Posted on 12/16/2006 4:39:09 PM PST by Valin
The sands are shifting in the Saudi kingdom,...
The questions began with the out-of-the-blue resignation of Saudi Ambassador to the United States Turki al-Faisal on Monday. Prince Turki said he resigned to spend more time with his family -- the usual excuse given for abrupt diplomatic departures -- but his absence has raised questions in Washington regarding the stability of the Saudi royal family.
There is no question that Prince Turki's brother, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, is ailing, and that Prince Turki would want to ensure the al-Faisal faction stays intact by assuming his position should Saud end up dying or become incapacitated. But sources in the Saudi Embassy and personal friends of Prince Turki have recently indicated that he is not held in high regard by Saudi King Abdullah and could not be getting a promotion after all.
Prince Turki assumed his ambassadorship in Washington after Prince Bandar bin Sultan left the position in June 2005 (also citing personal reasons). Soon after Sultan returned to Riyadh, he assumed an elite position as the secretary-general of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council (NSC) -- a recent creation by King Abdullah that was designed to formalize the decision-making process in the Saudi political system and consolidate power for the Sudeiri clan. Prince Turki, meanwhile, was expected to put a fresh face on Saudi Arabia's diplomatic offices in Washington, but apparently did not see eye-to-eye with King Abdullah on a number of issues.
Tensions between Prince Turki and King Abdullah escalated in the wake of the summer war in Lebanon, when the prince furiously objected to private meetings between Prince Bandar and the Israelis. These were primarily consultations on how to put a lid on Iranian aggressions in the region, and had the approval of King Abdullah.
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com ...
I bet it is hard to have a Monarch gov't in a world obsessed with democracy. If the USA is so PRO Democracy, why do they bend over backwards to be so nice to their ruler King?
Anyone who has dealt with a any of the 50,000 (low ball estimate) Saudi princes, will they tell they are only interested in their own wealth and power.
Why?
Money.
Denial.
Sloth.
Habit.
Stupidity.
There are a couple of reasons
"The King Who Would Be Reformer; Is There a Silver Lining Behind the New Saud?
MEMRI / The Weekly Standard ^ | 8/24/05 | Stephen Schwartz
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1475617/posts
"The King Who Would Be Reformer; Is There a Silver Lining Behind the New Saud? ," By Stephen Schwartz.
ON AUGUST 2, CROWN Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, a man in his early 80s, ascended the throne of Saudi Arabia--and all hopes for reform in the Saudi kingdom began to be put to the test. For years, Saudi dissidents had speculated that Abdullah alone among the sons of Ibn Saud (1880-1953), founder of the kingdom, understood the dangers to Arabian society represented by Wahhabism, the extreme Islamic sect that Ibn Saud made the state religion. No tyranny lasts forever, and it was inevitable that economic and social development in the peninsula would undermine the alliance, based on intermarriage, of the governing House of Saud and the House of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, responsible for ideology and religion.
Popular opinion had it that one of Abdullah's four wives (out of some 30 he has married over the years) was Syrian, cosmopolitan, and had influenced him to tolerate Islamic and other intellectual unorthodoxy. It was further said that Abdullah encouraged the private practice of Sufism, or Islamic spirituality, and various traditional Islamic customs rigorously suppressed since the Wahhabi takeover in the 1920s. One forbidden observance--common among Muslims from West Africa to Indonesia--is the commemoration of the birthday of Muhammad, which the Wahhabis and Saudis reject on the ground that it resembles the Christian celebration of Jesus' birth.
Late last year when he was still only crown prince, Abdullah lent credence to speculation about his sympathies when he appeared at the funeral of Seyed Mohammad Alawi Al-Maliki, a non-Wahhabi cleric and leading Sufi teacher.
(snip)
_______________________________________
The same reason we supported Stalin in WWII, The Shah of Iran, Zia ul-Haq, and a host of other dictators in the Cold war. Because the alternative was worse.
I'm reminded of something Churchill said "If Hitler invaded hell, I'd find something good to say about the devil."
_______________________________________
One word OIL. As bad as the family Saud is, and make no mistake these guy's can be real scumbags.
As FDR said of the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza: "He may be an s.o.b., but he's our s.o.b.!"
Once again remember the alternative to the family Saud is going to be much much MUCH worse.
I would also direct you to my tagline.
Iran (and AQ also) is trying to force them to pick a side. Creating the Hezbollah induced war, and exterminating Sunnis in Iraq, they want to drive a split in the Saudi govt and create disruption there.
In "The Secret History Of The Iraq War" Yossef Bodansky talks about the low level civil war going on inside the family Saud. Unfortunately the book is not footnoted so you just have to take his say so on it.
Because it's not footnoted I cannot recomend it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.