Article

2003-05-14 Arabia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-05-14 12:45 pm|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm conflicted. What measure of support do we provide to the current Saudi regime? The context to answer must include what the alternative to the existing regime would be. If we provide the same level of support as in the past, do we not simply carry forward with the status quo and allow the Saudi regime to continue to ride on our military? However, too less and we risk losing S.A. to the radical camp.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-14 13:16:24|| 2003-05-14 13:16:24|| Front Page Top

#2 I've wondered about that, too, CC. I sense there is a prioritization of battles in the WoT within the Bush administration, perhaps based on urgency: Afghanistan first, then Iraq; then Syria, Iran, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, with the order in which they will be fought not yet apparent.

Many criticize Bush for "sucking up to" the Saudi royal family, and conspiracy theories involving the Saudis and the Bush family abound; but I have a hard time believing Bush & Co. aren't fully aware that Saudi Arabia is a big part (even the biggest part) of the terrorism problem, or that they aren't fully committed to dealing with the Saudi problem.

But how to explain the apparent "kid glove" approach we've been taking to the Saudis? I think the answer is that the Saudis are being left til the later stages of this war, in part to see what they can accomplish on their own without US military intervention or other harsh treatment. If, after we've disposed of Syria and Iran and NorK, the Saudis finally see the light, then good; if they don't... well we'll deal with that when we must.

Certainly, articles like this one are a good sign, if nothing else.

Posted by Dave D. 2003-05-14 14:23:55|| 2003-05-14 14:23:55|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not conflicted. The regime has enough money to buy the kind of support it needs. It doesn't need fighter jets and high technology -- it needs the will to crack down on the ground. The "royal family" is not in danger from the radical camp unless it proves to be too soft on the ground. It's just a matter of time before the radicals directly attack the royals. Then we'll see if the royals have what it takes.

Posted by Tom 2003-05-14 14:26:29|| 2003-05-14 14:26:29|| Front Page Top

#4 Personally, I think that Saudi was not dealt with immediately because we DID need there oil. Now, we'll soon be able to buy oil from the Iraqis.

No, I'm not suggesting that we went to war with Iraq to "steal their oil," but I do, personally, believe that its presence was a factor in the timing. With Iraq's oil fully on the market, the Saudis lever will be gone. Much easier to get them to "listen to reason" in that situation.

It's also the kind of thing that you can't pukblicly talk about.

Posted by Ralph 2003-05-14 15:16:06|| 2003-05-14 15:16:06|| Front Page Top

#5 There is another, purely military issue here. The Saudi public is nowhere near as oppressed as the Iraqi people were. In fact, if we tried to pull a military operation without Saudi consent, i.e., invaded the country, we'd be facing a very hostile populace and all that entails. You'd be in a true colonial situation, which we don't want to be in. You don't want your guys constantly facing guerrilla war in a place where the people support guerrillas. Look at Iraq. The people didn't support the regime and, for the most part, didn't support those who tried to wage a guerilla war...that's why things went well...it was a true liberation.

I don't think you'd have that now in SA....

I think this means we're stuck with helping the Saudi royals as much as possible now without overt, massive intervention.

That said, we could indeed wage a Black Ops war in SA, if the Saudis backed it.

Key question: has the Saudi military been completely compromised by Al Queda? If yes, there will be coup. If no, it should be possible to find out who the traitors are.

Also: if the military isn't heavily compromised, the Al Queda must have training camps. Those can be found and destroyed with small units.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-05-15 01:47:38|| 2003-05-15 01:47:38|| Front Page Top

09:19 Hiryu
08:51 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
08:45 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
07:43 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
07:24 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
02:27 R. McLeod
02:18 R. McLeod
02:04 R. McLeod
01:55 R. McLeod
01:48 R. McLeod
01:47 R. McLeod
01:38 R. McLeod
01:28 R. McLeod
00:27 Bomb-a-rama
23:02 mojo
22:57 mojo
22:50 Paul Moloney
22:32 The Kid
22:23 Dishman
22:03 badanov
21:57 NamVet
21:45 badanov
21:21 Fred
20:48 Aris Katsaris