| Osama bin Laden's
9-11 Gambit
To be sure, Osama bin Laden has an
axe to grind with the United States; but, his attacks leading up to September
11 were more than hurtful to the U.S.
9-11
was a strategic Gambit designed to pull U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia.
In chess, a gambit is an opening
maneuver intended to gain an
advantage. A gambit
is not an end in itself. OSAMA'S IDEA WAS FOR THE U.S. TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN
(and Iraq as well, if he was really lucky). Osama would make sure that he
would be nowhere around when the U.S. came to Afghanistan. His plan for
Afghanistan was to tie up U.S. military forces there; and, to pull the U.S.
military out of Saudi Arabia. This he did.
Osama's move on Saudi Arabia requires
that he remove as many U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia as possible; and, to
lock up those troops fighting his al-Qa'ida warriors in other middle east
conflicts, such as Iraq. As for the British and the other coalition
forces, Osama would do the same for their military; and, he would keep the
coalition focus at home by bringing "the bomb squads" to Spain and Britain
itself. Italy narrowly escaped a home bombing by pulling its troops
out of Iraq.
Why
go after Saddam?
For the time being, Osama had little
interest in Saddam Hussein. Osama realized that Saddam could be a problem
if Saddam decided to sweep down on Saudi Arabia after Osama took over the
kingdom; but, if the U.S. went to Afghanistan in force, Saddam still had
to worry about the U.S. military stationed in Kuwait and in the Emirates.
The southern Iraq buffer zone would still give Osama time enough
to prepare a defense after his "Arab revolt."
No, the best course of events that
Osama could hope for was for the U.S. and Britain to launch a preemtive attack
on Iraq; and, to defeat the Iraqi military, just as occured in the Spring
of 2003. Osama made an accurate study of both Bush presidents; and,
he was confident that the younger Bush would jump at the chance to invade
Iraq after 9-11. With Dick Cheney as vice president, it was almost
a sure bet that the Whitehouse would "go for the oil." The defeat of Iraq,
and the Iraqi insurgency to follow, were just what Osama hoped for in his
9-11 gambit. The capture of Saddam Hussein was "just a blip" on the
radar screen of Osama's chess game.
Why the WMD story?
Osama didn't have much to do with
the rumor that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Osama was a
good enough poker player to suspect that Saddam was bluffing in the hopes
that the U.S. would think twice before attacking Iraq. As it turned
out, the rumor worked to the advantage of the media play employed by the
whitehouse staff to rally the people behind the president's order to invade
Iraq. As Osama had anticipated, the political dominos were falling according
to plan--his plan. Soon, the time would be ripe for his move on Arabia.
Why
focus on oil?
Osama was not the only power player
who realized that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would raise the price
of crude. Osama's backers in Sudan, and the Saudi upper class secretly supporting
him, knew that the wars would present a big windfall for those holding oil
assets. These owners of "oil for sale" had only to let the international
market place "work the bad news" to send the price of oil skyward.
The increased revenue from rising
oil prices is actually financing the al-Qa'ida movement as well as Osama's
funding for the revolt in Saudi Arabia. It is ironic that the U.S.
hunger for oil is taking money from their pockets and putting it into the
hands of the man who brought down the World Trade Towers. By "working the
commodities' market" Osama was able to triple his fortune and his war chest
for the coming revolution in Arabia.
A
muslim cure for family shame
A very small portion of Osama's oil
related profits, and those of his backers and sympathizers, went to provide
the stipends for the families of the suicide bombers. It is not widely
known that many of these families grabbed at the chance to exchange one or
more "dishonored" (or black sheep) members of their family for the offered
$25,000 bounty.
The $25,000 bounty was a win-win
situation for the parents of large families who were otherwise burdened with
the support of unemployed, or mentally challenged sons as well as those daughters
who were "not deserving" of good muslim husbands because of their "dishonored
behavior" during adolescence.
These ne'er-do-well (or dishonored)
sons and daughters are an ongoing source of embarrassment to any fundamentalist
islamic family; and, sending them off to become martyrs was similar to the
tactic of Irish catholic families sending surplus problem children off to
the convent or to the seminary. For the average devout muslim family, large
in size, getting these children out of the house, so to speak, was a blessing
in itself; getting $25,000 a head for their leaving greatly improved the
family lifestyle.
|
Who has the oil?
Better yet, the question to ask is
"who are the people gaining from the rise in oil prices?" All those
concerned have a vested interest in keeping the fires of war burning hot.
But, it is enough to list the countries and regions where oil has been
discovered.
By listing these countries and
geographical regions, ASEC is able to forecast where problems are likely
to arise in the near future. When those areas involve maritime location
or transit, ASEC feels that hostilities are likely to arise. These
hostilities will come from more than one direction.
Firstly, hostilities will arise from
contention for the oil resources where they exist. A prime example
of this resides in the South China Sea in the area around the Spratly
islands.
Both Taiwan and the mainland China
say that the islands were discovered by Chinese navigators, used by Chinese
fishermen for centuries, and under the administration of China since the
15th century. Further, the Kuomintang sent a naval expedition to the islands
and took formal possession in 1946. It left a garrison on the largest island
of Itu Aba.
The offshore oil deposits in the
South China sea are thought to exceed all of those in the middle east. Is
it any wonder that all the nations surrounding the South China sea lay claim
to those resources? It is in this part of the world that ASEC believes we
will see protracted hostilities in the time period 2010 - 2020.
Who
wants the (South China sea) oil?
The Philippines made their first
claim in the area which they refer to as the Kalayaan islands in 1975 ; and,
they have been developing oil in the region between the Spratlys and the
island of Palawan since 1976. The Philippines real history in the region
began in May 1956 when a private Philippine expedition surveyed and occupied
some of the islands. The Philippines were a trusteeship of the Allied powers
at the time and the guarantee of Allied protection kept the Philippines from
garrisoning troops on its islands. However, as that guarantee weakened the
Philippines decided to beef up its defense. In 1976, it set up a garrison
on Palawan and in 1978 it established more soldiers on seven of the islands.
There are currently about 1,000 Marines stationed on the islands. In 1979,
the Philippines stated that it only wanted control of the seven islands under
its control and administration and not the rest of the archipelago.
Malaysia has been involved in the
dispute since 1979. It currently has control over three of the islands but
claims the whole chain. Malaysia's case is based on the fact that the islands
are part of its continental shelf. This gives it right to the islands under
the Law of the Sea Convention. Brunei's claims to the island also rest on
the Law of the Sea. It states that the southern part of the Spratly chain
is actually a part of its continental shelf and therefore its territory and
resources.
China and Vietnam are the main
protagonists in the dispute. Vietnam claims to the islands--which they call
the Truong Sa islands--are part of the empire of Annam, Vietnam's ancestor,
in the l9th century. In 1815, an expedition sent by king Gia Long to chart
sea lanes occupied and settled the islands. The French, who were Vietnam's
colonial rulers, annexed the Spratlys in 1933, so Vietnam says the islands
are theirs as the inheritors of the French possessions. In September 1973,
Vietnam declared that the Spratlys were part of the Phuoc Tuy province. It
has since stated that the Philippines are occupying part of its territory.
Vietnam currently holds three islands.
China's claims to the island are
based on the same history as Taiwan's claim. The PRC government maintains
that it is the legitimate Chinese government and that, therefore, the
islands--which they call the Nansha islands--are their territory. They have
been the most belligerent in pursuing their claim. The dispute between China
and Vietnam picked up in 1988. Chinese naval vessels sailed into the Spratlys
in January 1988 and Chinese marines started building defenses on one of the
largest islands, the first time China has settled soldiers on the islands.
In March, fighting broke out between
Vietnam and China and China sunk two Vietnamese ships. While they have moved
to more political means of dealing with the dispute, tensions remain high
in the area. Confrontation surfaced again when China contracted with a US
firm to begin testing for oil sights, even though the territorial issue remains
far from solved.
Occasional harassment of fishermen
by all sides continues as well. Each of the six countries maintain its claim
to all the islands. The protagonists have been discussing the possibility
of shelving the sovereignty issue to undertake joint development of its resources
and have sent a joint scientific team to run tests on resource potential.
The dispute has not been taken to
any official forum as of this date. Indonesia tried to start talks among
the disputants. Jakarta believed that as a non-involved Asian country, it
could be an impartial mediator. No decisions on sovereignty were reached
at the meetings but the disputants did agree to send a scientific team to
the islands to assess their resource potential and the environmental condition.
  
|
