 |
|
|
|
| Astonished | J Harris | Lematha | sawgrass |
|
|
|
|
| Passin Pilgrim | LeeAnn6 | tynker | Kudzu Flat |
|
|
|
|
| Samaritan | Patria One | TBA | TBA |
Posted on 10/21/2001 7:31:15 AM PDT by Pokey78
Presenting New York's relief effort with a $10 million donation, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal observed that ''at times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East.''
Mayor Giuliani told him to take his check and shove it. He had no time, he said, for ''moral equivalence'' over the deaths of 5,000 New Yorkers guilty of nothing other than going to work that morning. As he put it at the UN, ''You're either with civilization or with terrorists.''
But let's take up Prince Alwaleed's suggestion to ''address some of the issues.'' In last week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes that since 1996 the Saudi royal family has been channeling hundreds of millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden's operations and to other terror groups. Giuliani may think that you're either with civilization or with terrorists, but as usual the Saudi position is more, ah, nuanced. If the United States is going to ''re-examine its policies in the Middle East,'' it might like to start with its relationship with the House of Saud.
It's remarkable how, for all the surface flim-flam about Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Palestine and Pakistan, everything specific about this crisis circles back to Saudi Arabia: Most of the suicide bombers were Saudi, their boss is Saudi, his funds are topped up by Saudis, his protectors in Afghanistan were trained in Islamic seminaries in Pakistan funded by the Saudis, his main beef is the U.S. military stationed near the Muslim holy sites to protect the Saudis.
Saudi, Saudi, Saudi. American defense of Saudi Arabia gave Osama bin Laden his cause, American investment in Saudi Arabia gave him the money to bankroll it. If we're looking for ''root causes'' to this current situation, American support for Israel is a mere distraction next to its creation and maintenance of modern Saudi Arabia.
The Beltway guys may talk about realpolitik, but they're pikers compared to the House of Saud. After all, as this last month has proved, you can be one of only three states with diplomatic relations with the Taliban, you can be militarily uncooperative, you can refuse to freeze Osama's assets, you can decline even to meet with Tony Blair, you can do whatever you like, and Washington will still insist you're a ''staunch friend.''
Even the joint Anglo-American military action must cause some mirth in Riyadh: Aside from his impressively bloody warmongering and his deflowering of (officially) 135 virgins, the principal skill of Ibn Saud, the dynasty's great chieftain, was his ability to drive a wedge between the British and Americans and play them off against each other. As the dominant power in Arabia between the wars, the British reckoned they didn't need Ibn Saud, whom they regarded as an unstable thug next to the preferred Hashemite kings they installed in Transjordan and Iraq. The Americans, lacking any other clients in the region, were flattered by his eagerness to be their friend. He figured, quite correctly, that he'd have greater access in Washington than he would in London. So, in 1933, just a year after founding his kingdom, he signed his first oil contract with the United States and eventually gave them a monopoly on leases.
The result has been a spectacular transformation. A century ago, Ibn Saud was a desert warrior of no fixed abode. Today the House of Saud has approximately 7,000 members and produces about 40 new princes a month. Chances are, while you're reading this, some hapless female member of the House of Saud is having contractions. Because if there's one thing Saudi Arabia can always use, it's another prince. The family hogs all the Cabinet posts, big ambassadorships and key government agencies and owns all the important corporations: that takes a lot of princes. Public service in Saudi Arabia is an expensive business because salary is commensurate with royal status: Cabinet ministers can earn more than $6 million (base).
This isn't some quaint ancient culture that the United States was forced to go along with, but rather one largely of its own creation. Saudi Arabia as a functioning state is an American invention, the prototype of latter-day hands-off post-imperialism and a shining example of why it's ultimately a waste of time. American know-how fueled Saudi Arabia's rapid transformation from reactionary feudal backwater into the world's most technologically advanced and spectacularly wealthy reactionary feudal backwater. They've still got beheadings every Friday but the schedule is computerized. As Ibn Saud told Colonel William Eddy, the first U.S. minister to Saudi Arabia in 1946, ''We will use your iron, but you will leave our faith alone.''
The ''stability'' junkies in D.C. still like the deal, but others are beginning to mull over the likely shape of a post-Saud Arabia. Professor Glenn Reynolds (who runs the excellent Instapundit.com Web site) favors the idea of restoring the Hashemites--the traditional rulers of the Hejaz and the ones the Brits had in mind for a pan-Arabic kingdom until Ibn Saud started slaughtering his way to the top. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was a political afterthought--Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, used to say he created the nation in an afternoon's work--but generally it's proved more benign than its neighbors. It's possible to foresee (admittedly some way down the road) Jordan evolving into a modern constitutional monarchy, but not the decadent, bloated, corrupt House of Saud. It's not a question of if the royal family will fall, but when. Even if they were really the ''good friend'' Washington insists they are, their treatment of women, the restrictiveness of the state religion and their ludicrous reliance on government by clan make it impossible for the Saudi monarchy to evolve into anything with a long-term chance of success. By backing and enriching Ibn Saud's swollen progeny, the United States has put all its eggs into one basket case.
If Washington wasn't thinking about these things before Sept. 11, I hope it is now. America may be the engine of the global economy, but Saudi Arabia is the gas tank, producing more oil more easily than anywhere else on earth. If King Fahd's playboy princes are really paying off terrorists, it's time to make sure they get with the program or get off the stage. Newt Gingrich recently said that victory in this war would be defined by new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the long run, we need to add Saudi Arabia to that list.
Since government got in bed with the monoplies, nothing makes sense from a practical standpoint. I am not anti-capitalist, for business should be left alone and to their own devices, but this particular brand of fascism we have in this country now where special interests are favored, by the government, at the expense of everything else is wrong.
Couldn't resist repeating this because it made me laugh.
Actually, this is a serious article by Steyn and I agree with everything he wrote. He really has his historical facts down pat.
Now more than ever, we need an energy bill with emphasis on exploration and drilling to end our dependence on Saudi oil. Will we ever learn?
Thanks, Pokey, for the post and the ping.
When will we start tapping our huge coal reserves? I am almost persuaded that the oil lobby is supporting the enviromentalists.
|
|
|
|
| Astonished | J Harris | Lematha | sawgrass |
|
|
|
|
| Passin Pilgrim | LeeAnn6 | tynker | Kudzu Flat |
|
|
|
|
| Samaritan | Patria One | TBA | TBA |
Saudia Arabia... Iraq... heck might as well give 'em [back] the West Bank too! That would be toward the south, east, and toward the pleasand land (directions from Amman).
Daniel 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
Seymour Hersh marches to nobody's drum, ever. He's an independent curmudgeon in fact.
The judges have examined the record. The rules clearly say that not only must she be identified as new but by name.
So it's offical.
The winner of this round is Thinkin' Gal.
Past winners are arriving to congratulate the new champion. If you are a past winner and didn't leave a forwarding address we apologize.
But Thinkin' Gal is really tough. She is a multiple time winner.
The good news is that you will get another chance....and another....and another.....
It's not the fastest growing game show for nothing.
Does that include dental?
(Perpetual loser Lent begrudginly extends his hand in acknowledgment of the victor)
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.