Saudis Betrayed by Inane US policy of 'Engagement'

Submitted by Bill Bryan (United States), May 16, 2002 at 18:44

In 1972, THIRTY YEARS AGO!, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution a Saudi spokesman gave some timely advice to the United States:

"The United States has the resources and technology to become totally energy
independent in 20 years and remain so for thousands of years. We would rather
have an energy independent US that does not need one drop of (Saudi and Arab)
oil than to have an energy dependent US that might find the need to intervene
in our affairs..."
"Our greatest nightmare is that US foreign policies will lead to war with our
Islamic Brothers and that the US will station troops on our territory to 'protect us'
and our oil."

A few weeks later, at a Middle East symposium at the University of Georgia,
a student asked Henry Kissinger: "Should't the US become completely energy
independent? If we're dependent, we could be blackmailed for oil."

Henry K responded thusly (as best I can remember): "The worst thing the US could
do would be to become energy independent (!)... The US is historically isolationist and importation of energy assets like oil keep us mindful and 'engaged' in world
affairs..." (What a piece of Ivory Tower nonsense!)

Anyway, the US, essentially, told the Saudis to cram their advice where the sun
don't shine, obstructed efforts by private industry to make the US less energy dependent, enriched Islam, armed Islam, enraged Islam with our Ivory Tower
bullshit we call US foreign policy, allowed Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait and
threaten Saudi Arabia, station US troops on Holy Saudi soil, and made potential
friends and allies into fanatic enemies.

What a country!

---

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".