Why people are failing to, at the very least, hold the key players in GW's admin. accountable for massively arming Saddam Hussein is beyond me. This, along with the extraordinary business ties to the Saudis may well have directly caused US involvement in two wars. But that's what's so damn frustrating about all this in all its layers of complexity and subterfuge... how do you clearly come to understand what has happened and prove cause and effect?
And one could always make counter-arguments to most of the points cited, I suppose. One could say various military operations, no matter how outwardly dubious, whether covert or overt, were "at the time necessary for the US national security"....This is always how it's sold (or explained later), and it is what most people choose to accept without much questioning. Yeah... perhaps Iran in the '80s was such a threat that we had to arm Saddam... perhaps the USSR (even in its somewhat weakened state) was such a threat that we had to arm and train guerilla-terrorist jihadists to repel the Soviets from Afghanistan. I run into this wall every time I try to have these discussions.
I don't know however. I, for one, find this article to be disturbing. At the very least, the Middle Eastern foreign policy of both Bush administrations (and much of Reagan's) seems like a colossal conflict of interest.... something that should not continue to go unnoticed or unchecked.