Dean's World

If we stopped allying ourselves with and legitimizing terror-supporting states like Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and Yemen, that would be a start.

Our support of these regimes alienates potential allies in the Middle East, as Iraqi blogger Hammorabi explains.

Supporting, publicizing and legitimizing Arab/Muslim anti-insurgent groups like the Thulfiqar Army would also help.

Good post. Strategically, advancing freedom is akin to bombing the industrial centers of Germany in WW2. A theory I learned at the Belmont Club, the best place imho to get informative thought on Iraq. So what Bush saying, in a politic way, that the terrorists are losing.
Cheers!

The biggest problem with attacking Saudi Arabia, and the biggest reason to be seen as it's ally is their possession of Mecca and Medina. Rightly or wrongly the Saudis are seen as the defenders of the Faith. One of the reasons I've always wanted to fight a small war in Iraq now was to avoid fighting a large war against all of Islam later. I'm not eager to fight a a large war against all of Islam now. Conversely, if you are allied with the defender of the Faith, maybe it isn't a Crusade. Maybe it is just regime change.

The question of the Saudis is awful tricky.

Yours,
Wince, aka Tom Hawkson

Not a good day for me. Those terrorist bastards killed my co-worker's nephew yesterday. :(

I agree with Mary. It's time to knock off the touchy-feely bullshit and kick ass like we do best.

Every (non-Saudi) Muslim that I've ever talked to or read has expressed contempt for the Saudis. Even the Islamists. They call them hillbillies, usurpers, etc. The only respect they get is the respect they buy.

Any ideas I've had, or that anyone else has had about our government attacking the KSA are total fantasy. According to this article in the New Yorker, before the Iraq war, Cheney said this:

seven months before the war started, Cheney warned that Saddam would be able to seize control of the world's economic lifeline if he acquired weapons of mass destruction: "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail

"America's friends throught the region" includes Saudi Arabia. In part, the Iraq war was fought to protect our terror supporting allies.

After the war, according to this article, the plan was to give our Saudi allies more power, not less:

As in the past, the West will have to rely on the Saudi government to be the voice of moderation. “If you are sitting on a very large reserve base, as Saudi Arabia is, you don't want somebody coming along and saying, "We are really going to make a push to develop an alternative to the internal-combustion engine,’” Robert Ebel said. "You have a division of opinion within opec, but Saudi Arabia is big enough to call the shots."

Bush's meeting with Abdullah showed the world that the plan laid out in this article was true. Our government isn't just allied with the Wahhabis, our government is, for some reason, doing their best to be entirely subservient to them. Listen to our state department sometime.

And they may not even have all that much oil.

Saudi power is mostly economic. They have no respect, and they have very few friends in the Arab/Muslim world. Being honest about what we know about their support of terror in an effort to build up an alliance against them would be the first step in a genuine war against Islamist terrorism. Openly revealing proof about the government's financial support of terror and their association with terrorist groups around the world would be a second step. This information isn't hard to find, it's on google.

If foreign workers were forced to leave the KSA, and if we placed economic sanctions on them, their society would immediately disintegrate. Very few Saudis are employed, and very few of them have useful skils.If we targeted the government, not Islam, in our public relations/sanctions attack, we could avoid alienating Muslims, who never liked the Sauds in the first place.

But that's not going to happen, because, as far as I can see, the strategy illustrated in the New Yorker article is the only strategy our government has. This strategy is basically followed by Democrats and Republicans. Both appear to believe that the KSA's leader are somewhat troublesome, yet genuine allies, and they will continue to work with them, no matter what. They don't seem to have a plan B.

I doubt that the military supports our subservient alliance with the Saudis, and according to polls, the majority of Americans don't. The majority of the world's population probably doesn't, since most have nothing but contempt for Wahhabis. Since the KSA relies on their economic strength to spread terror, if we want to fight them, we have to target their economies. They rely on oil, slaves, foreign workers and the suppression of women. They have a fragile desert nation that can't produce enough food. They have an uneducated population that has few useful skills. I'm sure there are a lot of creative solutions to this problem.

And, as far as individual terrorists go, a lot of people, Instapundit included, like Ulf Hjertstrom's solution of hiring bounty hunters. It could be a trend?

It may well be that the Saudis are viewed with contempt by many in the middle east, but they are viewed as heroes by others, and by others still as better than any possible alternatives.

And, am I the only one who remembers that our very presence on Saudi soil was supposedly a major terrorist recruiting tool--and now that we have completely removed our presence from those lands, supposedly it's our presence in Iraq that's the major terrorist recruiting tool?

It might be that the House of Saud would collapse if we completely turned our backs on them, but I think it more likely they'd just cozy up to Russia, China, and some of the European powers instead. I also note that oil prices are nowhere near their historic highs; if the Saudis are doing nothing to help us, why is oil not at $100 a barrel by now? And why do they keep helping us round up terrorists?

For about two years I've been asking these question of critics of the Saudi regime and with rare exception almost no one seems to have a coherent alternative plan. But I'll admit it: the first politician who comes along who espouses a very specific, no-BS alternative plan to what we're doing will get my serious attention and quite possibly my support.

That could, I suppose, simply a detailed explanation for why pulling all our business ties and diplomats out of the kingdom would be more positive and prudent than our current carrot-and-stick approach. If that really is the best thing to do--and I'm prepared to believe it is--all someone has to do is at least try to make a convincing case.

So far I've seen no takers.

That could, I suppose, simply a detailed explanation for why pulling all our business ties and diplomats out of the kingdom would be more positive and prudent than our current carrot-and-stick approach.

The only reason to dissolve our alliance with the Saudis is the fact that, other than Afghanistan’s Taliban, Saudi Arabia is the nation that is most responsible for the 9/11 slaughter of thousands of Americans. The Saudi government financially supports and has promoted the clerics who were involved in the attack. Their chief justice has encouraged young Saudis to kill Americans in Iraq. Personally, I have no enthusiasm for our government’s willingness to make itself subservient to a Theofascist regime which has made an active effort to kill innocent Americans.

It might be that the House of Saud would collapse if we completely turned our backs on them, but I think it more likely they'd just cozy up to Russia, China, and some of the European powers instead.

That's another reason for this "alliance". We seem to think that the Saudis are our own personal pit bull - our alliance with them does scare the Russians and the Chinese, and they do envy us for it.

But, usually, when the pit bull eats a couple of the kids, it's time to put the pit bull down. Again, 9/11 should have been reason enough to dissolve the alliance.


I also note that oil prices are nowhere near their historic highs; if the Saudis are doing nothing to help us, why is oil not at $100 a barrel by now?

Because if oil was $100 a barrel, we would develop alternative technologies like pebble bed nuclear reactors, hydrogen/hybrid cars, solar power in the south, wind in the north &central states, etc. The difference between bin Laden’s Wahhabi philosophy and the Saudi royals Wahhabi philosophy is just a matter of patience – he wants to destroy us now, they want to destroy us after they’ve made enough money. Hitler stayed in power by making sure that Germans were well cared-for by the state. The Saudi people don’t have to work, they have maid/slaves, they don’t have to get an education, they are the most pampered population on the planet. That’s how the royals stay in power. They know that the only friends they have are the ones they buy.

And why do they keep helping us round up terrorists?

Why did Carlo Gambino try to whack Joe Columbo? Because there was a family argument. They argue, but they share the same outlook and philosophy.

If I wasn't so disgusted with politics right now, after all this effort I'd probably ask you to vote for me :-)

It's not clear how al Jazeera feels about Saudi Arabia. Their coverage of the decline in Saudi oil production and possible problems with their supply has been pretty extensive. A lot more extensive than it is here in the states.

I also note that oil prices are nowhere near their historic highs; if the Saudis are doing nothing to help us, why is oil not at $100 a barrel by now?

Because the Saudis can't make that happen.

What can they do?

If they stop selling all of their oil, prices would increase dramatically, yes - but the Saudi Royal Family would suffer from nearly instant upheaveal and probably all end up dead on the end of short ropes. The only think keeping Saudi Arabia even halfway functioning as a state is a welfare system propped up by oil money... and they don't have any savings to speak of. Oil is life, as far as they're concerned.

Likewise, trying to get OPEC to curtail production isn't going to work; every other nation has a giant incentive to cheat the quota, and this hurts their other allies, like the EU and China, more.

It's not clear how al Jazeera feels about Saudi Arabia.

No, but it is clear how Al Jazeera feels about the United States. So they amend the story to "the U.S. bombed Mecca/Medina, and the House of Saud did nothing to stop them."

Same effect.