Britain feared US move on Gulf oilfields

This is history but its publication in the Financial Times
indicate that some in Britain do not trust American judgment
in the Middle East still.

Earl

*****




Britain feared US move on Gulf oilfields

By Rohit Jaggi in London and agencies

Published: January 1 2004 18:23 | Last Updated: January 1 2004 18:23

UK government archives, made public on Thursday, show that Britain feared
the US could move militarily to seize oilfields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Abu Dhabi if the 1973 oil crisis deepened.

According to a previously secret Defence Ministry assessment, "the threat to
wider [US] interests and ultimately to the US itself" in case of a further
threat to oil supplies "would cause them, despite their experience in
Vietnam, to consider using threats of force, or using force itself to seize
oilfields in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia".

The documents include an intelligence estimate that "the force required for
the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for the
Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi".
Invading Kuwait, in particular, would however carry the risk that "the
Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene".

The papers also include an account by Lord Cromer, then British ambassador
to Washington, of a conversation with the "uncouth" James R. Schlesinger, US
defence secretary.

Mr Schlesinger, he said, "observed that it was clear that there had been for
many years public constraints on US foreign policy and particularly the use
of the full power of the US. These constraints still existed, but it was no
longer obvious to him that the US could not use force."

And in a phrase that foreshadowed concerns about Washington's current
policies, the defence secretary added: "An interesting outcome of the Middle
East crisis was that the notion of the industrialised nations being
continuously submitted to the whims of the under-populated, under-developed
countries, particularly of the Middle East, might well change public
perceptions about the power that was available to the US and the [Nato]
alliance."

Earl Evleth wrote:

This is history but its publication in the Financial Times
indicate that some in Britain do not trust American judgment
in the Middle East still.
Earl

Earl, as others have said, enough already!
Why can't you show a little respect for this group and post your
political topics to the newsgroups where they belong?

Your posts on airline safety and terror threats have some relevance,
but this post is completely off-topic.

K

STOP your off topic anti-American trolls already!

Tim K

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
This is history but its publication in the Financial Times
indicate that some in Britain do not trust American judgment
in the Middle East still.

Earl

*****




Britain feared US move on Gulf oilfields

By Rohit Jaggi in London and agencies

Published: January 1 2004 18:23 | Last Updated: January 1 2004 18:23

UK government archives, made public on Thursday, show that Britain
feared
the US could move militarily to seize oilfields in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and
Abu Dhabi if the 1973 oil crisis deepened.

According to a previously secret Defence Ministry assessment, "the
threat to
wider [US] interests and ultimately to the US itself" in case of a
further
threat to oil supplies "would cause them, despite their experience in
Vietnam, to consider using threats of force, or using force itself to
seize
oilfields in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia".

The documents include an intelligence estimate that "the force
required for
the initial operation would be of the order of two brigades, one for
the
Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi".
Invading Kuwait, in particular, would however carry the risk that "the
Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene".

The papers also include an account by Lord Cromer, then British
ambassador
to Washington, of a conversation with the "uncouth" James R.
Schlesinger, US
defence secretary.

Mr Schlesinger, he said, "observed that it was clear that there had
been for
many years public constraints on US foreign policy and particularly
the use
of the full power of the US. These constraints still existed, but it
was no
longer obvious to him that the US could not use force."

And in a phrase that foreshadowed concerns about Washington's current
policies, the defence secretary added: "An interesting outcome of the
Middle
East crisis was that the notion of the industrialised nations being
continuously submitted to the whims of the under-populated,
under-developed
countries, particularly of the Middle East, might well change public
perceptions about the power that was available to the US and the
[Nato]
alliance."