Why Is The Mainstream Media Scared Of This Man
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
Dear Readers,
Please consider make a contribution to Citizens For Legitimate Government, so that we can continue to fight the Bush dictatorship and continue our news service.
Expenses are incurred in this effort on a monthly basis and we need the support of our readers to exist!
I want to thank everyone who has contributed in the past and (due to the overwhelming number of Blackwater/ Bush illegal, immoral actions that need to be exposed 24/7) I am behind in my personal correspondence to thank our contributors! But, please consider making a donation again. PayPal takes credit cards and e-checks (even if you do not have a PayPal account).
Note: If you mail a check, please make us aware of your email addy, if you wish to hear back from us!
We cannot continue this fight, without your help.
Thanks so much, in advance!
Lori
*****
http://www.legitgov .org/#contribute
This link takes you to the PayPal donation button.
Also, readers have inquired about a way to support CLG on a monthly basis. That option is now available, if you click on the contribute link.
Please mail a check or money order to the CLG:
Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG)
P.O. Box 1142
Bristol, CT 06011-1142
Why Is The Mainstream Media Scared Of This Man
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a30_1193762961
Bush backs Mukasey on waterboarding stance
President defends nominee?s refusal to say whether procedure is torture
WASHINGTON - President Bush, seeking to salvage the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, on Thursday defended the former judge?s refusal to say whether he considers waterboarding as illegal torture.
Bush said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques on which he has not been briefed. ?He doesn?t know whether we use that technique or not,? the president told a group of reporters invited into the Oval Office.
Further, Bush said, ?It doesn?t make any sense to tell the enemy whether we use those techniques or not.?
Bush says US, Turkey will cooperate against Kurdish fighters
WASHINGTON (Thomson Financial) - US President George Bush said today that he and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan would use a White House meeting next week to discuss cooperation against Iraq-based Kurdish fighters.
'I look forward to visiting with Prime Minister Erdogan on this important subject as to how we can work together to prevent people from coming out of mountain ranges to do harm to Turkish troops,' he told reporters.
The two leaders will meet Monday amid rising tensions between Washington and Ankara over strikes in Turkey by Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighters based in northern Iraq.
Erdogan has warned that relations between the two NATO allies hinge on whether Bush agrees to take 'concrete, urgent steps' against the PKK, branded a terrorist group by Europe and the US.
The White House has urged Turkey not to launch a large-scale incursion into Iraq while backing limited efforts to counter the PKK and saying that US forces can provide 'actionable intelligence' to their Turkish counterparts.
'We will have a good, substantive discussion, as you would expect allies to do. And I'm looking forward to seeing him here in the Oval Office,' Bush told reporters.
Bush says 19 kids got on planes and killed 3,000 students
Bush said:
"And I believe those of us who live in liberty have a responsibility to promote forms of government that deal with what causes 19 kids to get on airplanes to kill 3,000 students."
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=91f_1193887023
Dems debate the war and attack Clinton on her vote.
Democrats debate the war and some give Clinton a hard time. Edwards even all but calls her a liar about her real intentions.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c4d_1193878254
Iraqi Kid Tossing 101 - Iraq (Mature, Featured) Leaked: 7 hours ago
By SGT_USMC | 127 Comments | 6688 Views | 4 Votes | 0 Recommendations
Soldier picks up an Iraqi kid and throws him in a ditch full of water.
Tags: Iraq Iraqi Kid Thrownm Into Ditch US Army Soldier
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e02_1193903119
"IRAN WARNS" 11000 missiles will come at you within a minute.
If the islamic republic is attacked, they will launch 11,000 missiles at US bases in afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation and rub your noses in the dirt.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fbb_1193050121
The US Army defends against Taliban attack at Peach River in Afghanistan.
The US Army defends against Taliban attack at Peach River in Afghanistan.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=138_1193486605
Login | Register | Lost Password?
Set As Homepage | Adult Confirmed: NO | Family Filter OFF | Graphic Filter ON
Home Upload Media LIVE! CHAT! (Users: 17) YOUR SAY Groups FAQ Contact us Dispatch Top Leakers Invite Friends Media Tips
All Recent Media News Iraq Afghanistan Iran Politics Entertainment Celebrity Citizen Journalism
Ambush Afghanistan Marked as: Featured
From source- "Northern Kandahar, Canadians ambushed from mountains. Me and my lav gunner shooting"..
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=05f_1193483933
"Near Miss" in afghanistan
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d10_1193462203
US Help Turkish Hunt PKK.
The US is giving Turkey intelligence on Kurdish rebel positions in northern Iraq, the Pentagon has said.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bcc_1193911206
Superscoopers ..Firefighting from the air Marked as: Featured
A reporter watches from the sky as dramatic low level flying battles the California blaze.
? Cal. fires kill one, shut down Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu
Source: KCAL
Added On October 21, 2007
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4b_1193018591
Secret Air Safety Data Stirs Controversy.
NASA Says it never meant to dimiss the safety
of travellers by keeping research on air safety
under wraps.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3dd_1193921334
Sarkozy Visit Sparks Protests.
Police have clashed with demonstrators Corsica during a two-day visit to the island by French president Nicolas Sarkozy.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8d_1193918589
Witch Fire San Diego
some pictures from my sisters neighborhood in san diego. these are some of her neighbors. they suck back in after she heard her house survived. she must have some good karma
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ae_1193282214
Raw;Iraq assignment upsets diplomats
AP Nov. 1, Many U.S. diplomats are angry that some of them might be forced to take jobs in Iraq. Several hundred confronted the Foreign Service Director General Wednesday. One called the decision a 'potential death sentence.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ac_1193907538
So why do you refuse to answer any questions?
dr.ronnigreenwood wrote:
If you are an anti-war activist, you can contribute to science by
participating in a study of how activists think about and relate to
one another during a social movements' middle years.
You can find the questionnaire at:
www.anti-war. scotspsychology. org
Just so you know and don't get frustrated or irritated, the
questionnaire should take around 20 minutes to complete (We estimate
30 on the website, but I think the average is more like 20). Some of
the questions may feel a bit repetitious, but they actually do measure
different things and all questions are important to the study.
We need about 80 participants. Two participants will be selected by
lottery to win either an i-pod
shuffle or cash equivalent, which you could keep, donate to your
anti-war organization, or use to buy treats for your kids, cats or
dogs. ALL data are kept on a secure server and are only accessible by
myself and my research assistant. We are ONLY interested in aggregated
trends across participants' responses. We are NOT interested in
individual responses and will NEVER disclose ANY information to any
third party. However, those who would like to participate but would
rather remain completely anonymous may do so by opting out of the
i-pod lottery.
It is important to note that this research has passed review by the
Dundee University ethics committee and complies with the UK Data
protection Act. You can find the study at:
www.anti-war. scotspsychology. org
Once the study is complete I would be happy to share the results with
you and your group.
Please tell all your friends, relatives, comrades, and allies about
the study. We hope that, in the future, this information may be
useful to social movements and their leadership, in that it will help
us understand how to retain and grow their numbers when movements
reach their middle years.
In advance, I thank you for your time and support.
In solidarity,
Ronni Michelle Greenwood, PhD
Psychology Department
University of Dundee
Dundee DD1 4HN
01382 386 816
rmgreenwood@ dundee.ac. uk
United Nations to expand police force
Associated Press
Thursday, November 01, 2007
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer
With the world facing new security threats, the U.N. is planning for an unprecedented expansion of its police missions. U.N. officials say a shift in the nature of conflicts requires revamped peacekeeping operations.
Traditionally, the U.N. has facilitated peace between warring states by sending its blue-helmeted soldiers to man buffer zones between their armies. But today, interventions are increasingly focused on settling civil wars.
"In recent years the character of conflicts has changed dramatically from mainly state-to-state wars (to) intrastate conflicts which pit various factions within the boundaries of a single state," U.N. Police Chief Andrew Hughes said.
As a result, there is a greater need than ever for conventional police duties in post-conflict situations.
Nowhere is this highlighted more clearly than in Darfur.
The U.N. is recruiting nearly 7,000 police officers to assist some 20,000 U.N. peacekeeper- soldiers in trying to end the four-year conflict in western Sudan.
Police involvement in peacekeeping dates from the inaugural 1948 mission, when first Secretary-General Trygve Lie urgently dispatched several dozen U.N. security guards from New York to Jerusalem when Jewish extremists assassinated the U.N. peace envoy Folke Bernadotte.
In later interventions, however, the U.N. has come to rely mostly on soldiers to monitor cease-fires or interpose themselves between warring sides, as happened in the Sinai after the 1956 Egypt-Israel war, or later in disputed Kashmir, Cyprus and Lebanon.
The Balkan wars of the 1990s put renewed focus on peacekeeping by police units.
"In such conflicts, once peace is restored the U.N. then has a key role in re-establishing rule of law, which includes police, courts, prisons and the whole justice sector, and to ensure that they rebuild or build up from scratch their police services," Hughes said.
But Hughes emphasized that police and military missions have critical differences.
Soldiers have different rules of engagement that provide for the use of lethal force and are therefore not suited for such duties such as apprehending criminals, escorting children to schools or calming rioting mobs.
"For us the use of force is absolutely the last option," Hughes said. "Our police are trained much more extensively to defuse the situation, and negotiations are by far and away the biggest tool we have."
A new Police Division was set up in October 2000 as part of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations with a staff of several dozen experienced police officers from contributing countries.
Currently, there are about 70,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops deployed worldwide, with an additional 9,500 police officers, mostly in Africa - such as Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Burundi and Western Sahara - as well as in Haiti, Kosovo and East Timor.
With U.N. missions in Chad and Darfur coming on line in 2008, the ranks of U.N. police are to swell to nearly 17,000 officers from more than 100 countries.
"Our duties included everything a policeman can possibly do, from breaking up domestic disturbances to chasing and arresting armed criminals," said Irhad Campara, a Bosnian policeman who served in the U.N. mission in East Timor.
"In addition, we recruited, vetted and trained from scratch East Timor's new national police force."
Whereas military units are dispatched by governments, police officers are recruited on individual contracts from contributing nations. They continue to collect their home pay but receive an extra daily allowance of $150 and accommodation from the U.N.
Not all operations have gone smoothly, however, and the U.N. police force has suffered several high-profile reverses over the past several years.
In 2004, U.N. police officers failed to stem the violence in Kosovo when thousands of ethnic Albanians rioted in a backlash against the Serb minority, killing 19 people, displacing thousands, and destroying hundreds of Serb homes, churches and monasteries.
And in East Timor, the U.N.-trained police force collapsed last year following an army mutiny, necessitating another mission to rebuild it anew.
To hopefully prevent such calamities, the U.N. is preparing two initiatives to facilitate rapid police deployment to crisis areas and to enable them to function more effectively from the outset.
The first is the introduction of Formed Police Units - 160-strong contingents of officers from a single country - skilled in dealing with a wide spectrum of problems, from riot control to arresting armed criminals.
The initial unit, an all-female company of Indian officers, has recently arrived in Liberia to join the U.N. force there.
The second initiative is to create a standing police detachment of about two dozen officers who can be deployed together with U.N. military units to a trouble spot, thus allowing the police to be present from the start of a U.N. mission.
Previously, the slow and complicated process of recruiting volunteers from participating countries meant police recruits lagged an average of nine months behind the soldiers.
But critics say these measures are insufficient.
William Durch from the Henry L. Stimson Center, a think tank in Washington, proposed creating a ready reserve of about 11,000 police volunteers worldwide who would be paid retainer fees while on standby and who could be quickly mobilized for future U.N. missions.
"The system by which the U.N. recruits its people must be completely revamped to be able to provide security personnel in the critical initial phases of a mission," said Durch, an expert on peacekeeping operations.
http://news. yahoo.com/ s/nm/20071031/ wl_nm/iran_ nuclear_dc; _ylt=Apt4zf_ KXjRD.JCkMEM5Man GK7IF
Iran warns U.S. of "quagmire" By Fredrik Dahl
Wed Oct 31, 7:58 AM ET
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran warned the United States on Wednesday it would find itself in a "quagmire deeper than Iraq" if it attacked the Islamic state, and Russia stepped up efforts for a diplomatic solution to Tehran's nuclear row with the West.
The warning by the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, a target of new U.S. sanctions announced last week, added to angry rhetoric between the two old foes that has prompted speculation of possible U.S. military action.
U.S. President George W. Bush this month suggested a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three but the White House said on Tuesday it remained determined to resolve the stand-off peacefully.
"If the enemies show inexperience and want to invade Islamic Iran, they will receive a strong slap from Iran," Jafari said in comments carried by the semi-official Fars News Agency.
"The enemy knows that if it attacks Iran it, will be trapped in a quagmire deeper than Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will have to withdraw with defeat," he told a parade in north-central Iran, without mentioning the United States by name.
Major powers are expected to meet in London this week to discuss a possible third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt work which it says is aimed at generating electricity but could also be used for making bombs.
Iran, hoping to ward off any further sanctions on its oil-dependent economy, agreed with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in August to clear up suspicions about its past secret nuclear activities.
The United States, saying the deal failed to address the core U.N. demand that Tehran suspend work Washington suspects is aimed at making bombs, is pushing for tougher U.N. sanctions.
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program are one of the factors that have pushed oil prices to record highs of over $90 a barrel in recent days.
"TRUST"
Russia, a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, says dialogue rather than punishment or talk of military action offers the best way to ease tension. It says the IAEA process should be given time to run its course.
Speaking after talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday evening, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, according to a transcript from his ministry:
"We encouraged the Iranian leadership to undertake further -- and preferably more active -- work with the IAEA to clear up those questions which have been raised by the agency with regard to the Iranian nuclear program's past."
Lavrov, visiting two weeks after a trip to Tehran by President Vladimir Putin, said he "underlined the importance of closing these questions as soon as possible, in order to restore trust in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's activities."
Ahmadinejad said Iran was "determined" to continue its cooperation with the agency, the ISNA news agency said.
Lavrov's visit coincided with vital talks in Tehran between officials from Iran and the Vienna-based IAEA on implementing the August agreement, entering their third day on Wednesday.
Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will report to the agency's 35-nation board of governors in mid-November. If Iran has not answered sensitive questions by then, Western powers say they will move to have harsh U.N. sanctions adopted.
In Washington, U.S. officials said they expected the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- as well as Germany to meet later this week in London to discuss new sanctions.
Britain and France back a tough line on Iran. China, like Russia, has opposed an early move to tighten economic sanctions, saying Iran should be given longer to cooperate with the IAEA.
The U.N. Security Council has already imposed two sets of limited sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt enrichment, a process to make fuel for nuclear power plants that can also, if refined further, provide material for bombs.
(Additional reporting by Moscow bureau, Ross Colvin in Baghdad, Arshad Mohammed in Washington and by Zahra Hosseinian and Edmund Blair in Tehran)
Iraq's Christians Face Extinction, Advocacy Group Says
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
November 01, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - An international organization supporting Christian minorities in Islamic societies has launched a new campaign to draw attention to the plight of Iraq's Christians, a community which it says "faces extinction."
The U.K.-based Barnabas Fund, a charitable and advocacy group, said this week that Islamic extremists in Iraq are telling Christians to convert, leave or face death.
"The militants are well on the way to succeeding in their aim, at least in the south and central areas, as Christians flee the restrictions, threats and violence imposed on them."
Iraq's Christians -- who include Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Orthodox Syriacs, Catholic and Orthodox Armenians, and Protestants -- are mostly non-Arabs who trace their origins to the ancient Assyrian empire.
Members of one of the world's oldest Christian communities, they have over the centuries survived persecution and ill-treatment at the hands of Muslim Arabs, Kurds, Turks and Mongols, the Barnabas Fund said.
During World War I, some 750,000 Assyrians were killed by Ottoman Turks and Kurds, an atrocity far less frequently discussed than the atrocities committed against the Armenians over the same period.
The Minority Rights Group International this year named Iraq the second-most dangerous country in the world for minorities, after Somalia. Apart from Christians, Iraq also has very small minorities of Yezidis, adherents of a religion that predates Islam and Christianity; and Mandaeans, a sect that reveres John the Baptist.
A 1987 census recorded 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, according to a State Department report in September. Researchers say the numbers began to drop steadily after the 1990 Gulf War, with some attributing this to a rise in anti-Christian sentiment as a result of the war and international sanctions campaign.
The exodus sped up following the 2003 U.S.-led war to topple Saddam Hussein, and today, estimates of the community's size range from 300,000 to 800,000, with a Chaldean bishop in Baghdad in mid-2006 putting the figure at 600,000.
Religious freedom researchers say Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish elements have been implicated in the maltreatment of Christians.
The Barnabas Fund published translations of letters sent by Shi'a organizations to Christians in Baghdad ordering women to wear the Islamic veil or face the consequences.
A letter sent to one Christian family threatened death, kidnapping and bombing or the burning down of its house if the family did not comply with wearing the veil and following Islamic principles.
It reported cases of Christian women threatened, kidnapped, assaulted and killed.
The Barnabas Fund said many Christians who have left Iraq are struggling with basic needs in neighboring Syria and Jordan. Of those who remain in the country, many have moved to the autonomous Kurdish area in the north.
The organization, which has been helping the community inside Iraq since 1999, urged Christians to lobby their elected representatives about offering Iraqi Christians at risk asylum in their countries.
'Violence, discrimination, marginalization'
A fortnight ago, in what was seen as a reflection of the Vatican's concern about indigenous Christian minorities in the Middle East, Pope Benedict named a Chaldean church leader, Emmanuel III Delly, as one of 23 new Roman Catholic cardinals.
Delly, who warned in a statement last May that Iraqi Christians were facing "blackmail, kidnapping and displacement" at the hands of Sunni insurgents and said the government was not acting to protect the community, met Saturday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The prime minister said in a statement afterwards that his government was committed to defending Christians and preventing the further exodus from Iraq.
Iraq's post-Saddam constitution guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief and practice, but it also declares Islam to be the official religion and states that no law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent body advising the White House and Congress on religious persecution issues, reported in its 2007 annual report that Iraq's non-Muslim minorities "face widespread violence from Sunni insurgents and foreign jihadis."
"They also suffer pervasive discrimination and marginalization at the hands of the national government, regional governments and para-state militias, including those in Kurdish areas," it said.
The commission consequently placed Iraq on a "watch list" and said if the situation doesn't improve, it will recommend that it be listed as a "country of particular concern" (CPC) under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act.
Iraq was put onto the CPC list in 1992, but the administration removed it in 2003 after toppling the Saddam regime. Designation provides for a range of actions against governments that engage or tolerate egregious religious freedom violations, including sanctions.
Countries currently on the CPC list are Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Eritrea.
http://www.cnsnews. com/ViewForeignB ureaus.asp? Page=/ForeignBur eaus/archive/ 200711/INT200711 01b.html
little lengthy article on America's real interest in Iraq / Middle East.
- Abi
"In 1980, President Jimmy Carter enunciated what would become known as the "Carter Doctrine": that Persian Gulf oil was "vital" to American national interests and that the U.S. would use "any means necessary, including military force" to sustain access to it."
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once put it, Iraq "floats on a sea of oil"
Why Did We Invade Iraq Anyway?
Putting a Country in Your Tank
By Michael Schwartz
Lately, even Democratic candidates for president have been weighing in on why the U.S. must maintain a long-term, powerful military presence in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, for example, used phrases like protecting our "vital national security interests" and preventing Iraq from becoming a "petri dish for insurgents," in a major policy statement. Barack Obama, in his most important speech on the subject, talked of "maintaining our influence" and allowing "our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda." These arguments, like the constantly migrating justifications for invading Iraq, serially articulated by the Bush administration, manage to be vaguely plausible (with an emphasis on the "vaguely") and also strangely inconsistent (with an emphasis on the "inconsistent" ).
That these justifications for invading, or remaining, are unsatisfying is hardly surprising, given the reluctance of American politicians to mention the approximately $10-$30 trillion of oil lurking just beneath the surface of the Iraq "debate" -- and not much further beneath the surface of Iraqi soil. Obama, for example, did not mention oil at all in his speech, while Clinton mentioned it twice in passing. President Bush and his top officials and spokespeople have been just as reticent on the subject.
Why then did the U.S. invade Iraq? Why is occupying Iraq so "vital" to those "national security interests" of ours? None of this makes sense if you don't have the patience to drill a little beneath the surface ? and into the past; if you don't take into account that, as former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once put it, Iraq "floats on a sea of oil"; and if you don't consider the decades-long U.S. campaign to control, in some fashion, Middle East energy reservoirs. If not, then you can't understand the incredible tenaciousness with which George W. Bush and his top officials have pursued their Iraqi dreams or why -- now that those dreams are clearly so many nightmares -- even the Democrats can't give up the ghost.
The Rise of OPEC
The United States viewed Middle Eastern oil as a precious prize long before the Iraq war. During World War II, that interest had already sprung to life: When British officials declared Middle Eastern oil "a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination," American officials agreed, calling it "a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."
This led to a scramble for access during which the United States established itself as the preeminent power of the future. Crucially, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt successfully negotiated an "oil for protection" agreement with King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. That was 1945. From then on, the U.S. found itself actively (if often secretly) engaged in the region. American agents were deeply involved in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 (to reverse the nationalization of Iran's oil fields), as well as in the fateful establishment of a Baathist Party dictatorship in Iraq in the early 1960s (to prevent the ascendancy of leftists who, it was feared, would align the country with the Soviet Union, putting the country's oil in hock to the Soviet bloc).
U.S. influence in the Middle East began to wane in the 1970s, when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was first formed to coordinate the production and pricing of oil on a worldwide basis. OPEC's power was consolidated as various countries created their own oil companies, nationalized their oil holdings, and wrested decision-making away from the "Seven Sisters," the Western oil giants -- among them Shell, Texaco, and Standard Oil of New Jersey -- that had previously dominated exploration, extraction, and sales of black gold.
With all the key oil exporters on board, OPEC began deciding just how much oil would be extracted and sold onto international markets. Once the group established that all members would follow collective decisions -- because even a single major dissenter might fatally undermine the ability to turn the energy "spigot" on or off -- it could use the threat of production restrictions, or the promise of expansion, to bargain with its most powerful trading partners. In effect, a new power bloc had emerged on the international scene that could -- in some circumstances -- exact tangible concessions even from the United States and the Soviet Union, the two superpowers of the time.
Though the United States was largely self-sufficient in oil when OPEC was first formed, the American economy was still dependent on trading partners, particularly Japan and Europe, which themselves were dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The oil crises of the early 1970s, including the sometimes endless gas lines in the U.S., demonstrated OPEC's potential.
It was in this context that the American alliance with the Saudi royal family first became so crucial. With the largest petroleum reserves on the planet and the largest production capacity among OPEC members, Saudi Arabia was usually able to shape the cartel's policies to conform to its wishes. In response to this simple but essential fact, successive American presidents strengthened the Rooseveltian alliance, deepening economic and military relationships between the two countries. The Saudis, in turn, could normally be depended upon to use their leverage within OPEC to fit the group's actions into the broader aims of U.S. policy. In other words, Washington gained favorable OPEC policies mainly by arming, and propping up a Saudi regime that was chronically fragile.
Backed by a tiny elite that used immense oil revenues to service its own narrow interests, the Saudi royals subjected their impoverished population to an oppressively authoritarian regime. Not surprisingly, then, the "alliance" required increasing infusions of American military aid as well political support in situations that were often uncomfortable, sometimes untenable, for Washington. On its part, in an era of growing nationalism, the Saudis found overt pro-American policies difficult to sustain, given the pressures and proclivities of its OPEC partners and its own population.
The Neocons Seize the Unipolar Moment
The key year in the Middle East would be 1979, when Iranians, who had lost their government to an American and British inspired coup in 1953, poured into the streets. The American-backed Shah's brutal regime fell to a popular revolution; American diplomats were taken hostage by Iranian student demonstrators; and Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs took power. The Iranian revolution added a combustible new element to an already complex and unstable equation. It was, in a sense, the match lit near the pipeline. A regime hostile to Washington, and not particularly amenable to Saudi pressure, had now become an active member of OPEC, aspiring to use the organization to challenge American economic hegemony.
It was at this moment, not surprisingly, that the militarization of American Middle Eastern policy came out of the shadows. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter -- before his Habitat for Humanity days -- enunciated what would become known as the "Carter Doctrine": that Persian Gulf oil was "vital" to American national interests and that the U.S. would use "any means necessary, including military force" to sustain access to it. To assure that "access," he announced the creation of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, a new military command structure that would be able to deliver personnel from all the armed services, together with state-of-the- art military equipment, to any location in the Middle East at top speed.
Nurtured and expanded by succeeding presidents, this evolved into the United States Central Command (Centcom), which ended up in charge of all U.S. military activity in the Middle East and surrounding regions.