I remember certain things about the Bush Administration's response in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Any administration would deserve some slack in the face of such chaos, but should it remain buried as a neo-conservative footnote that administration officials loaded bin Laden's Saudi relatives onto a plane without so much as even a brief interview on what they knew about Osama and his whereabouts?
We're busy relitigating the Iraqi War, flinging mud at the administration which started it, blaming the administration which ended combat operations, while Frontline's investigation into the Saudi royal family and its attempt to export its Sunni extremists is conveniently overlooked, because consumption of fossil fuel drives foreign policy. No established media outlet, to my recollection, ever investigated why the Bush foreign policy team was so closely aligned with the Saudi foreign ministry once the invasion of Iraq commenced.
The Saudi's get scolded by liberals, ignored by the right, while only one non-profit media outlet dares to connect the dots on the igniting sparks of Sunni radicalism. I am not attempting to insinuate that a declaration of war against an insecure monarchy with which we've had a long alliance, touted up by correspondents with weapons deals long before my university enrollment, would have been better than up routing Baathist Iraq, or destroying Muammar's grip on power in Libya; I will also concede Krauthammer has a point about the current administration's soft underbelly, but is the global oil conglomerate so powerful that it is worth the hundreds of thousands of Muslims dead, the reverberating psychic trauma to Americans and Europeans? Removing or reinforcing the al-Maliki regime is moot if the executive branch has been barking up the wrong tree for over a decade.
No comments:
Post a Comment