Kristol: Our Saudi Friends

The Weekly Standard ^ | 04/25/2002 | William Kristol

[Pokey78]

Crown Prince Abdullah is coming to America with threats and bluster. Is Saudi Arabia with us or the terrorists?

ON THE EVE of his meeting with President Bush today, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned of "a strategic debacle" that could result in the Saudis employing "the oil weapon" against the United States and demanding that U.S. forces leave their bases in the Kingdom. Although the ostensible cause for these threats is the Bush administration's support for Israel's actions against Palestinian terrorists, the Saudi ruling family clearly has been unnerved by the president's commitment to win the larger war on terrorism in the region.

The crown prince has serious questions to answer about where he and the rest of the House of Saud stand in this war. The repressive Wahhabi strain of Islam is the Saudi state religion and has been the prime source for spreading Muslim irredentist thought throughout the region; it is no surprise that 15 of the 19 September 11 terrorists were Saudi citizens. In his State of the Union address, President Bush said that an integral part of the war on terrorism is to bring democratic principles to the Islamic world. This cannot but be a threat to the Saudi regime. That is why a source close to Crown Prince Abdullah has made it clear to the New York Times that the Saudi princes wouldn't hesitate to stand against the United States in a crisis: "And if that means we move to the right of [Osama] bin Laden, so be it; to the left of [Libyan leader Moammar] Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it." The Crown Prince makes it clear: to preserve itself, the Saudi regime is prepared to join the Axis of Evil.

In protecting its interests in the Persian Gulf, the United States has always hoped for a regional partner: first Iran, then Iraq, then the Saudis; in their turn, each of these has proven itself incapable of the job. Fortunately, the Saudis probably overestimate the threat they pose to the president's policy. Denying the U.S. access to Saudi bases will make the war against Iraq harder, but will not stop it. Further, removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Baghdad will reduce the Saudis' leverage even more--returning Iraqi oil fully to market can only reduce the Saudis' ability to set oil prices, and will make the U.S. bases there superfluous.

That the crown prince should come to Crawford brandishing these threats--attempting to veto an attack on Saddam and hamstring American and world economic recovery--suggests that the current Saudi regime is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[junta]

I agree with you. Saudi Arabia is the weapons depot for the Islamic world and if it fell to radicals all the high tech weapons go with it. So for now we should try and keep them on the side.

[Miss Marple]

LOL! You haven't been here very long, or you would know Kristol NEVER suggests things which are helpful. He has a long-standing grudge against the Bush family, and if President Bush said tomorrow that the sky was blue, Kristol would publish an article about how "humiliated" we were by Bush's caving to the sky is blue faction.

The Times prints articles that are loaded with "unnamed sources" and the big article under discussion on another thread is one of them. Very often the unnamed sources can be traced to Kristol.

Bill Kristol is not interested in promoting policies helpful to the Republican party. Sometimes his "suggestions" are supported by the Times, sometimes not.

[Miss Marple]

One other thing...the Saudis are way too intelligent to think that Bush would cave under pressure from the "intelligentsia." Besides, the ambassador, Prince Bandar, has known the Bush family for years.

Fox News said that this might be an effort by a bin Laden faction to drive a wedge between the Saudis and the US. I think this is a possibility, although it seems Kristol's article was just way too coincidental in timing.

[linn37]

The Prince left the ranch promising that he would never do such a thing as cut off the oil,maybe the NYTimes got it all wrong or looks like the bluff was called.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

An official Saudi spokesman basically disavowed the NYT article- after the 5 hour sit down with President Bush,VP Cheney, Condi and Colin. I was amazed the Sean Hannity bought this article hook, line and sinker.

[WriteOn]

Let's turn Saudi Arabia into a dune buggy park

[Mel Gibson]

The Saudi regime is definitely a part of the problem, not the solution.

President George W. Bush should not be "wobbly", stay on message, smoke out Al-Qaeda, remove Saddam Hussein, then disembowl Saudi Arabia-the mother of all terrorists, make KSA into Middle East Texas

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a brutal, tyranical regime. The interests of Saudi Arabia and the United States are diametrically oppposed. It is against Freedom, Christianity and the interests of the United States.

Crown Prince Abdullah will follow King Fahd and be a horrible ruler. He wants his country to turn back the clock to even darker ages and is an archaic relic of the past (similar to the Ayatollah in Iran).

The United States would be better off without Saddam Hussein and Crown Prince Abdullah.

[NetValue]

Yes the Saudi Royals are the problem. They are terrorists and they fund their terrorist brothers.

IF some Saudi camel jockey has the right to "demand" the United States stop the violence by reigning in Israel/Sharon does not the US have the right to demand Saudi Arabia stop the violence by reigning in the PA/Arafat?

If the Saudis believe for a minute that they can coerce the United States on any policy matter they are sorely wrong. They fear they will be overthrown by their own population. To avoid that they have to stand up to America.

They will do that they think they have to do to survive but standing up to America by cutting off oil will affect our vital interests - talk about losing BIG TIME when that happens. Saudi Royals: Read & Heed

[Young Rhino]

W should order a Judge Roy Bean-style hanging of the camel prince, and fine the prince whatever possessions he brought with on the visit.

[rucrazee]

The Saudi Royals are not in themselves the problem. They want to continue to enjoy the good life in their guilded cages and have a long history of doing what is necessary to keep the wolves at bay. It is a delicate balancing act for them. I think a lot more of this is posturing to keep face in the Islamic world, thereby keeping that keg from exploding. The last thing they want is trouble. Now, those below the Royals on the food chain, I am not so sure of and I wonder sometimes if it wouldn't be cool to turn those desert sands to glass ;).

[brat]

From the reports on how this meeting went, they're agin us! Isn't it time we stopped supporting these people with our oil dollars?

[self_evident]

And seize their assests abroad.

My goodness. All along I've thought of this as a monumental weakness with our dealing with the Saudi's, who probably have $600 billion to one trillion invested in the US economy. But considering their greed, it's actually and asset if we could freeze it successfully. Hopefully our economic intel is up to date on them.

[Miss Marple]

Pppbttt! Yes, I am well aware of the connections between al Qaeda and Saudi nationals, who are NOT the government. I am also aware that the Saudis need our oil money as much, if not more, than we need our oil. In fact, the new relationship we have with Russia (which many on this forum thought was another Bush mistake) gives us an option with oil purchases that we did not have in the 70's.

We need the Sauduis to hang with us as an ally, no matter how reluctantly, because with their assistance we can get intelligence on al Qaeda. In addition, although we can operate without the air base in their country, having that base makes things easier when we go after Iraq.Most importantly, we do NOT want the entire Islamic world in open warfare with the West.

I suppose you think Reagan shouldn't have met with Gorbachev, either. This idea that we shouldn't talk to pepople because it is somehow dishonorable is foolishness, and sounds suspiciously like the rantings in the Arab world about "humiliation." Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, and speaking with the Crown Prince is both productive and necessary.

[Grampa Dave]

If you believe in the NY Times, you are the delusional one. You should up your meds, cancel your Times Subscription and try to find some real news. The NY Slimes is incapable of printing a story without twisting it to favor their left wing maggots in the paper and in politics.

[carton253]

This idea that we shouldn't talk to pepople because it is somehow dishonorable is foolishness, and sounds suspiciously like the rantings in the Arab world about "humiliation." Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, and speaking with the Crown Prince is both productive and necessary.

I absolutely agree... talking is not a sign of weakness. War, when it comes, should be because no other ways of achieving peace could be met. I have a hard time listening to anyone who's first reaction is to bomb!

[Leto]

RE #16, you are correct misdirection is essential in war. Clearly most pundits have never read Sun Tzu or Clauzwitz. They value spinning and appearance over results.

[Bagehot]

Taking lectures about Israel's 'brutality' in Jenin from the ruler of Saudi Arabia is laughable. This is the guy who runs a country where they chop your hand off for stealing a loaf of bread. In public.

[rmlew]

LOL! You haven't been here very long, or you would know Kristol NEVER suggests things which are helpful.
I've been around or a year.
AS for Kristol, I disagree completely with you. I think his "national greatness conservatism" is a bad idea, ut I like a lot of his work.
Kristol normally proposes the conservative or neo-con answer. Frankly I think Bush would be doing better if he read the Weekly Standard.

He has a long-standing grudge against the Bush family, and if President Bush said tomorrow that the sky was blue, Kristol would publish an article about how "humiliated" we were by Bush's caving to the sky is blue faction.
Kristol hated GHW Bush, not his son.

The Times prints articles that are loaded with "unnamed sources" and the big article under discussion on another thread is one of them. Very often the unnamed sources can be traced to Kristol.
Oh dozens of other people. The Truth is that the article was very close to what the Saudi regen actually did.

Bill Kristol is not interested in promoting policies helpful to the Republican party.
Evidence please.

Sometimes his "suggestions" are supported by the Times, sometimes not.
Mostly not.