bone the President threw Tony Blair and Colin Powell so they could try and win wider support for the war. The most revealing moment in the run-up to war though came when the President told Mr. Blair that if it was causing too much trouble for him at home to just forget about helping and we'd do it alone. The President didn't particularly care if we had any allies, never mind about WMD claims. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 3, 2004 11:52 PM
It's hard to understand why so many bloggers (or journalists) would take Friedman and the Stratfor goofs as seriously as they seem to.
This only reinforces my inability to understand.
Posted by: kevin whited at October 4, 2004 12:00 AMA Pulitzer ?
George Friedman ?
The invasion of Iraq was obviously intended to put pressure on the House of Saud, as a secondary effect.
After all, most of the 9/11 hijackers, and all of their philosophy, originated in Arabia.
Iraq was merely more do-able politically.
Saddam was isolated from the world, and Mecca is in Arabia. No-brainer.
Given that BrothersJudd readers are probably the best informed on the net, I'm surprised that this post wasn't hailed as "obvious."
In light of Iran & N. Korea being more dangerous and closer to the Nuclear Club, the focus on Iraq right after Afghanistan HAD to give intelligent people pause to think.
Democratizing IS a huge long term plus, and Iraq was the "lowest hanging fruit" in this regard, but going after Iraq 1st ONLY makes sense in the context of targeting Saudi indirectly.
As Orin posts so effectively, it has worked on almost every level (paraphrasing Homer Simpson).
Posted by: BB at October 4, 2004 10:09 AMMany US military officers I know consider Stratfor a reliable source of info. fwiw
Posted by: rkb at October 4, 2004 3:54 PMYes, many military folks consider STRATFOR a good source. That doesn't necessarily make it true, though.
This analysis of the war in Iraq as a way to pressure the Saudis is actually rather nuts. There were and are other ways to pressure Saudi Arabia; cheaper and more effective.
The US had been pressuring the KSA pre-9/11; post-9/11, the Saudis did, in fact, start pressuring themselves. Iraq, if anything, presented them with complications. It also seems to have drawn the rats from the woodwork culminating in 5/12 Riaydh bombings. Then the Saudis got really focussed.
Posted by: John at October 4, 2004 4:04 PMJohn:
Pressuring the House of Saud was not the primary purpose for the war.
It was a secondary reason.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 4, 2004 7:51 PMThe thing is, the invasion of Iraq represented an excellent point of entry for a number of different projects. That's was the most attractive thing about that option. It was the Gordian knot of the Middle East - cut that, and the rest would start unraveling in our favor.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 4, 2004 10:11 PM