Saudi prince says Arabs back US on Iraq

UPI | 9/11/02

[kattracks]

CAIRO, Sep 11, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Saudi Prince Talal bin Abdul Aziz said Wednesday the Arabs back a U.S. strike to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and that publicly expressed opposition to such a move was merely propaganda for local consumption.

"There is a covert Arab-Western consensus on the need to topple Saddam," Talal told the Egyptian opposition daily al Wafd.

Talal, a half brother of King Fahd, is well known for his calls for reform in Saudi Arabia, such as his approval of Western-style elections, a practice unknown in the kingdom.

"When the Arabs claim that they are against hitting Iraq, they just want to appease Arab public opinion and because they fear innocent people in Iraq being harmed," he said.

Talal played down as exaggerated and blown out of proportion the ill effects that Arab countries say they fear U.S. military action would have. Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the 22-nation Arab League, said last week such action would open the gates of hell and cause major instability in the Middle East.

"The negative consequences already exist as the Arabs are divided and cannot agree on anything that might help the Iraqi people, in addition to the fact that Israel is playing with us," Talal said.

The prince, who holds no official post in his country, said a U.S. strike was inevitable and the U.S. administration was determined to topple Saddam, though it had not fixed when or how it was to be done.

The United States intends to change the regime in Baghdad even if international weapons inspectors return to Iraq, he said.

The whole world, including Arab states, Talal said, want the intervention to be backed by the international community and approved by the United Nations.

"Even Russia and France are seeking to safeguard their interests in Iraq regardless of who is president," he said, adding, "They all want a share of the cake in Iraq which sits on the world's second-largest oil reserves."

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.

[The Vast Right Wing]

Is today April fools? Tick, Tick, Tick...

[madvlad]

Russia, China, et al can have their cake after
we take down Iraq. But we calls da shots
regardin' da oil!

Are the Saudis talkin' out their rectums
again or is this legit?

Mad Vlad

[Monty22]

Reminds me SO much of before our first war with Iraq..

Everyone against it, until we 'convinced' them to be for us, or against us.

Well europe, russia, china? Where are you going to stand this time?

[dfwgator]

The Prince is absolutely correct. Arab leaders must always play to public consumption even against their own wishes. Even Nasser wanted no part of fighting Israel, but knew his keeping power depended on ""rattling the sword.

[Dog Gone]

Well, here's my nomination for the next Saudi Prince to die mysteriously.

[Tai_Chung]

If Arab countries were not 2-faced and publicly demanded Iraq accept all UN resolutions or face military attack, the Middle East would be a better place.

[jae471]

Are the Saudis talkin' out their rectums again or is this legit?

Talal has always been pro-west. He is probably sincere in his statement, but they may not be the views of Abdullah.

[EternalHope]

"There is a covert Arab-Western consensus on the need to topple Saddam," Talal told the Egyptian opposition daily al Wafd.

So covert it's invisible.

Sounds like the kind of guy with a bridge he'd like to sell us. Maybe some beach front property in Arizona, too...

[marron]

I love it.

I had come to the conclusion that once the Saudis had a good look at the abyss, they would stand up and salute the flag.

They would publicly mourn our dead, and publicly support the invasion of Iraq.

They are doing both. The alternative is a definitive break with the US, and the Saud family would not survive such a rupture.

They may not, anyway. Once secular, quasi-democratic rule is established in Baghdad, currents will be set in motion that will very likely bring down the monarchy.

My recommendation to them is to get ahead of the curve; to form a parliament, political parties that represent the various factions within the Saud family, and place on big toe carefully, but firmly, into the 20th century.

And send the mullahs packing, once and for all.

[witnesstothefall]

Once secular, quasi-democratic rule is established in Baghdad, currents will be set in motion that will very likely bring down the monarchy

Good points, although the currents dooming the House of Saud began running long ago. Osama is merely the latest manifestation of the movement I believe we're both referring to...

[eno_]

Naw, this is the one that got a clue from the recent demise of his cousins.

[marron]

I'm thinking cross currents.

The Saud family since the 1700's have been wedded to the Wahabists. This worked just fine as long as Arabia was isolated from the outside world.

In the present circumstance, Wahabism has become a movement that they can only barely control; its like setting a wildfire, and racing ever faster to stay ahead of the fire you just set, lest it consume you too.

At the same time that they have turned their radicals loose on the world, and loose against themselves, there are generations of Saudis who have been educated abroad, and who do not want to live under the whip of a barely literate mullah.

The causeway to Bahrain is full of Saudis crossing over to take their wives dancing, or to dinner. Or going to have a drink at a restaurant.

There is tremendous pressure from their own people to ease up; not to throw out the whole culture, but to allow at least some freedom. Not necessarily to be California, as much of what they see in the US is disturbing to them, the crack ghettoes, the broken families, and such. But they want the freedom from rule by imbeciles. For women to work at normal jobs, for people to get normal academic education, for women to be able to drive a car.

To be able to state an opinion publicly.

Most of this is impossible, not so much because of the Saud family, as many of the Saud's are as modern as anyone, but because of the Sauds' fear of the Wahabist backlash, and the fear of what will happen if they lose control of the mullahs.

Right now, Saudis who want freedom have to vacation in Paris, or New York. When freedom is just across the line in Baghdad, when the Bahrainis no longer fear the Saudis, when the Kuwaitis look to Baghdad for whats new... When the US Army is no longer dependent on Saudi and Kuwaiti good will for its basing necessities, a lot is going to change.

The Sabah and Saud families will find the earth shifting under their feet. The mullahs will find resentment building against them that their sponsors in the royal family will not be able to suppress.

At least, this is how I see it from where I sit. If we do our job well.

[witnesstothefall]

Very interesting indeed, but when you talk of the Saudi 'people' resenting the mullahs and desiring a bit of the western 'good life' and basic liberties, in reality I beilieve it is only the wealthy elites, who are as you say largely educated abroad. The demographics of Saudi Arabia paint a frightening picture, however, of who actually comprises the 'people'. The under-30 population is soaring. The have-not's are soaring. The Islamist fundamentalists are capitalizing on the changing face of Saudi society. If you'll excuse the cliche, the teeming masses of the desert kingdom support the mullahs more than the royalists. In the end, I believe both parties will lose out and Saudi Arabia will experience many years of geopolitical 'churn', where relatively weak competing forces will share what dwindling power is left in the Saudis' rapidly-depleting tanks (pun fully intended). Would that this model applies to our other Arab 'friends'.

One thing I'm quite certain of, no Arab country will adopt secular democracy. It's simply unIslamic. Which bodes ill for the long run...

[js1138]

I have never believed we intend to invade Iraq. But we do intend to support the new government when it takes over from the inside. It's like a game of pick-up-sticks. We keep taking Saddam's sticks, and sooner or later he'll fall.

[mad puppy]

So the question becomes: is this guy the ugly brother like those of Carter (Billy?) and Clinton (Roger?) fame here?

[aShepard]

"Even Russia and France are seeking to safeguard their interests in Iraq regardless of who is president," he said, adding, "They all want a share of the cake in Iraq which sits on the world's second-largest oil reserves

These guys don't get it.

This is not a war to rape and plunder.

This is a war to rid the world of scumbags and convert counries to democratic ideals, who respect human rights, including the other half of the population.

[marron]

One thing I'm quite certain of, no Arab country will adopt secular democracy

I have been told more than once that ordinary people are freer, in Muslim countries, under dictators than they are under "democratic" rule.

This was a specific reference to Saddam, in one case, and Egyptian dictators, in the other case. The explanation was that the dictators tended not to be beholden to the mullahs, whereas anyone seeking popular support had to knuckle under to them.

[steve-b]

They may not, anyway. Once secular, quasi-democratic rule is established in Baghdad, currents will be set in motion that will very likely bring down the monarchy.

Talal may be hoping to cut a deal in which the Saudis endorse, or at least do not oppose, our removal of Saddam in exchange for a say in the nature of the new Iraqi government. If they can lull the DC Establishment back into the old pattern of supporting some two-bit dictator as long as he's our two-bit dictator, things might settle down enough for them to go back to their old game of playing both ends (the Wahabinuts and the West) against each other.

Given the long-term stakes, any such deal should be rejected.