Posted on 06/12/2002 10:52:48 PM PDT by kattracks
Well, it isn't just conservatives. Gerald Friedman of The New York Times has bruited a thought or two along the same lines, that gee, things aren't the way they used to be when Fahd was king and pro-American Prince Bandar was the Royal House's ambassador to the States. Bandar has been submerged by the Crown Prince, who is a little reminiscent of Philip II of Spain in his piety, and in letting his piety seep into some of his policy decisions.
Who in the House of Saud is responsible for the accelerated subventions to the madrassas and their sheikhs is the question, and how big a game of footsie has been going on between the Crown Prince and these people in the shadows. Has the Crown Prince taken a secret policy decision to wage war in the shadows against American influence side-by-side with the conservative imams? I don't think so: Americans are still present in Riyadh, at Tabuk and Dhahran. And contrary to what Osama says, earlier Saudi regimes likewise allowed foreigners into the peninsula (which Osama prates is part of the Hijaz, the Holy Land of Mohammed, which must not be profaned by infidel footsteps (bite me, Osama) -- Dhahran AFB was built in 1944-5 by the Americans and British who needed a stopover point on the way to India. It continued to be operated by Western governments for some years after the war. If Prince Abdullah were a creeping hard-liner, he'd have asked the American military to pack up and leave Dhahran.
I've read recently that American servicewomen are under greater restrictions and strictures now than they were in Fahd's day, during the Gulf War: there was one story about a woman pilot, an Eagle driver no less (but that's another issue), who when she leaves the base has to be driven, to sit in the back seat, and to wear the Arab women's abaya and cover up just as much as Persian and Arab women. Well, okay, it's their country and that's the policy. But are there other policies we don't know about, that are going forward in tandem with the restrictive-dress policy for foreign women, that reflect the religious inclinations of the Crown Prince Abdullah? How much has he been compromising with the hard-line Wahhabist imams?
There has also been a story about which says that the Saudi government has been "understanding" of, and permissive of, the odious propaganda disseminated in the madrassas and their associated imams, because the House of Saud has to keep up a certain Wahhabist bona fides in order to maintain its legitimacy as the keepers of the shrines -- they can't let themselves be outflanked by anyone (as the Shiites, egged on by the Iranians tried to do when they organized the huge civil disorder and riot at the Great Mosque itself in Mecca, to embarrass the Saudis).
It's really deep over there, and we need expert input, layers deep, because it's part of their culture, the culture of the bazaar, to micturate in your ear every chance they get.
If she's dumb enough to wander the streets of SA uncovered or driving a car, then any suit she brings against us when she's dragged from her car and murdered in the street by Saudi men, should be laughed out of court.
The dress code was for her own protection, but she's free now to insult the culture of our host nation and will have to deal with the consequences.
When I travel I always wear long skirts and shawls because most cultures are deeply religious (or at least Catholic) and prefer that women don't wear shorts or pants. It's not a problem for me and eliminates an Ugly American episode. Also, I detest the tourist uniform of khakis, tennis shoes and fanny packs (shudder).
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.