While Oil May Not be the Main Subject - It Greases the Politics Many Feel are Out of Control

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Mar 7, 2011 at 16:51

There may be some confusion interjected here if it was thought that a modern view of the Ottoman regime had any practical connection to what we see in the Middle East. Since World War 1, for intents and purposes of that time, caused the Ottoman empire, already in decline, to cease in its function as a global entity, that that conflict was also the staging point in history from which we saw international interference set the stage for the consequential circumstances the western powers are still paying for.

To be sure, the industrial powers of this modern age have set themselves up for convolutions of capitalism that greed has taken out of the control of the common man. Capitalism in a properly managed form of economics would provide a source of common welfare for all who would participate in a manner that does not seek profit above all.

Oil marketeering demonstrates one aspect of how the concepts of out-of-control capitalism have run roughshod over the consumer markets of the developed world. One cannot look at the Middle East and not have some understanding that oil has been catapulted into a means of exerting power not otherwise to be enjoyed by the participants. So, while Oil is not the main subject here, it is definitely the fuel that keeps the power traders in their form.

Oil also provided the otherwise powerless remnants of the Ottoman empire and other Muslim dominated entities of the Middle East a means to reinvigorate Islam in a way that mere proselyting of new converts to Islam could not.

Now let us return to your original premise: what if oil was not to be found in the Middle East? The question posed to attract comments and to participate was answered in the way I did for a couple of reasons. First, recognizing that it, indeed, was rhetorical, called of a supposition that if oil had not been discovered, would there be other reasons enough for the industrial powers to even care what happens in the otherwise forsaken regions of desert waste, such as the Sahara (desert)? We already have the answer to that, that no one cared to go there except for other colonial interests, and places like Jerusalem were back road excursion routes to someplace else.

You mentioned in retorting that if the Ottoman Empire still existed, then Israel would not have come into being. This is quite true. Further, was I to resort to my specialized world view, I would explain that what happened is exactly what was supposed to happen. But I digress.

Second: were the Ottoman Empire still in existence, there would be no Saddam Hussein, Kuwait, KSA, UAE, or any of a number tribal-based sources of power that we see today. Since it was the British to whom we can look to for the preliminary outline of the resultant nation-tribes we see today, we can only conjecture what it might have looked like had the Germans won the day.

So before we get to the third and fourth premises of your dissertation, we should return to the present day circumstances and dismiss the impracticality of how the world might look if the Ottoman's were still in power and oil was never found in the Middle East. The Ottoman's are indeed gone; and oil dominates the world's economy.

That brings us to your third premise: 'the USA came for KSA and Kuwiet(Kuwait) not Israel. Now, since I have not been able to define your line of reasoning based on how things have turned out, why do you suppose that is? Saddam Hussein did not invade Israel, he invaded Kuwait. The Saudi kingdom, alleged fiduciary associates of the United States of America, based on information not generally available to the level of public access that I am accustomed to; presumably found for a case that once Saddam Hussein anchored Kuwait, the Saudis would be under a definitive threat. Had the United States not convened a plan of action to deprive Saddam Hussein of his intentions, how would this discussion be formulated? As for the enormous monies taken from both countries, I would want to see the books on that one in comparison to the billions, or trillions, or so, dollars of American TAXPAYER monies purloined and spent in both places.

Fourth, and if this were correctly viewed as I had indicated, Saddam Hussein did, in fact, attack Israel, irrespective of provocation, instead of the other perspective where it was said he had not. There is no argument of the order of events, only in confirming that he did attack Israel after realizing he bit off more than he could chew and took the coward's way of falling back to Baghdad. Someone once suggested he did that to gain some stature with the Muslim community: I guess we'll never know the answer to that one.

But now we come to the essence of your real questions: that of American international policies and motives. Do you find that America has been intrusive and has been interfering with the politics of other nations you favor more? Did you not notice that France, Russia and Germany already had their presences established in Iraq, that those influences would be disrupted were the United States to begin the campaign on behalf of the fiduciary associate, the KSA? How would it be convenient for you if Russia were to have gained the upper hand there? Would you be living in the Steppes if that were so? Now I will concede that the American intervention had other motivations besides being a friendly helping-hand to the KSA, but there are other subliminal interests not so apparent in the global economy that had interests to be protected; and not America alone. Remember, American politics has been globalized for quite some time for reasons other than the interests of the American people.

Now as to the UN (lol) being the only interventive power to help Libya (what about the others?), who does anyone think is the main source of income to the abilities of the UN to do anything, let alone come to the aid of a flailing collapsed dictatorial autocracy? We see the UN inserted into the Lebanese crisis years ago, their presence becoming a foil for the activities of the Hizbollah against Israel. And what did we see of the UN presence in Kosovo? And if the more prosperous Arab-speaking nations were indeed desirous of UN intervention, why do they not spend more of their own monies to alleviate the oppression of fellow Muslims under non-Islamic control of dictatorships, instead of spending it in other fancies of the power of their wealth? It is because they all say, 'give it to the Americans…they'll do our bidding.'

Now I had not tried to make the 'Palestinian'-Israeli situation a main focus here, except that it is hard not to make the connection when the powers that be try so hard to make peace in the Middle East come at the expense of that situation. Certainly, the power control in Gaza has not made the life for the 'Palestinian' in Gaza so wonderful. A suggestion: stop firing missiles into Israel.

I do not try to make any further statement or inference regarding the antipathy, animosity, and outright hatred that is read on the banners of those who hijack the demonstrations for their own political statements. When it is written 'death to whatever in Arabic-or whatever the local dialect is,' it is not hard to gain an inference of hatred there. And to be sure, dictators only use such things for their advantage, irrespective of the religious undertones, such as Mubarak using the Copts to gain favor with the Islamic sympathies, the same way the Roman emperor Nero used the Christians as blame for the destruction of Rome. But in this, it cannot be helped in the western world that if the actions of the fanatic few are not controlled by those who should, then one should not be surprised if there is a reactionary view of the power structure that used that hatred for whatever purpose. After all, what did Muammar Qaddafi have against the passengers that died in Lockerbie, Scotland? Was that not done in the name of Islam?

Now I found your dissection of my observances interesting, and at the same time, compelling in that it is definitively insightful to a person of a differing ideological perspective. It purports to be the basis of an intellectual exchange on ideas in a way that lends to achieving a common but we do not see that when we read of and see on TV that Hamas still intends to overturn Israel; that Hizbollah accumulates weapons and plans for another chance to engage Israel; that Turkey might try another flotilla; that Pakistani Islamic militants 'execute' a government official for reasons of their own: to what end and what conclusion should be drawn.

Now, by this time, you will have gone to the place you have before, in saying "what do American international policies and motives have to do with the rest of the world?"

In reality, you already have an idea, or you would not have posed the questions as you have. I could take this to a place to which I always go to get my answers, and it is not watching the American government as it guesses on how to deal with world issues; for the American government is not in it alone. Neither are the American people generally interested in the politics around the world until someone takes out their hatred against America on one of the citizens. When confronted with that kind of animosity, how would anyone first think to respond? Is it right then to take out the anger felt against American policy on an individual that may very well not have any idea why they were targeted? How often are Muslims kidnapped on American soil and executed for the public consumption? Should America policies be based on that? I do not think so; nor do I think anyone with a common sense of decency would think in so either.

I am only contrasting the idea that Americans are/were targeted for a different reason than what the media understands; that it is not merely for American governmental policies. If America were such a heinous affront to the Muslim sensibility, would they (the Muslim held oil interests) not sell their oil for dollars, Euros, Yuans? One needs to look for the other 'answer…but the right question needs to be asked.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".