One of the true "root causes" of terrorism is the Saudi government. The Saudi royal family came to power by exploiting a radical, violent fringe element within Islam called Wahhabism. They have kept power largely by performing a decades-long balancing act, between friendly relations with the West and friendly relations with hatemongers who teach that Israel and America are the cause of the Islamic world's woes. This balancing act has exacted a price, however: the Saud family lives in constant fear both of angering the West and of angering the extremist element within their nation. Since their only real interest is staying in power, they constantly play both sides against each other.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had a very interesting interview on NPR yesterday, in which the following exchange occurred:
Q: But the presence of -- I have to take you back one more time after the Gulf War. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia has been one of the most inflammatory things for al Qaeda and groups like that. That they see U.S. occupation or U.S. presence in that country as something that they must fight against. How would it be any different in Iraq?As I've said many times, and will keep saying, our best route to victory in the war on terror is to take out the regime of Saddam Hussein.Wolfowitz: First of all, let's talk about Saudi Arabia. We won't need troops in Saudi Arabia when there's no longer an Iraqi threat. The Saudi problem will be transformed. In Iraq, first of all the Iraqi population is completely different from the Saudi population. The Iraqis are among the most educated people in the Arab world. They are by and large quite secular. They are overwhelmingly Shia which is different from the Wahabis of the peninsula, and they don't bring the sensitivity of having the holy cities of Islam being on their territory. They are totally different situations. But the most fundamental difference is that, let me put it this way. We're seeing today how much the people of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe appreciate what the United States did to help liberate them from the tyranny of the Soviet Union. I think you're going to see even more of that sentiment in Iraq.
There's not going to be the hostility that you described Saturday. There simply won't be.
Q: I don't mean within Iraq necessarily, but external to Iraq.
Wolfowitz: It's hard to see how people externally can complain if the Iraqi people are saying these people came and liberated us.
It is, no question, a deeply humanitarian cause. The people of Iraq are suffering, need liberation and deserve democracy. It is equally in our interest to do this, for it helps us solve several other problems at once. It allows us to avoid another North Korea, i.e. another regime that can blackmail us because it already has nuclear weapons. It gets rid of at least one regime that we know funds terrorism in Israel and, by extension, in the West.
All of that is true. But it also shows the Saudis and other Arab dictators that, long-term, they're better off backing the U.S. than backing the Islamic extremists, while reducing tensions within the region that the status quo causes.
This is, I think, the closest anyone from the administration has come to telling the naked truth about that last part: yes, there are strong humanitarian reasons for doing this, and long-term security reasons for doing it. But the leverage it gives us in dealing with certain regimes, and the alleviation of certain headaches, is incalculably valuable.
(I heard the interview yesterday on NPR, and found the link via Samizdata.)
A thought just occurred to me: we won't need troops in Saudi Arabia anymore, not because Iraq won't be a threat at all, but because it won't be a threat to us. I can see some future scenario, après Iraq, where the Saudis start making "oh, we can't control the extremists anymore" blackmail noises, and we remind them of the troops still stations across the border in Iraq and reply, "A sphincter says what?"
I don't have any trouble with that scenario.
Dean,
The Saudis are in for one big awakening. Their playing both ends against the middle cannot last forever. The best chance we in the west have vis a vis the Arab world is to somehow purge this Wahabbist strain out of Arab society. The Saudis are stuck with these Wahabbis, however. What they do with them will be interesting.
Barry Rubin recently wrote a terrific article for Foreign Affairs describing the extent to which the Anti-Americanism of the middle east is as much a result of the corrupt leasers as it is American Policies. By focusing their populations on blaming the evil of America, regimes like Iraq and Saudi Arabia are able to channel criticism away from the their own corruptions. Once a few of these regimes capitulate we'll probably see a decrease in Anti-American activity.
One small observation --
Wolfowitz: We're seeing today how much the people of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe appreciate what the United States did to help liberate them from the tyranny of the Soviet Union.
True enough. But the situation will be different in Iraq than it was in Poland. Our tanks didn't roll down the streets of Gdansk or Krakow in support of Solidarity.
Will that earn us even more admiration? Hope so.
But strictly speaking, the two situations are different.
I hope they yield the same end result.
Dean,
Thanks for keeping this issue active - I haven't seen it addressed on enough of the other blogs I frequent and I agree with you that it is absolutely key to the entire war on terrorism. The question of whether Saddam is linked to Osama, al Queda, or 9/11, or whether it can be proven or not, is almost entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
I have been hit by Murphy too many times to believe that things in the mideast will go this well. Indeed, were I to think that Iraq were not so great an evil, I would be thoroughly against this future war. The outcome you describe is far too complicated to be at all realistic...
Having said that; if tomorrow President Bush were to announce that American forces were marching on Riyadh, I would cheer. There can be no peace in the world as long as the house of Sa’ud survives. Some day there will be a reckoning; the sooner that day comes the safer we all are...
The only way to guarantee failure is never try at all.
Mr. Strawn:
You are, of course, correct. But consider: The reason I am so in favor of this War (well, at least am willing to have a war, I would much prefer Saddam had a stroke this afternoon and we were invited in. I’m not holding my breath) is that there is a high likelihood of a strongly positive short-term outcome. The hope that it will leave us in position to pull out of Saudi Arabia is not as good a reason. If it were the only reason, this war would be on shaky ground at best...
Consider what a bank-shot this is: We are hoping to knock our military into Iraq so that Iranian students will be emboldened to overthrow their government. This is to be followed by an implosion of the house of Sa’ud. With the fall of that branch of evil, the whole Islamic world should be open to ideological conquest. Did I get that right?
Does this not sound insane to anyone else? I’d give it a 5% chance at best. Don’t get me wrong, I am impressed with it’s subtlety, but there seems to be too much wishful thinking and supposition for my taste. I do tend to think of this (Iraq) war as being a separate event from the War on Terror. Perhaps that is what separates us on this issue...
But hell, let’s give it a shot. The worst that happens is that the Iraqi people are freed...
We simply cannot pressure the Sauds in any meaningful way without Iraq. Iran isn't even important - it would be nice to see, but they have nothing significant to do with the war on state-sponsored terrorism (at least nothing I've heard about so far).
This is all wishful thinking when one considers that democratic muslim countries like Algeria and Turkey have voted for fundamentalist Islamic and quasi-Islamic parties last time they were given a choice at the ballot box. I find it hard to believe that the Muslim world is ready for democracy.
CJ
Oh, I don't expect taking Iraq to cause an immediate domino effect toward freedom.
I merely note that our ability to lean hard on the Sauds, not to mention Syria and Iran, goes up substantially. Yes, we can remove our troops from Saudi Arabia too--they're only there now to protect the Sauds from Saddam. Which removes one source of tension.
But the point is the leverage we gain.
I am surprised that anyone thinks Iran's not a threat. There's a lot of evidence that they're a hothouse of terrorist groups and a source of terrorist weapons. Once again, however, our ability to deal with them goes up once we're in Bagdad.
It gives me hope that Wolfowitz (or anyone in the administration) is aware of the dynamics of the region.
OK, well just color me ignorant on Iran. I haven't seen anything on it.
>>Barry Rubin recently wrote a terrific article for Foreign Affairs describing the extent to which the Anti-Americanism of the middle east is as much a result of the corrupt leaders as it is American Policies. By focusing their populations on blaming the evil of America, regimes like Iraq and Saudi Arabia are able to channel criticism away from the their own corruptions. Once a few of these regimes capitulate we'll probably see a decrease in Anti-American activity.
mike,
I agree with your argument. I personally the Arabs have made a mess of things in the Middle East in general; and for themselves in particular. Arab governments have motivated their populations to blame not only America; but they also convince their citizens to blame Israel, Britain, France, et. al, for decades.
I do not believe democracy will solve all their problems. But having a free press will at least force Arabs citizens to seriously address their own problems.
Please recall the French experience with “waiting.” They stood by, waited, and did nothing while Hitler invaded and plundered her ally in treaty, Czechoslovakia in 1938. She also stood, waited, and did nothing when Hitler anschlussed Austria the year before. France also did nothing when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. Sure, France declared war on Hitler; but France never attacked Hitler in 1939. Why? Perhaps she was just too chicken. Hitler’s entire western flank was unguarded, unprotected throughout 1939 while France’s ally, Poland suffered the full weight of Nazi tyranny. Instead of attacking her enemy, France timidly waited for the German attack in 1940, eventually surrendering in six weeks.
France has much experience executing timid foreign policy and surrendering. France is the only country to lose to the Italians twice. The cost of timidly fighting a war is high. America may pay a higher price than 9/11 if she does not attack her terrorist enemies overwhelmingly, powerfully, and swiftly. America must eliminate Saddam Hussein since he provides succor for these enemies. Distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is more semantic than substantive. He must go.
I wonder if any of the foundations alluded to by Daniel Henninger are the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Endowment for the Arts. Alger Hiss's last job before facing trial was chairing the Carnegie Endowment.