Replies

"You really don't see the difference between "western" societies and Saudis ? In the "west" people are already crying that oil is too expensive... Tell the Saudis that Allah want them to be poor, they would reply: Great ! So I want to be even poorer !"

and

"There are serious internal problems in SA. Sauds are losing popularity, because... they are too much progressive."

So this business about women driving and complaints about how costly it is to hire a driver don't exist?

And if that were so where are the Saudi Jihadists coming from? Where did Bin Laden come from? Not so easy to placate I’m thinking. In fact the Saudis rule by providing prosperity and stability. Without political input, without freedom, and with cuts in life style, what exactly will keep the regime in power? The ones who want to overthrow the Saudi Kingdom are already dissatisfied. Cutting income will further threaten the ruling regime’s stability by those lookinh for slow change via reform.

As I see it there are the Jihadist, there are the reformists, and there's the Saudi Regime which stands for the status quo. The first two stand for change - Jihadists violent radical; reformists slower peaceful dhange. In your analysis all that exists is the regime and their followers.

You seem to be advocating a realist policy of maintaining the status quo even though the facts on the ground show that the situation there is explosive in the Jihadists direction. In the other direction the reformists are willing to support a regime that is making changes. In which direction should the US try to push the regime?

This is where the US petrodollars count.

As to taking over, that is last resort talk.

“In conventional war against SA…”

What is a “conventional war?” Non-nuclear obviously yes.

I don’t think Iraq was a “conventional war.” Great pains were taken to prevent casualties. In March of 2004 when we should have tightened the screws and cleaned out Fallujah we deferred to world opinion. Wars are not successfully fought and won by referendum. They are not won by half measures.

And while 1700 American lives are a tragedy, they are a small number to prevent the US economy from coming to a halt. That was what you predicted when you said we would all be riding bicycles. If that were to happen, many divisions you see now in the US would disappear. As you say, “In the "west" people are already crying that oil is too expensive...” There would be great unity to preserve our way of life.

"As I see it there are the Jihadist, there are the reformists, and there's the Saudi Regime which stands for the status quo."

Reformists ? How many ? 1% of the whole population ? Besides even their "reformists" don't seem to be more "progressive" than let's say average Iraqis.

"And if that were so where are the Saudi Jihadists coming from? Where did Bin Laden come from?"

What do you mean ? Do you think that Saudi royal family send them ?

"In which direction should the US try to push the regime?"

First situation in Iraq must be stabilized before US will start pushing anything in SA. Chaos in both states would be very danger.

M-n R. wrote:

"With that in mind I suppose the answer to your question as to the value of Saudi to us, absent the oil, it would be to keep the lid on the radical fundamentalists in SA by keeping the present branch of the family in control. Even though the Wahhabis operate out of there, the present rulers are probably better than their replacements will be. Clamping down completely on the radicals would imperial the rulers themselves."

I agree with him. In other words: we are right, you are wrong.

What is a “conventional war?”

Conventional warfare means a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more nation-states in open confrontation.

The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight each other using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought through means other than with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. In other words without the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The general purpose of conventional warfare is to destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating his ability to engage in conventional warfare.
Without a conventional force, the defender is then unable to prevent devastating attacks upon his nation-state, and can thus be forced to capitulate. However the defender may be willing to accept the consequences of such attacks, and resort to unconventional warfare in order to ultimately achieve his goals.