Apply the Bush Doctrine to Saudi Arabia

Recent intelligence reports indicate that our desultory efforts abroad so far—and our fortress “homeland defense” mentality—will fail to prevent further horrendous attacks on the US. We’re losing because Bush has defaulted on the “Bush Doctrine”—the idea that you’re either with us, or for the terrorists. And he has defaulted most egregiously in continuing to treat the Saudis as allies, when they’re really against us.

Saudi Arabia is indisputably terrorism’s biggest bankroller, even if Iran is its largest sponsor overall. The Saudis persistently stonewall efforts to cut off terrorist funding, and they’ll never reliably change in that regard— too many powerful Saudis are fanatical terrorist sympathizers, due to their Wahabite fundamentalism. They actively hate us and everything that Western civilization stands for—e.g. separation of religion and state. Why do we go on tolerating the Saudis, even as it results in our own destruction? The answer is that multiculturalism is fundamentally to blame.

Multiculturalism says that all cultures are equally valid, no matter how anti-life and irrational they may be. In this view, Middle Eastern culture, say, is just as good as American culture. In other words, a culture characterized by:

We ought to conclude that multiculturalism is dishonest on its face. Even so, “multiculturalism” has always been implicit in our policy toward the Saudis—even before it became a buzzword.

In the beginning, we let the Saudis help themselves to oilfields created by Western capitalists from unused desert. Oil in the ground is useless; the capitalists did all of the work—prospecting, pumping, and refining the oil—that made it an indispensable value to the modern industrial world. Under the Western notion of private property, that means the oilfields belong to them, not the House of Saud.

The Saudis are parasites, having produced nothing themselves. They’re just thugs running a neighborhood protection racket. But that’s a part of their tribalistic culture; multiculturalists therefore insist that we have to respect their “right” to the oilfields.

Over the ensuing decades, Saudis have used their illicit oil wealth to fund steadily escalating terrorist attacks on US targets. And we have done nothing beyond giving them timorous reproofs, mindful that they have a foot on the world’s oil jugular—courtesy our acquiescence to their scam.

And now they’re holding our critically-needed campaign against Iraq hostage to the creation of a Palestinian state. Such a move threatens the existence of our ally Israel—the only outpost of Western civilization in the region. The Palestinians—like their Saudi patrons—are mired in a culture of tyranny and corruption. Many if not most Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea, and giving them their own state would only further that aim. The Saudis would just love that.

Add to all of this that the Saudis have contributed heavily to Pakistani terrorism against our ally India—which in turn could trigger a horrendous nuclear holocaust in South Asia—and the prescription is clear: We have to take over Saudi Arabia.

The multiculturalists will naturally be horrified at this violation of Saudi “sovereignty,” which supposedly we must respect at all costs. But the Saudis are pointing a gun at us—which we gave them. We have a right to defend ourselves by taking that gun away from them.

Accordingly we are justified in seizing whatever we need from the Saudis in order to control the country, as well as bring the war to Iraq and Iran with all due dispatch. This includes seizing state-of-the-art Prince Sultan airbase that we so “generously” built and staffed for them, which use they have denied us for any campaign in the region. We should also:

All of this may necessitate deposing the despotic House of Saud altogether, confiscating its ill-gotten wealth, and instituting a government more conducive to individual rights—just as the US successfully did in Germany and Japan post-WWII. That policy includes such Western “biases” as emancipating women, separating religion and state—and for similar reasons—separating state and economy.

We’re fighting for our lives. We can win against the terrorists and their enablers, if there is a huge public outcry for Bush to consistently act on his professed principles. Seizing control of Saudi Arabia inevitably follows from that. Then we must press on to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and other places to finish the job.

The anti-Saudi drumbeat goes on by yet another ignoramous.

The Saudi royal family has been our loyal ally for decades. They were key to our battle of Communists in the cold war and have never betrayed or denied us.

Though 15 of the hijackers were born in SA, they were radicalized in hate-mongering German and British mosques.

Mohammed Atta left SA a normal medical student and left Germany a murderous lunatic.

SA is one of the few countries where the ruling government is pro-American, but the general population is radically anti-West.

Bin Laden's biographer says he specifically recruited Saudis and Eqyptians so that America would turn against them. Bin Laden hates the Saudi royal family more than us. The left-wing press has also launched such a successful campaign against the Saudis that normal, commonsense conservatives have picked up the lies.

No one says anything about what would happen to that country if the royal family were deposed. It would become another Iran, but with oil fields.

Just read "Domino Theory". I agree. For much of this century we were oppressed with the notion that the Iron Curtain was permanent, that Communism was unstoppable, and post Korea, and especially post Viet Nam, that our values were headed for history's cold storage.

For at least a half century our enemies have been in control of most of the propaganda levers, and patriots and constitutionalists and classic liberals have been mocked and beaten down. We got used to believing we were the last of a dying breed, hanging on out of sheer orneriness, expecting to find our reward only perhaps in the hereafter, but in the meantime resigned to watching our world rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell, in the words of one of my favorite philosophers (M. Haggard).

Several things have happened that have helped to turn all that around. The first is Reagan. It is hard to overestimate what he did. For us who were hanging on grimly, his optimism was a breath of fresh air. His confidence likewise. Although he has been forever derided as a lightweight, if you have ever read his work you know he had a first rate intellect. He said "boo" and the Soviet Empire vanished. None of us ever expected it to happen, the suddenness of its collapse was almost biblical. Who knows, perhaps it was, indeed, Biblical. But Reagan was the philosopher at the helm when great deeds were done, and the Empire fell.

The next was the Gulf War, which despite all its flaws, was another one for the history books. Going into that war, our people were still scarred by the defeat in Viet Nam, and almost everyone was convinced we would suffer grievous casualties. When the fighting started, the churches were full, as people were praying for their loved ones and their country.

Which was something new, I don't remember the churches packed during LBJ's war.

The collapse of Iraq, with its million man army, was astonishing. The soldiers advancing hardly knew what to think, what to do, as the enemy soldiers threw themselves at their feet, and begged to be taken prisoner.

And, most recently, Bush Jr, with his articulate defense of our principles, (except don't get me started on immigration). Again, almost Reagan-like confidence, not in himself so much, but in our principles, in God, in the country.

The action in Afghanistan, where everyone warned us we would be torn to pieces, where we sent a handful of men into the fray and our enemies collapsed and soiled themselves and ran from the field.

And, finally, one of the most important changes od allis that we have developed our own media, our own sources of information. First radio, then some meager bits of cable TV, and the internet news organs. These have given us a way to get information raw and unmanaged by our enemies, and given us a way to communicate with each other unfiltered. We know we are not alone, we have probably all become more outspoken and articulate in advancing our principles, and certainly we are more knowledgeable than our enemies. Both in simple facts, and in philosophical understanding.

Looking ahead there is a lot to fear, the demographics are not with us, the world community is not with us, society is not with us, academia, the mass media, none of it. But they never were. And yet, with nothing on our side, we have taken the initiative and we are taking the battle to them, and the astonishing thing is that whenever we push back, our enemies scatter.

In terms of Saudi Arabia, I think their days are numbered. The monarchy will not survive a democratic Baghdad. They will not survive an angry America that no longer needs them.

The source of their power has always been their partnership with us. They have always attached themselves to us, and found ways to be useful, and that has been the source of their strength. But they forgot that, they started to think we depended on them and they over-reached.

Each of the other countries on our enemies list is unique, and each can be dealt with in its own way. It is seldom necessary to roll in with guns blazing. But I likewise propose that we consign our timidity to history's pantry, and where ever our principles are at stake, push back. Be cheerful, be optimistic, jolly even in a Reaganesque manner, and push back.

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.