A couple of weeks ago, Lance Cummings over at Mud On My Shoes posted an interesting article entitled Why Won't the Saudis Let Us Land? We had some email correspondence about it, and I've been meaning to post about it since. I just got busy with September 11th and other things.
Mr. Cummings asks a salient question. His answer to his own question is that the Saudis are dragging their feet because and end to Saddam Hussein would reduce their ability to set oil prices. I think that, whatever the merits of this argument, there's far more to it.
The biggest issue that I think most people don't get is that the House of Saud is afraid.
The Royal Family of Saudi Arabia has no particularly strong historical position for claiming sovereignty over "Arabia." "Arabia" was essentially created by the British less than a century ago, and the Saud family got control of it in large part through luck, political maneuvering and trickery. They have little ancient claim over most of that land. They were, essentially, anointed by the British. Moreover, they have little historical claim to be the proper people to oversee Mecca and Medinah.
In order to gain "legitimacy," one thing the ruling family did generations ago was to embrace a fundamentalist variant of Islam called Wahhabbism. At the time it made sense; as a very fundamentalist variant of Islam, it seemed a respectable choice. No one could ever accuse the House of Saud of "liberalizing" and therefore destroying the "traditional" faith.
But if you read much about the House of Saud, you'll know that among the thousands of Princes who make up the Royal Family, few are very devout--no moreso than Saddam Hussein, anyway. For generations they've promoted Wahhabbism with money and other resources to make themselves seem more legitimate to the people they ruled, and to their Muslim neighbors. However, as Wahhabbism has grown more reactionary against the West, they've wound up stuck between two conflicting forces: a West they depend on for money and protection, and a rabidly anti-Western religious zealotry which hates the West but which the House of Saud helped to nurture.
Now some of the zealots have become even more radicalized and have begun blowing up Americans as well as Israelis. Leaving the Sauds stuck between their Western sugar daddy and the religious extremists who they helped nurture.
Adding further injury has been that oil prices have been slowly declining for decades. Many Americans are startled to hear that, but different analysts have done the math and have come to the same conclusion: in inflation-adjusted dollars, oil has been trending downward in price for decades. There may be upward spikes now and then, but oil mostly just gets cheaper and cheaper.
The Sauds were at their wealthiest in the 1970s, when price controls imposed by the U.S. government made them able to sell less oil for greater profit. Those price controls were abolished in 1981, and within a year or so prices (and their profits) resumed their downward trend. The OPEC cartel and its production quotas are merely a band-aid used to stanch a pumping hemorrhage.
This is a major problem because the middle class Saudi Arabia (such that exists) has long been bought off by the House of Saud with a long list of "free" government services paid for by oil money. Yet their oil revenues have been steadily declining for the last generation.
So. Where is the House of Saud today?
1) Steadily losing money, no matter what they do.
2) Facing a restless middle class that's having to adjust to steadily worsening government "services" brought to them "free" by steadily decreasing oil revenues.
3) Facing an internal group of religious zealots who have grown, like Frankenstein's Monster, beyond their control.
4) Facing a maniac named Saddam Hussein next door who would love an excuse to declare them lapdogs to the infidel Americans and "rescue" Mecca and Medina (and the rest of their country) from their rule.
5) Facing an irate America that knows their funding of radical Islam is partly what's fueled the terrorist movement.
On the last, while America has troops protecting them, they have no reason to believe right now that we'll protect them beyond a certain point. If they face internal revolt, or an attack by Saddam Hussein, many of them will die and those who don't face poverty and/or exhile and/or both. Given the wobbly support for the war among Americans, and the dovish reactionaries of the EU and the UN, they have no reason to be confident that the American Cavalry would come to their rescue--not on time to save them from extinction as a ruling house, anyway.
So what do they do?
1) Continue to try desperately to make themselves look like good Wahhabbists not acting as lapdogs to the Americans,
2) Continue to try desperately to pacify the Americans without looking like they're pacifying the Americans,
3) Continue to try to pacify their increasingly irate citizenry,
4) Continue to blame Israel for everything, in order to deflect attention from themselves, and
5) Give us what small or covert assistance they feel they can--mainly by avoiding opposing us outright, and giving us minor things like flyover rights.
Note on #5 that they could easily pressure regimes like Qatar not to assist us. They could easily ask us to remove all our troops and attempt to raise oil prices to harm us (although that hurts them even more than us). They could even expel our ambassador, seize all our assetts, and attempt to unite the entire Muslim world against us. Just by doing that they might be able to cause Musharaaf to be overthrown, causing us to lose Pakistan and most likely Afghanistan.
The Sauds' current stance cannot be maintained forever. At the same time, it goes far to explain why we engage in these strange games with them. It's why you see people like Rumsfeld and Powell at press interviews saying stuff like this:
Rummie: "The Saudis have helped us."
Reporter: "How so, Mr. Secretary?"
Rummie: "They've done everything we've asked them to do, of course. Next question!"
Not long ago I said that Saudi Arabia is both our enemy and our ally. Bill Quick pooh-poohed this and said that it is simply not true. Well, it simply is true. They're doing small things to help us, and avoiding doing huge things that could cause us no end of harm. They're playing both sides of the fence until they are sure which is their safest course.
Basically, they're pigs. But for the moment, we have to lie down with them. Whether we like it or not.
In short: They won't let us use their bases to launch sorties or other attacks but will quietly give us flyover rights. They'll help us catch terrorists, but only halfheartedly and grudgingly. They'll stand next to us in press conferences and pretend to be our friends, hoping it doesn't look too bad to the Wahhabbist lunatics at home, all while they bash Israel and feed the anti-Israel media machine.
Internally, the Crown Prince will also continue to ride herd on the forces who want us to stay out of Iraq, but will still make occasional outbursts saying he hopes we won't take Iraq. Even while he does little things to help us do it anyway.
Nothing changes until they are 100% sure Saddam Hussein is going down. After that, don't be surprised if suddenly there's a "near miraculous" change in their attitude. On almost everything.
I'll burn no candles for them when they finally fall. [Spit]
Dean,
Nice work on your article. However, I do have a couple of issues with your essay.
1.) "they could cause us to lose Pakistan and most likely Afghanistan."
This line, and the paragraph preceding it, are speculation, purely. If Saudi Arabia made clear their intentions to harm US interests, there would certainly be hell to pay.
The Saudis are hostage to their radical populace, where the average citizen believes that Jews drink blood - as well as to their capitalist brothers (US) who buy their oil and supply their oil rigging technology.
2.) "The Royal Family of Saudi Arabia has no real historical position for claiming sovereignty over "Arabia." "Arabia" was essentially created by the British less than a century ago, and the "House of Saud" royal family got control of it in large part through political maneuvering and trickery."
The implication of this reasoning is that they are illegitimate rulers, in historical terms. You might replace "Saudis" with "Anglo-Americans", and "Arabia" with "America", in the first line, as well as the last.
The point seems to me to be irrelevant to your topic, as rulers aren't decided (usually) based upon historic claims. Manuevering, conquest, etc. - these are the good old fashioned ways of taking over land.
Remember, your point is also used by Leftists claiming that Native Americans own the US, and Black Americans are owed reparations.
Otherwise, congrats on a timely and thorough look at the lunatics that we call our allies.
Bartkiw, America is a democracy, this is where it derives its legitimacy. Non-democracies must attempt to claim legitimacy in other ways.
It goes without saying that people named Dean are wise and intelligent beyond the ways of normal men. So I hate to argue with Dean Bartkiw. :-)
However, I think my comments about what the Sauds could do to our alliances are less speculation than a description of risk. Is it one we should take, here and now? I'd say no. Not until our position is stronger within the Middle East as a whole.
As for the "legitimacy" of the Sauds: You are completely correct that regimes exist because they were able to force the issue. However, that's an objective position. Subjectively, monarchies depend on some sort of historical context for claiming their legitimacy to hold the throne. Doubly so for one ruling over the Holiest Cities in the Muslim world.
There was no "Arabia" before the British created it, and there was no "Royal Family" before the British recognize the Sauds to be one.
It is not in the interests of this family to remind their people or their neighbors of this uncomfortable fact. They hold Mecca and Medina, and a quasi-theocracy helped them pull that off with some degree of credibility to their fellow Muslims. It's biting them on the ass now, but it also still gives them a power in the Arab world--a power that it would be perilous for us to ignore.
Dean,
What you say is true, mostly.
{{{{{There was no "Arabia" before the British created it, and there was no "Royal Family" before the British recognize the Sauds to be one. }}}}}
{{{{{It is not in the interests of this family to remind their people or their neighbors of this uncomfortable fact. }}}}}
The first statement is completely true - and important. However, if the Saudis were to remind their people of anything, it might be the truth. The truth is that before the royal family, there was pure tribalism. Arguably, the Sauds brought some measure of stability to the territory.
On some level, we are chasing each others respective tail. We agree on the larger issue. But I give the Sauds legitimacy, insofar as there was no coup or violent revolution, per se.
That being said, the people of Saudi Arabia could benefit from a regime change. And THAT being said, these largely ignorant people (and their demented beliefs) would surely end up right back where they started.
The ignorance runs too deep. If not for this key fact, I believe we would force regime change.
Thanks for the link!
Oh, and I see your prediction is coming true.
Click Here for Mud On My Shoes Reader Alert
The Saudis are now considering allowing the U.S. to use our bases in Saudi Arabia as a jumping off point for strikes against Iraq as long as military action against Iraq had "UN sanction."
Bwaahahahahaha! Don't you just love it?
"Well if the U.N. decides to act then of course we will cooperate. But of course we hope they don't do it!"
Weasely pigs.
I incorrectly identified the bases in Saudi Arabia as our bases. They are actually provided at the generous expenditure of our Saudi "allies." Over $1.07 billion according to this article about Prince Sultan Air Base.
You say that the House of Saud was annointed by the British with no historical precedent. I'm no supporter of the Sauds, but this is simply not true.
Muhammad bin Saud made a deal with the Wahhabis over Arabia as long ago as 1744. Soon thereafter the Wahhabis and the Sauds -- as allies -- challenged the rule of the Ottoman Empire in Arabia. The Ottomans even sent the rebellious governor of Egypt to Arabia to quell the rebellion, hoping to kill two birds with one stone.
What I mean to say here is that the House of Saud has been involved in the politics of "Arabia" for centuries.
During World War I the Saudis received Allied backing to attack the Ottomans (see "Lawrence of Arabia") -- and this is why they were annointed by the British. There was precedent, though.
Uhm, well, I don't dispute most of that, George, but the Sauds were not the only people in that area who claimed sovereignty, and there was a lot of politicking--the Sauds were just the eventual winners. "Lawrence of Arabia" is a great movie but it's historically inaccurate--for example, the character played by Alec Guiness in that particular movie was not a member of the House of Saud!
Rumor has it a submitter is going to write something up on this, so I'm going to defer further comments for now.
Say what you will, but you gotta include the latest screed from Mark Helprin.
Say what you will, but he ain't your garden variety Bush-basher. He's a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. Also a famed speechwriter for Bob Dole's 1996 campaign.
He published the following as a part of a larger piece in the OpinionJournal.com web site on Monday, 9/16/02:
Among [this administration's] equivocations is the failure to recognize Saudi Arabia as the ideological, diplomatic, financial, organizational, and strategic center of the new terrorism: ideological in its exportation of intolerant Wahhabism; diplomatic in coordinating opposition to American military action in the Gulf; financial in its subsidy of al Qaeda and other terrorists; organizational in providing personnel, infrastructure, and access to the U.S.; and strategic in that it is the depository of great wealth, the center of mass, and the blocker of crucial routes of invasion.
Terrorism is not diffuse, but has refuges, points of concentration, and headquarters.
Afghanistan was only a remote base of Saudi-inspired direct action, and now Saudi Arabia will not permit us to pass through it on our way to neutralize Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, because it must view them, much as we view Britain's nuclear arsenal, as an asset rather than a threat.
The timing of Helprin's rant is curious, coming out on the same day that the Saudis seemingly "acquiesced" to international pressure. That said, it only validates the other things he says about the Kingdom.
"Weasly pigs", indeed!
But with friends like Helprin, the Republicans don't need Democrats.
I don't think Helprin's wrong, per se. No more than others who criticize the Saudis, or even carp about the Bushies not coming down on them.
What I will continue to criticize is those who will not say exactly what they would rather the Bushies do. And I say once again: unless you are willing to advocate open warfare with them (which I wouldn't necessarily oppose, although I think that would be a huge mistake right now), then the only sensible solution, for today, is to get whatever minor concessions you can from them until Bagdad goes down. Because there are only a few choices:
1) Declare War
2) Be very rude
3) Make demands we can't back up with any real threat of force
4) Make nice and get what concessions we can until we are in a position to make firmer demands.
Once Bagdad does fall to our forces, #4 becomes much more viable. But you do not dictate terms to tyrants that you cannot or will not back up with force.
Just being rude to them would satisfy some people at home, but what else would it accomplish, except to complicate all our other objectives?
Are we ready for outright war with them? Should we do other things to prepare before we do that?
In a sense, though, I think editorials like Helprin's are useful. People in Saudi Arabia read our newspapers. Rattling their cage strikes me as a fine thing. Domestically, such criticism can only harm the Bushies if the Democrats are willing to step up and say, "Declare war on Saudi Arabia!" Which, being the party they are today, they would probably never do.
Dean, I blogged this and linked to you because I think this is a very fine analysis of a complex, subtle situation and that you are right on the money (or very close to it!).
Thanks for your keen mind and sharing its fruit with us!
Best op ed on Saudi that I've seen anywhere in the past year--and I've seen alot!