Posted on 12/14/2006 6:06:40 AM PST by alex
It's time to call Riyadh's bluff.
Having made whores of innumerable politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington, the Saudis still hope to steer American policy the way they did before their citizens attacked us on 9/11.
Now they demand American protection for those Iraqis who have done their best to kill our troops, instigate a religious civil war, slaughter the innocent and destroy any hope Iraq has of a better future.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I agree that we leave, but not until we have finished what we set out to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'd say he's flat out wrong, and this is his key mistake.
This is similar to Korea with the Chicoms, Afghanistan with the US, and on and on thru history.
All thats happening here is that the Iranians have picked disgruntled Iraqis and given them arms, training, supplies and support.
That should be an act of war against the US. But for political reasons, just like Truman, we refuse to admit that.
We are already at war with Iran.
Fortunately our President understands this, and we are not leaving before the complete victory.
Agree 100%.
So this journalist is suggesting that we take the side of the 10% of the Moslems in the world against the other 90%?
Instead, I think we are doing things the right way already. That is, supporting each nation's *majority* right to rule.
In Iraq, this means that the Shiites should rule, yet respect their Sunni minority. In Syria, just the opposite, that the Sunnis majority should rule, yet not terribly oppress the Alawite Shiite minority that currently oppresses them. We even believe that because there is no clear majority in Lebanon, that their best future lies in a majority coalition.
So what does this bode for the future of Iraq? It is unlikely that the Sunnis will be entirely expelled from the country. That form of "ethnic cleansing" is generally not the way of the Middle East. However, the Sunnis will have to be punished, both for their past crimes, and so that they are fully aware that they are a minority.
Indeed, many will leave the country, heading to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where they will be greeted by their Sunni brethren. But eventually things will settle down, with much the same sectarian breakdown as is found throughout the Middle East.
Truman actually fired McCarthur for that, didn't he?
It does not mean that we should not use our military here and there but the goal should be our own interests and not the stabilization of some sheiks who are incapable to appreciate our effort.
Me, too. On June 29, 1950, Truman announced that the US would be getting involved in "police action" against bandits.
One major difference between Truman's "War" and Bush's "War" is the number of US deaths.
Within 2 months of Truman's announcement thousands of American troops were dead in Korea. By the time Truman left office, 2 1/2 year later, 30,000 US troops had died.
On just one day, November 30, 1950 -- 781 Americans died for Korea's freedom
Those who can't remember history . . .
I know a few Ds, and every time I bring up other conflicts they say, "you can't compare this war to those . . ."
So they take this conflict out of context. No perspective.
The Saudis don't like us either. They think they have made a deal with the devil. They can eat sand.
Front page of Syracuse Herald-Journal -- December 1, 1950
Gen. Douglas MacArthur said today that his United Nations forces are fighting in Korea against military odds without precedent in history, and warned that failure to meet the Red challenge there will leave it to "be fought, and possibly lost, on the battlefieds of Europe."Will the Europeans ever grow up?As to the opinion in Europe, the general said: "There appears to be a general failure, intentional or from misinformation, to comprehend the mission prescribed for this command by resolutions of the United Nations of which their governments were joint architects and directors, or fairly to recognize that in success or adversity this command has proceeded unerringly in compliance with controlling policies and directives."
MacArthur said he could only attribute such comment to a "somewhat selfish, though most short-sighted, viewpoint.[snip]
"The issue is a global one and failure to comprehend this fact carries the germs of freedom's ultimate destruction. If the fight is not waged with courage and invincible determination to meet the challenge here, it will indeed be fought and possibly lost, on the battlefields of Europe."
"Agree 100%."
We are also in a cold war with Saudi Arabia. They have financed the intellectual infiltration of our media, our universities and our government. Powerful advisers and diplomats have been Islamic apologists for many years now. Even after 9/11, the situation is worsening.
Too bad that the political battle about Florida election results (in Nov/Dec 2000) obscured MSM coverage of the 50th anniversary of the first year of the Korean "Conflict."
I like to compare Iraq to Korea. Our efforts in Korea gave freedom to millions for 50 years.
I think something is going on and it has Saudi involvement. I'll sit back on this one another 6 weeks.
In regards to your suggestions let them take control of oil resources because to “alternative sources of energy” it is a pathetic and shockingly stupid idea. What can you do if the terrorists control the oil resources of the Middle East today, how are you going to run you car, or run many power plant, or run the factories, etc… Do you think that we can find an effective alternate source of energy and transform the whole economy to be bases don these new sources in matter of few days? If scientists find the ultimate source of alternative energy today, it will take us at least 20 years to shift the economy form dependence on oil. In the meanwhile if the terrorists control the oil sources of the Middle and black mail us with oil, we will go into a depression hundreds time worst than that of 1929, and not just us but the whole world will suffer the same fate.
Moreover if they control the oil resources of the Middle East, they can use the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues to acquire the most destructive weapons including nuclear bombs, and recruits thousands of people worldwide to kill us.
Yes he did.
I just pray to God that we have special ops making cross border runs into Iran and causing maximum damage.
I am sorry but simply could not put an American MP on every crossroad in the world and the world would not appreciate even if we would do it. IMHO, there is no point in fighting for these morons - we have to supply our friends with cheap quality arms and this should be it with regard to overseas situation.
And one more thing, we have to respond each and every terrorist attacks by brutal force of our choice, but it is a pointless exercise to stabilize Muslim World and be engaged in the nation building over there.
2 Marines reportedly killed near Baghdad
By QAIS AL-BASHIR, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen killed a Shiite tribal sheik linked to British forces in a drive-by shooting Friday in the southern city of Basra, and two Marines were reported killed in fighting in a volatile province west of Baghdad.
One Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 and one Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 7 died Thursday after fighting in Anbar province, an insurgent stronghold, the military said.
The deaths raise to 53 the number of American troops who have died in December, which is on track to being one of the deadliest months of the war. At least 2,941 members of the U.S. military have died the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
A senior official from the Iraqi Red Crescent, meanwhile, claimed that harassment from U.S. forces is a greater threat to his group's work than insurgent attacks.
"The main problem we are facing is the American forces more than the other forces," Dr. Jamal Al-Karbouli, vice president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, said in Geneva.
Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the U.S.-led coalition forces "strive to ensure they are respectful when they conduct interaction with the local population."
The slain cleric, Muhsin al-Kanan, was a member of the provisional council in Iraq's second-largest city, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, and had good relations with British forces in the area, police said.
Britain has about 7,200 troops in southern Iraq, mostly in and around Basra, and Shiite factions and militias have been fighting for control of the area as they begin to withdraw from some of the provinces in the region. Attacks by insurgents from Iraq's Sunni Arab minority also have occurred in the area.
In a separate drive-by shooting, in Kut, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a civilian near a bus station, killing him, police said.
Little violence was reported in Baghdad on Friday, the traditional Muslim day of prayer during which a weekly four-hour vehicle ban is imposed, after a week in which the capital was struck by several deadly car bombs and a mass kidnapping in a major commercial district.
Gunmen in military uniforms drove into a commercial district in the capital and seized dozens of shopkeepers and bystanders from the streets on Thursday. Police said at least 25 of the hostages had been released but would not comment on how many remained in custody.
Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said only three of those who had been released had come to the ministry to provide information about the case. "We are questioning them while the others went home directly," he said.
Another policeman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, said three witnesses said they had been handcuffed and blindfolded before they were released late Thursday in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood.
A Shiite cleric, meanwhile, called for U.S. forces to leave the country and warned the "bloodshed will continue" if Iraq's politicians continue fighting each other.
The comments by Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammadawi during his Friday sermon in the Shiite district of Sadr City, came on the eve of a national reconciliation conference aimed at rallying ethnic, religious and political groups around a common strategy for handling Iraq's problems.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061215145332
If I remember correctly, our military was still here in the USA when we got hit on 9/11.
So, what you're saying is that the terrorists are so dumb that instead of continuously going after soft targets here in the USA as they did on 9/11, they have decided to flock to where our military is and engage them in Iraq, instead of slaughtering civilians here?
More Saudis Freed from GuantanamoRIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - December 15, 2006 - They're out of Guantanamo, but 16 Saudis are now in custody in their own country, while authorities figure out if they have any terrorist connections.
Their release from the U-S military prison in Cuba brings the total number of Saudi citizens freed from there to 53. Another 75 remain in custody, according to a lawyer who represents some of their relatives.
Holding Saudis at Guantanamo has been a source of irritation between the two countries. Two Saudis died at the prison earlier this year. The U-S calls them suicides, but many Saudis are doubtful.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=4854776
Geopolitical Diary: A Saudi Power Struggle?
December 15, 2006 02 18 GMT
The sands are shifting in the Saudi kingdom, but the direction is still unclear.
The questions began with the out-of-the-blue resignation of Saudi Ambassador to the United States Turki al-Faisal on Monday. Prince Turki said he resigned to spend more time with his family -- the usual excuse given for abrupt diplomatic departures -- but his absence has raised questions in Washington regarding the stability of the Saudi royal family.
There is no question that Prince Turki's brother, 75-year-old Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, is ailing, and that Prince Turki would want to ensure the al-Faisal faction stays intact by assuming his position should Saud end up dying or become incapacitated. But sources in the Saudi Embassy and personal friends of Prince Turki have recently indicated that he is not held in high regard by Saudi King Abdullah and could not be getting a promotion after all.
Prince Turki assumed his ambassadorship in Washington after Prince Bandar bin Sultan left the position in June 2005 (also citing personal reasons). Soon after Sultan returned to Riyadh, he assumed an elite position as the secretary-general of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council (NSC) -- a recent creation by King Abdullah that was designed to formalize the decision-making process in the Saudi political system and consolidate power for the Sudeiri clan. Prince Turki, meanwhile, was expected to put a fresh face on Saudi Arabia's diplomatic offices in Washington, but apparently did not see eye-to-eye with King Abdullah on a number of issues.
Tensions between Prince Turki and King Abdullah escalated in the wake of the summer war in Lebanon, when the prince furiously objected to private meetings between Prince Bandar and the Israelis. These were primarily consultations on how to put a lid on Iranian aggressions in the region, and had the approval of King Abdullah.
There were also deep divisions between Prince Turki and King Abdullah over how to safeguard Saudi interests in light of the deteriorating U.S. position in Iraq. Saudi Arabia's senior strategic adviser, Nawaf Obeid, released a controversial report for The Washington Post on Nov. 29 that says Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to support a proxy war in Iraq by propping up Sunni militants if the United States were to pull its forces out of Iraq. Prince Turki subsequently fired Obeid from his position as managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project, a Riyadh-based government consultancy.
The idea of Saudi Arabia supporting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq makes a good deal of sense from the Saudi point of view: The Saudis are wholly dependent on the United States for their national security and rely on U.S. troops to block Iran from advancing beyond Iraq and into the oil-rich Saudi deserts. Without a Sunni buffer zone in Iraq, Riyadh's need for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq soars. Now with pressure on the United States to drawdown its forces, the Saudis are speaking up to make it clear that the consequences of leaving will be far greater for the United States than toughing it out in Iraq and keeping the Iranians at bay. These sentiments were also echoed during King Abdullah's visit with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in November -- a meeting at which Prince Turki was notably absent.
The fact that the prince might not get the Foreign Ministry position after all suggests serious implications for the stability of the Saudi regime. Power in the Saudi political structure is shared by the key clans:
1. The Sudeiris, which include Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense and Aviation Crown Prince Sultan, as well as his sons Bandar, the secretary-general of the NSC, and Prince Khalid, the deputy defense minister; Minister of Interior Prince Nayef and his son Prince Ahmed, the deputy interior minister; and Prince Salman, the governor of Riyadh.
2. The al-Faisals, which include Turki, who formally serves as the country's intelligence chief and ambassador to the United Kingdom, and his brother Saud, the ailing foreign minister.
3. The Abdullah Faction, which includes King Abdullah and his son Prince Mutaib who is deputy commander in the Saudi National Guard.
Prince Bandar is reportedly angling for the foreign minister position once Saud is out of the picture. Should King Abdullah choose Bandar over Turki, the al-Faisal clan will be squeezed out of the royal hierarchy, paving the way for the Sudeiris to consolidate their control over the al-Saud regime. A disproportionate amount of power allocated to the Sudeiri clan spells trouble for the stability of the Saudi government as competition will intensify among these key rival factions. The outcome of Prince Turki's replacement is still murky, but we will be watching the House of Saud closely for growing signs of a power struggle.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=281965
Policy Watch: Saudi Arabia and Iraq
By MARK N. KATZ
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- In a Nov. 29 Washington Post op-ed piece, the well-connected Saudi analyst, Nawaf Obaid, warned that the Kingdom would provide aid to Iraqi Sunnis if American forces withdrew from Iraq. The Saudi Press Agency quickly issued a statement from an unnamed "official source" saying that Obaid's op-ed "does not represent any official Saudi authority." Obaid's op-ed had, in fact, stated that the opinions he expressed were "his own and do not reflect official Saudi policy." To underline the truth of that, the outgoing Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, terminated Obaid's consultancy with the Saudi Embassy.
Yet despite this public repudiation, it has subsequently become apparent that Obaid's views do reflect official Saudi policy, at least to some extent. The New York Times on Dec. 12 reported that Saudi King Abdallah told Vice President Cheney during the latter's recent visit to Riyadh that the Kingdom, "might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq's Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq." In fact, this may already be taking place informally. The Washington Post reported (also on Dec. 12) that, "Young Saudi men have joined the Sunni insurgency as foreign fighters, while there have been persistent reports that Saudi citizens have provided financial aid to the Sunni insurgency."
Why would Saudi Arabia support those forces in Iraq who have been most fiercely opposed to the American military presence there? There are two reasons. First, much of the largely Sunni Saudi public genuinely sympathizes with the Iraqi Sunnis. As Obaid noted, some of the "major Saudi tribal confederations ... have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq." Second, the Saudis fear that with America gone, Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies will quickly come to dominate all Iraq and then be in a position to threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
What exactly, though, would Saudi Arabia do if the United States left Iraq? For while it does not want Iran to dominate Iraq or Arab Sunnis there to be driven out by Arab Shiites, the Kingdom does not want to get directly involved in the fighting with its own forces.
A guide to what Saudi policy toward an Iraq civil war might actually be after a U.S. withdrawal (or what it may now informally be even beforehand) may be found through studying Saudi policy toward civil war in another neighboring country: North Yemen from 1962 to 1970. In 1962, Egypt-backed revolutionary officers overthrew the newly installed king and declared a "republic." Egyptian forces quickly arrived to support it. The king, however, managed to escape from his palace and rally many tribesmen to the "royalist" cause.
From 1962 to 1967, as many as 70,000 Egyptian troops were in North Yemen trying, unsuccessfully, to defeat the royalists. Part of the reason they were unsuccessful was that Saudi Arabia backed the royalists. The Kingdom did not send its own troops to North Yemen, but simply provided sufficient assistance to the Yemeni royalists in order to prevent them from being defeated.
Following its defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Egypt soon thereafter withdrew all its troops from North Yemen. But instead of taking advantage of the Egyptian withdrawal to send its own forces to help the royalists defeat the republicans, Riyadh helped mediate between the two sides. In 1970, a peace agreement was reached leaving the republic in place but allowing the royalists (except for the Yemeni royal family itself) to return. The republican government remained on close, friendly terms with Saudi Arabia for the next twenty years (What happened after that is too complicated to explain here).
What this suggests is that Riyadh is most concerned with preventing another state coming to dominate the country where the civil war is taking place --Egypt in North Yemen, and Iran in Iraq. In each case, Saudi Arabia will back the local party fighting to oppose this -- the royalists in North Yemen, and the Sunni Arabs in Iraq. But once the other state quits the fight, the Saudis are perfectly willing to work with the local forces those other states were supporting.
Egypt left North Yemen both because it had been unable to prevail there after five years of trying and because its defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war put its leadership in a position where it badly needed Saudi aid. Will Iran suffer similar setbacks in Iraq after an American withdrawal? There can be no guarantee that it will. It should be remembered, though, that during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi Shiites fought with Saddam against Iran. Iraqi Shiites are also Arabs and do not want Persian domination. Further, the Iraqi Shiites are divided. If Iran supports one Shiite group (such as the Badr Brigades) over another (such as the Mahdi Army), the latter may well be willing to accept support from Saudi Arabia.
In other words, if Iran can be prevented from dominating Iraq after a U.S. withdrawal for long enough that it stops trying to do so (assuming that it does), the North Yemeni experience suggests that Saudi Arabia will stop supporting Iraqi Sunnis exclusively and seek a compromise among all parties to bring the Iraqi civil war to a peaceful conclusion. The wording used by the unnamed official source in distancing the Saudi government from Obaid's op-ed, which noted the "Kingdom's policy and stand to support security, unity and stability of Iraq with all its sects and doctrines," hints that this may indeed be what Riyadh has in mind.
--
(Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University.)
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061215-082437-1115r
The government of Saudi Arabia made an important transition upon the death of Fahd, the echoes of which are still resounding through that country. That was actually at the culmination, not at the onset, of a particularly nasty little covert war between the royal factions when it became obvious that the King's health was failing. The House of Saud was always allied with the Wahhabi who put them in power, of course, but one of these factions is much more sympathetic to the Islamist revolutionaries who themselves are a faction of the overall Wahhabi.
These are very wealthy people, and so when it is said that the support for the Sunnis in Iraq is in private hands that is only true insofar as that part of the Royal family isn't nominally in control of the state. The fear at the time of the death of Fahd was that they would be.
As I said on another thread, they're stuck in a whirlwind of their own creation. Were they not to support the Sunni tribes they might well find themselves with a Shi'ite theocracy on their border and a flood of Sunni refugees. And they are not our friends, and so if in addition to killing Shi'ites their clients kill American troops as well, so much the better from their point of view.
This obviously won't do at all. But it is the reason that putting pressure directly on the Saudi government may not produce the desired results. Were we not concerned with the world economy it might well be time for a few judicious cruise missiles into certain mosques in Saudi Arabia, but a ham-handed and ineffective attempt to attack the men who definitely are our active enemies there is likely to cause more harm than good. It's enough to make one regret the passing of the good old days of the assassin's stiletto...or to bring them back.
Yes because they are on the defensive in Iraq right now. If we leave Iraq they will be greatly emboldened and they will follow us here and everywhere else, no doubt about it.
We are not just fighting for a stable and free Iraq we are fighting for our freedom and our way of life.
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.