Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SAUDIS TELL U.S. FORCES TO GET OUT
The Guardian ^ | 01-18-02 | The Guardian

Posted on 01/18/2002 5:13:23 PM PST by StopDemocratsDotCom

Saudis tell US forces to get out ;Foreign soldiers seen as political liability

Saudi Arabia's rulers are poised to throw US strategy in the Middle East into disarray by asking Washington to pull its forces out of the kingdom because they have become a "political liability". Senior Saudi officials have privately complained that the US has "outstayed its welcome" and that the kingdom may soon request that the American presence - a product of the Gulf war - is brought to an end.

Both the White House and the US state department insisted yesterday that the military arrangement between the two countries was still working. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said that the president, George Bush, "believes that our presence in the region has a very helpful and stabilising effect in a dangerous region".

Relations between the US and Saudi Arabia, Washington's closest Arab ally, have been severely strained since September 11. Both sides have been desperately denying for months that there is a rift.

The US is reluctant to withdraw its 4,500 troops from the Prince Sultan air base, south of Saudi's capital Riyadh, because it could be perceived as a propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden, who frequently protested at the presence of non-believers so close to the main Muslim holy sites.

But the increasingly brittle and vulnerable ruling House of Saud is nervous about an internal revolt by Bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network and other extremist militants, and has been publicly loosening its links with Washington.

The huge Prince Sultan air base played a crucial logistical role in the bombing of Afghanistan. Withdrawal would upset the military balance in the Middle East by providing a boost to the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein. US planes based in Saudi regularly bomb along the Iraqi border as part of its policy of containment of Saddam.

Britain, which jointly patrols the Iraqi no-fly zone with the US, has planes based both in Saudi and Kuwait. A pull-out by Washington would switch the focus to the British air base in Kuwait, whose leaders try to avoid drawing attention to the British presence.

Two senior US state department officials have been in Saudi this week: William Burns, the assistant secretary for the near east, and Lincoln Bloomfield, the assistant secretary for political and military affairs.

The US state department insisted yesterday that at no point during Mr Bloomfield's visit, either formally or informally, had the Saudis said they wanted the US to leave.

But the US ambassador to Saudi, Robert Jordan, was quoted as saying when Mr Bloomfield arrived in the kingdom: "He is here for consultations with the Saudi government to review our presence here and to discuss what we need and what we don't need."

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who is in Nepal, denied the Saudis wanted a withdrawal: "There has been no discussion of such an issue."

Many in the US have been upset with Saudi because not only is it Bin Laden's native country but 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks were from the kingdom. The Saudi media have reported that about 200 Saudis have been captured in Afghanistan fighting with al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The kingdom is volatile, with a stagnant economy, high unemployment, no democratic outlets and King Fahd unable to crack down on militant clerics.

Hostility to the US is widespread but that is mirrored in the US where there is a huge well of resentment that, having fought to push back Iraq in 1991 and having protected Saudi since, Riyadh refused to provide military help during the Afghan campaign.

Reflecting this, Carl Levin, who heads the US Senate armed services committee, said: "We need a base in that region, but it seems to me we should find a place that is more hospitable."

Bin Laden listed as the main justifications for the attacks on New York and Washington the presence of the US soldiers in the kingdom, US support for Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians, and the US campaign against Iraq. He said six years ago: "There is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land [of Arabia]."

The US could continue its containment of Iraq from aircraft carriers based in the Gulf. But the US air force secretary, James Roche, said a pull-out would make life awkward: "It would be difficult, unless we could replicate the air operations centre somewhere else."


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: saudiarabia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-170 next last
To: StopDemocratsDotCom
The source for this whole discussion is the Washington Post. The Post article sources "several Saudi sources" who state that "Saudi Arabia's rulers" are "increasingly uncomfortable" with the US presence. Who are these "rulers" and who are these "sources" (who aren't even given the description of being "senior", "well-placed" or "credible". Until something more concrete comes out, all of us would do well to wait and see whether being "uncomfortable" translates into any actual requests by the Saudis. As I said below, this could well be an effort by a small faction within the thousands of princes to get out in print that THEY are uncomfortable with the US presence. It is documented that many of the Princes are Islamists, and it is pretty certain that they are funding terror organizations.

Two reasons were given by the "Saudi rulers" for the decision:

The American presence has become a political liability in domestic politics and in the Arab world, Saudi officials say. The Saudi government has also become increasingly uncomfortable with a role in U.S. efforts to contain Saddam Hussein, and earlier ruled out use of Saudi territory as a base for bombing raids on Iraq. As for the first reason, are the Saudis allying with Osama in the belief that a US presence in Saudi Arabia is a stain on Islam? They have never worried about public opinion in their own or other Arab countries before; it's why they have always been so tightly controlled. More likely, the US presence causes a split within the princes themselves, not the public, and this is causing some discomfort, especially among the younger, more radical set who are in the minority among their kin.

As for the second reason, any defense minister worth his salt in Saudi Arabia would recognize that a strengthened and emboldened Saddam will someday pose a threat to the survival of the monarchy. The notion that Saddam is no longer a threat reveals either a dangerous naivete or a desire to join Saddam in a jihad against the west. I'd be surprised if the upper echelons of Saudi government have gotten to this point yet.

For this reason, it's my totally speculative guess that this whole story came from mid-level people within Saudi who have a few friends of friends of friends who have heard that some of the princes are more radical than others, and hope to sway policy at some point in the future. Wake me when someone high up in Saudi government announces that we are no longer welcome.

Post Article Discussion

41 posted on 01/18/2002 5:41:49 PM PST by Defiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
I have opined in the past that once we rid IRAQ of Saddam Hussein, we should next turn our guns on the House of Saud. Just reverse the order, lock, load and fire at will. No problem!
42 posted on 01/18/2002 5:42:50 PM PST by Howie66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bloodmeridian
there's an article of interest in the nyt in today's print edition..."a new oil game, with new winners", by richard butler. he says the u.s. and russia are allying themselves together to replace opec with pipelines across afghanistan, etc.
43 posted on 01/18/2002 5:43:15 PM PST by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Arleigh
Good Lord! Let's hope not one single American boy or girl is ever sent to die for Israel!

Good Lord no! Let all the Saudi boys and girls do that! And the Iraqi boys and girls....and the Syrian boys and girls...and the Palestinian boys and girls....and....

44 posted on 01/18/2002 5:43:25 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom;All
Saudi Arabia funds `behind Taleban' (9/3/98)
Iran Pledges Continued Support to PLO Radical Groups and Hizballah (5/15/99)
Saudi Arabia, Iran to sign security pact (2/2/01)
Saudi Arabia Was The Center Of Hijack Planning (10/17/01)
Bin Laden Sought Iran as an Ally, U.S. Intelligence Documents Say (12/30/01)
Official (Iran) calls for setting up Islamic fund for Palestinians (1/10/02)
45 posted on 01/18/2002 5:45:07 PM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
Well said,screw'em.
46 posted on 01/18/2002 5:46:09 PM PST by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Arleigh
They will all join Marc Rich in der Sweiz. Those royal cowardly transvestites belong in French Switzerland.
47 posted on 01/18/2002 5:47:48 PM PST by Righty1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: steveo;Dog Gone;Ernest_at_the_Beach;snopercod;Carry_Okie;Not gonna take it anymore
"Fuel cells will be the demise of the Saudi regime."

Yeah, in A.D. 2035 and at $20.35 per quart!!! Get real, puleaze!!!

My grandchildren still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairies, yet far too many, maybe even including our fearless El Presidente, are CA dreamin a little too much!

The enviro-whackos, here in CA, supported by ENRON(END RUN) still believe we can run everything on Natual Gas even while there aren't anywhere near enough pipelines or capacity to get it here.

It is so hard for me to understand how even normally good conservative folks can be swept up in such un-economically feasible Bull Roar!!! It's exasperating!!! DO THE MATH!!!

48 posted on 01/18/2002 5:48:22 PM PST by SierraWasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
I don't believe this for a minute. This is rumor spread by some of the more corrupt in the royal family. They've been lining up against the king for years while stealing the country blind. They think they can pull off a coup and end up controlling everything and just killing their own family members or exiling them.

The old king better wake up, I know he's pretty ill, but if he doesn't wake up he's going to find himself either dead or an ex-king.

49 posted on 01/18/2002 5:48:27 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: Bonaparte
The fact is that the royal family, for all their wealth, is incredibly weak and cowed by the islamic militants within its own borders and without. They would fall if we left.

Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran. The House of Saud can't possibly be so stupid as to volunteer for the same outcome. If the U.S. left, the first thing Saddam would do is take out the Islamic religious leaders because they would be his biggest threat.

51 posted on 01/18/2002 5:49:18 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ken21
Thanks for the lead. He is, of course, correct. If they're going to hate us anyway, we should give them something to talk about.
52 posted on 01/18/2002 5:49:46 PM PST by bloodmeridian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
Dear Saddam, after we turn the lights out, you are free to have your way with the royals. Please leave the peasants alone or we will come back.

Dear Saudi's, we have turned our answering machines on and will be out of town for quite some time. When Saddam stomps you into oblivion and takes posession of your castles only to turn them over to his ignorant relatives who will crap on the furniture, don't call.

53 posted on 01/18/2002 5:50:22 PM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
As I said on an earlier thread, this is more reason to back ANWAR as well as a progressive and agressive energy policy for the United States. Let Saddam have these thankless bastards.
54 posted on 01/18/2002 5:51:47 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
So who will the Wahabis hide behind?

Oh, that's right... Their own women and children.

Hehehe good one, Saber!

55 posted on 01/18/2002 5:52:40 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
I don't buy it. Not for a second.

Same here. They're good for nothing, but surely not THAT stupid.

56 posted on 01/18/2002 5:53:15 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
But the Guardian's headline doesn't even match the story. "Saudis tell.." becomes "Saudis poised to.." and "Saudis may request."
57 posted on 01/18/2002 5:54:20 PM PST by americalost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flamefront
This could be very interesting. FYI!
58 posted on 01/18/2002 5:56:42 PM PST by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: blackdog;All
Saudi Arabia, Iran to sign security pact (2/2/01)

Feb 1: Saudi Arabia's Interior Minister Prince Nayef has said he expects to sign a security pact with Iran this month.

Prince Nayef told the official Saudi Press Agency late on Wednesday that the pact should be signed before Haj.

"It is supposed to be signed before Haj and the signing will be in Tehran. I am waiting for our Iranian brothers to set a date," he said.

Saudi Arabia says the pact aims at fighting crime, terrorism and drug trafficking and should not be seen as a regional defence pact.

Iran opposes the deployment of US and Western forces in the region and is keen to sign defence pacts with its Arab neighbours. But Gulf Arab states, which look to the West for military support, have declined Iran's offer.

Saudi Arabia has moved faster than some other Gulf Arab states in improving ties with Iran after years of mutual suspicion that followed the 1979 revolution.-Reuters

Has anyone considered whether or not the Saudis and Iranians came to some sort of agreement regarding Iraq?

59 posted on 01/18/2002 5:57:27 PM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
The enemy states are in green and yellow!


60 posted on 01/18/2002 5:58:53 PM PST by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson