Farewell to US arms in Saudi Arabia

Asia Times ^ | 5.2.03 | Charles Recknagel

[Enemy Of The State]

Farewell to US arms in Saudi Arabia
By Charles Recknagel

PRAGUE - While announcing the decision to scale down the United States's military presence at the joint US-Saudi Prince Sultan air base, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on a swing through the Middle East, commented, "We do intend to maintain a continuing and healthy relationship with the Saudis. We look forward to exercises and training and working with them on their military, but we will have the opportunity to move some [US] forces out."

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz confirmed his government's agreement with the step at a joint press conference with Rumsfeld in Riyadh. He said that the end of the Iraq war had concluded the need for Washington to use the base to mount air patrols over Iraq's southern no-fly zone. He said that meant "there is no need for [the US and British forces flying the patrols] to remain."

The precise scale of the downsize has yet to be announced, but it is likely to substantially reduce the force from the level of 8,000-10,000 there during the recent Iraq war. That level was almost twice the usual US forces at the base during peacetime.

The troops are unnecessary. They are costly. And their presence in the region makes us less, not more, secure.
Time up for US troops in Saudi Arabia  (Apr 26, '03)
Asia Times Online

Analysts say that the US military presence in Saudi Arabia - which is almost entirely concentrated at the air base - will now drop from thousands of soldiers to just hundreds. Those remaining will mainly be engaged in maintaining the base's high-tech infrastructure and in routine training of Saudi air forces.

Andrew Brooks, an air power specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said the US and Saudi governments jointly invested some US$1 billion to make the Prince Sultan air base into a regional command-and-control center for US forces. The base was inaugurated just a few years ago and was used to command the air war over Afghanistan. Now, Brooks said, the closure of the base is a measure of how much US-Saudi relations have been redefined by the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

"It isn't that long since Prince Sultan was inaugurated as the command post and within a year or two it has been downgraded and almost, you know, that's it, forget it. And what's happened in two years, the only thing I can think of, meaningfully, is September 11, that's changed it completely," Brooks said.

The attacks strained US-Saudi relations partly because 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers were Saudi nationals. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, a radical Saudi opposed to the Saudi ruling family, cited the US military presence in the Muslim holy land of Mecca and Medina as one of the group's primary motives in attacking the US. Another motive was US support of Israel and of the Gulf's ruling families.

In the wake of September 11, some US opinion makers called for dramatically reducing US political and trade links with Saudi Arabia. That advice was rejected by US President George W Bush, who saw Riyadh as a valuable ally. But it set off a war of words between the two countries which highlighted the extent of Saudi popular sentiment against the US troops and the urgency of addressing it.

The US has maintained a military presence on Saudi soil since the 1991 Gulf War, when Saudi Arabia was the staging ground for the coalition that evicted Iraq from Kuwait.

In recent months, US-Saudi relations worsened further over Riyadh's refusal to let Washington use its soil to launch attacks to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Washington was forced to develop an alternative command-and-control center at al-Udeid air base in Qatar and spent millions of dollars to make it operational in just a few months' time.

Brooks said that the Qatar air base now offers the US a more stable home in the region: "Qatar is perfectly [suitable], the geography is just as good, the convenience is just as good, you've got a great sea port, the whole regime is much more supportive, there are not that many folk living in Qatar for starters. You haven't got a huge mass [as people.] And you haven't got all the Muslim dimension of Medina and all that, which basically makes it more difficult to be in Saudi Arabia."

The analyst says that US military personnel and contractors will now retain a residual presence at the Prince Sultan air base to keep it in operational shape should a new regional crisis encourage Washington to seek to use it again.

But, for now, US officials are stressing that they have already moved to Qatar and that - as far as Washington and Riyadh are concerned - the problem of US troops in Saudi Arabia is solved.

US Navy Rear Admiral Dave Nichols said while traveling with Rumsfeld that "we have already switched [to Qatar]" and that the bulk of US forces in Saudi Arabia should be out within the next few months. He said that the Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan would remain wired but that most of its computers would be moved to the neighboring emirate and that "we want to be fully out of here by the end of summer".

[SpinyNorman]

Now to get out troops out of the ungrateful Germany and move them someplace that likes Americans and can use the economic boost.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Why is noone taking to task the Saudis?? Why has this country's leadership not punished Saudi Arabia for backing and supporting terrorism? Everyone knows that Saudi Arabia is one of if not THE largest backer of terrorism.

[goodnesswins]

To me, this article is only the tip of the iceberg as to what the Saudi's are getting....looks to me they are getting us pretty much removed, and I think that is a move in the RIGHT direction.

[AbsoluteJustice]

But if you have noticed we have taken a hard lined stance on EVERY country supporting terrorism with the exception of Saudi Arabia. Why? Why are we fearful of taking a hardlined stance on this despot nation of kings and mullahs? Of which we built their entire oil infrastructure.

[JohnGalt]

This has nothing to do with payback for some perceived action by Saudi Arabia but simply a cost benefit analysis. Troops in Saudi Arabia have caused a lot of problems and were even mentioned by Osama himself as one of his causes (removing the infindels from the lands of Muhammad or some claptrap like that.)

Same with Germany. It's not revenge, just good time to pursue old fashioned conservative 'bring the boys back home' policy. Next, hopefully, Okinawa and then South Korea.

[JohnGalt]

This was on Wlady Pleszczynski's blog spot on the American Spectator website yesterday:

http://www.americanprowler.com

Saudi, Partner (posted 4/28/03 1:20 a.m.)
The more things change post-9/11, the more they don't. Fittingly enough, it was a story hidden in the inner recesses of Sunday's news, about what quietly and secretly took place during the Iraq war in an endangered place called Saudi Arabia.

This will not be good news to those who expect Saudi Arabia to go the way of Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and other despotic players to be named later. As home and practical sponsor of almost every 9/11 hijacker, the Saudis weren't long for this world. Americans had it up here with the treachery of these wayward, creepy allies. Never again would we be fooled. But then as the showdown with Iraq grew hotter, they kind of disappeared from the radar screen.

But now thanks to Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post's excellent diplomatic correspondent, we know more about what's really what -- and how some relationships have a solider core than most wanted to appreciate. The headline is almost deceptively plain: "U.S.-Saudi Alliance Appears Strong." (No link available as yet.) Then this clincher to the introduction, describing five months of "intensive military cooperation between Washington and Riyadh" since last October: "Saudi Arabia ended up agreeing to virtually every request made by the Bush administration for military and logistical assistance."

This included use of a Saudi air base, use of Saudi staging grounds for special forces operations in western Iraq, and overflight privileges. Perhaps even more importantly, the Saudis increased their oil production to such an extent that by the time the Iraq war started, "world oil prices tumbled from $37 to $27 per barrel." They even built up reserves of crude that guaranteed we'd be supplied.

So this is a regime we're going to do away with? On whose watch?

[Oatka]

This falls into the "Be careful of what you wish for" category.

With a strong U.S, military force gone, all the Saudi monarchy has to defend itself is their own military. Watch for the radicals to overthrow the govt. and set up another Taliban state.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Its been nearly two decades since we really needed troops in Germany.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Thanks for the post :) I understand they have given us support but in the back end they did supply terrorist supplies and money to carry out terrorist actions. For years they have been doing this and we still haven't taken them to task on it.

[JohnGalt]

I don't disagree with you, but the timing of your question coincides with, as Wlady noted, a little reported article in the Sunday Washington Post.

I still have not accepted a war in Iraq as a logical end to 15 Saudis crashing planes into your buildings.

[dead]

But if you have noticed we have taken a hard lined stance on EVERY country supporting terrorism with the exception of Saudi Arabia. Why? Why are we fearful of taking a hardlined stance on this despot nation of kings and mullahs? Of which we built their entire oil infrastructure.

Basically, we’ve decided that gradual pressure is the way to treat the House of Saud. Their whole monarchy is a shakey house of cards. If we apply too much pressure, they face internal revolt. The result will likely be a huge, powerful, brutally fundamentalist and murderous regime.

This administration prefers the devil we know in Saudi Arabia. They might be right. I don’t know.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Agree

[AbsoluteJustice]

I can see this stance.

[Destro]

Now to get out troops out of the ungrateful Germany and move them someplace that likes Americans and can use the economic boost.

Yea, like someplace called AMERICA! NO MORE OVERSEAS BASES!!