Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Trump wants out of Mideast, blames Oil and Israel for Having to Stay

By       Message Juan Cole       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   4 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 11/28/18

Author 511263
Become a Fan
  (3 fans)

From Informed Comment

From flickr.com: Donald Trump {MID-329517}
Donald Trump
(Image by Gage Skidmore)
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

In an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday, Trump bruited the notion of removing US troops from the Middle East. He said that Israel and oil were the only reasons the US was in the region and that oil no longer justified the US military presence. The Post reported:

    "Trump also floated the idea of removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, citing the lower price of oil as a reason to withdraw.

    "'Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel,' Trump said. 'Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we're producing more oil now than we've ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don't have to stay there.'

    "Trump also called the killing of three U.S. troops in a roadside explosion in Afghanistan this week 'very sad.' He said he was continuing the military presence in Afghanistan only because 'experts' told him the United States needed to keep fighting there."

    - Advertisement -

As usual, Trump doesn't have the slightest idea what he is talking about. There is no oil in Afghanistan and the US presence there has nothing to do with Israel. You can hold that the US military presence in that country is counter-productive or at least not doing much good. But you can't explain it in either of those ways.

Why the US government does things is opaque. One time a Congressman asked me, "Professor Cole, why are we in Iraq?" I was taken aback. I'm just a Midwestern college professor. He was the Federal government. He should have known why we were in Iraq. But apparently Bush never told the Congress (which is supposed to declare war) why he was doing what he was doing.

My guess is that once the Taliban were overthrown in 2001-2002, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to keep troops in Afghanistan in the long term as a means of forestalling any reemergence of Russia as a great power. Rumsfeld also pursued bases in Uzbekistan. Cheney as an oil man was close to Kazakhstan. They had been Cold Warriors and the Soviet Union had been a peer power that was now on its knees. They wanted to keep it that way. What they didn't realize was that Pushtun Afghans are allergic to foreign troops in their country, and the very US and NATO presence cause a resurgence of the Taliban militants.

- Advertisement -

Trump's Leninist theories of imperialism as being about the dominance of markets and resources don't apply to the US presence in Afghanistan, which is one of the poorest countries in the world and has no resources to speak of. The 1990s hopes of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India were vague and never taken very seriously by government as opposed to Big Oil, and anyway were pie in the sky (pipelines are easily blown up, especially gas pipelines).

It could also be a matter of mission creep or just cowardice. The US was attacked from Afghanistan in 2001, and if you got out completely and Muslim radicals reestablished training bases there and attacked the US from them again, whoever pulled out would be toast politically. Safer to keep 14,000 US troops there forever to intervene if Kabul looked likely to fall. Or maybe the Pentagon wants leverage on Pakistan and India and Iran. I don't know. I do know it is likely about geopolitics or fears of terrorism. Israel and oil don't come into it.

You could make a case that both Israel and oil played a role in the thinking of the Bush administration in invading Iraq in the first place. That is, the Neoconservatives, like Douglas Feith (#3 at the Pentagon) and Paul Wolfowitz (#2) saw Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a warmed over Stalinist who threatened US and Israeli security and propped up anti-American and anti-Israel forces. Breaking Baathist Iraq's legs would protect the interests of both countries and perhaps end the influence of Arab socialism in the region. And then Bush and Cheney likely wanted to get Iraq's oil back on the market, feeling that only a new government in Baghdad could convince Congress to take sanctions off of Iraq and let the oil flow. (It is flowing now). But that was a long time ago, in 2003.

Barack Obama also wanted to get out of the Middle East militarily, but got pulled back in by the rise of ISIL/Daesh. In 2014, Baghdad itself was threatened. The some 6,000 US troops still in Iraq are there to help the Baghdad government guard against a resurgence of ISIL. By the way, the oil in Iraq is in the Kurdish areas in the north and around Shiite Basra, neither of which fell to ISIL, though the US Air Force made sure that didn't happen to Kurdistan.

Although the rise of ISIL in Syria could have been a security threat to Israel, the members of that group were far too timid to take on a country that could really make mincemeat of them. The US was so little worried about that eventuality that then Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the US saw ISIL grow up in Raqqa but did nothing about it because they hoped it would put pressure on the Bashar al-Assad government. The Obama administration for some reason wanted al-Assad gone, but they weren't willing to sink really major resources into making that happen and so never countered Iran and Russia, which wanted to prop up al-Assad. The Israelis were divided, with some supporting Bashar and others hoping for a liberal revolution in Damascus. Syria was only pumping 400,000 barrels a day of oil, which is a pittance, and petroleum was not a factor in the US intervention there, which was all about destroying ISIL.

There are aspects of US military involvement in the Middle East that have to do with oil. The US Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Manama, Bahrain, to make sure oil comes out of the Gulf. But Trump is wrong that the presence is no longer required because of US fracking and increase in domestic production. The US uses 20 million barrels a day and produces the equivalent of 11 mn b/d, so it still imports a hefty nine million barrels a day, more than most countries. (The world production is 100 million barrels per day). Moreover, as a superpower, the US wants to guarantee petroleum to allies like Japan and Germany, lest they become vulnerable to China and Russia, respectively.

- Advertisement -

Anyway, here is what Trump could do to get the US out of the Middle East militarily if he really wanted to:

1. Introduce a crash program to support electric cars and buses, fueled by renewables, in the US. Within 15 years we would need no oil imports at all and could mothball dirty fossil fuels. The Fifth Fleet could leave Bahrain.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Juan Cole is an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East and South Asia.  He is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Since 2002, he has written a weblog, Informed Comment (more...)
 

Juan Cole Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Top 5 Mistakes GOP's Wohl Made in allegedly framing Mueller for Sex Charges

India Doubles Iran Oil Imports: Are Trump's Sanctions Cratering?

Jared Kushner Tries to Strip Refugee Status, Aid from Millions of Displaced Palestinians

Iran: Trump's Tweets have added $10 to cost of Oil, Upping cost of Gasoline

Top Eight Ways John Kelly was an Embarrassment as White House Chief of Staff

Americans won't "Sit Up" for Great Leader Trump, because They Don't Approve of Him

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments


Eric Arnow

Become a Fan
Author 503158

(Member since Jul 27, 2015), 6 fans, 538 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

No evidence has ever been produced proving either Osama Bin Laden had either the intent or capability to attack the US. Both denied it. But Netanyahu two times said it was good for Israel. Draw your own conclusions why the US is overseas at all.

Submitted on Thursday, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:00:11 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 

Peter Duveen

Become a Fan
Author 20762

(Member since Aug 30, 2008), 27 fans, 37 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2401 comments, 73 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

This article does the reader a service by pointing out that Trump has expressed an interest in withdrawing military assets from the Middle East, but always with caveats, such as oil and Israel. What the author does not point out is that it is not just an interest in oil that keeps the US in the Middle East, but rather, an interest in getting a cut in the revenue stream that oil generates. The point here is that the author's suggestion to go to fossil fuel free energy sources does not address the motivation of keeping things as they are.

Trump said point blank that Clinton and Obama were the co-creators of ISIS, and left no doubt as to what he meant. So the US presence in Afghanistan could not be because ISIS must be kept in check. And Trump indeed may have had a true grasp of the situation. Such statements certainly won him votes, vis a vis Clinton.

As far as Israel is concerned, of course it is a major factor in the US's Middle East policy. Afghanistan borders Iran, and Pakistan, and it is important to ensure that US/Israel-"friendly" nations divide those that appear to be antagonistic. Afghanistan does indeed have resources, number one of which, one supposes, is agricultural (opium poppy). But there is said to be a wealth of other untapped resources. As far as the Taliban are concerned, they are not interested in world conquest. They are patriots. If they were allowed into power, they would probably run a fairly good government. But note that any group that simply wants the best for its citizens would be painted as imperialistic by the imperialists, because to just exist means, according to the imperialists, to have imperialistic designs. Is it likely that the US is going to give up its piece of the opium trade? Could that be a reason to keep fourteen thousand troops in Afghanistan?

Submitted on Thursday, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:16:29 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 

Dennis Kaiser

Become a Fan
Author 10174
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Jan 22, 2008), 34 fans, 69 articles, 308 quicklinks, 5058 comments, 48 diaries
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

IMHO what Trump is saying now about the Mideast is exactly one of the reasons the conspirators of the New World Order have been demonizing him through the Presstitute Media Propagandists (PMP). A major problem, however, is Trump's letting Kissinger (Israel/U.S. dual citizen) have his ear, plus the addition of people like John Bolton (Israel/U.S. dual citizen) and dozens of similar dual citizens in Congress. Remember, Trump wanted to pull out of Syria until a false flag gassing episode took place there less than a week after Bolton assumed his position.

Trump needs to ban Kissinger from the White House and "resign" the likes of Bolton and other like minions that are surrounding him.

Submitted on Thursday, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:12:32 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Richard Pietrasz

Become a Fan
Author 6357

(Member since Jun 7, 2007), 13 fans, 2745 comments, 1 diaries
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

USA did not make war in Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda, it did it to interfere with Afghan politics, and as a side benefit greatly increase the size and area of influence of aQ. Militaries need "enemies" to justify their budgets.

Submitted on Friday, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:44:50 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment