Saudis Plan to End U.S. Presence

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — Saudi Arabia's leaders have made far-reaching decisions to prepare for an era of military disengagement from the United States, to enact what Saudi officials call the first significant democratic reforms at home, and to rein in the conservative clergy that has shared power in the kingdom.

Senior members of the royal family say the decisions, reached in the past month, are the result of a continuing debate over Saudi Arabia's future and have not yet been publicly announced. But these princes say Crown Prince Abdullah will ask President Bush to withdraw all American armed forces from the kingdom as soon as the campaign to disarm Iraq has concluded. A spokesman for the royal family said he could not comment.

Pentagon officials asked about the Saudi moves said they had not heard of any plan so specific as a complete American withdrawal. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers involved were Saudis, members of both parties in Congress have urged broad reform in the conservative kingdom.

Until Abdullah actually issues the decrees, it remains to be seen whether he will be the first son of Saudi Arabia's modern unifier, King Abdul Aziz, to undertake significant political change.

The presence of foreign — especially American — forces since the Persian Gulf war of 1990-91 has been a contentious issue in Saudi Arabia and has spurred the terrorism of Osama bin Laden, the now disowned scion of one of the kingdom's wealthiest families, and his followers in Al Qaeda.

Saudi officials said the departure of American soldiers would set the stage for an announcement that Saudis — but probably not women, at least initially — would begin electing representatives to provincial assemblies and then to a national assembly, Saudi officials said.

The goal would be the gradual expansion, over six years, of democratic writ until a fully democratic national assembly emerged, a senior official said.

The debate over the need for reform is described by Saudi royal family members as part of the post-Sept. 11 reckoning to head off foreign and domestic pressures that threaten the royal family and its dominion over the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula.

As the United States prepares for what could be a long military occupation of Iraq, the Saudi royal family does not want to appear as if it were pressured into reform, according to Saudis familiar with the debate. To be seen as acting under American sway might undermine the monarchy's credibility before a population that is increasingly young, unemployed, pious and anti-American.

Still, the departure of all American military forces from Saudi Arabia would be a potentially troubling milestone in the history of the relationship that dates to World War II.

Since the Persian Gulf war, when the United States dispatched 500,000 troops to the Saudi desert, a security pact has endured to confront and contain Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Thousands of American engineers have built supply depots, air bases and a state of the art air operations headquarters south of Riyadh that were intended to join the two countries in long-lasting military collaboration.

Even if American troops do leave, Saudi and American officials said, security cooperation would likely continue, and they noted that the soldiers could return if the Saudi rulers faced a new threat.

The Saudi reform debate, according to one participant, has taken place in an atmosphere of opposition from senior princes, including Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, the minister of interior, and to a lesser extent, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the minister of defense.

Prince Sultan, who family members say has been privately designated as the next crown prince by Abdullah, was described by a family member as "moderately against it or, stating it another way, very reluctantly for it."

One royal family member said that despite opposing views, senior princes "will support the decisions of Prince Abdullah when he makes them" because "the royal family will always stick together, especially in times of crisis."

The reported decisions have enthusiastic support from Saudi Arabia's influential business community, and from the second tier of senior princes in their 50's and 60's who have had the most contact with the West. Among those family members are Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Princeton-educated foreign minister, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, son of the defense minister and a former F-15 fighter pilot who has been ambassador to the United States since 1983.

For now, a senior prince said, Crown Prince Abdullah, the day-to-day ruler since King Fahd fell ill in 1995, has overcome resistance with the admonition, "Isn't it better if I do this now before I have to do it later?"

The senior prince added, "After the last shot is fired in Iraq, it will be a good time to say that we have won, and that we both agree there is no longer any need for American forces." He continued, "But the real politics of this is to win the hearts and minds of a majority of the people" in Saudi Arabia. "That is the way to really fight terrorism and the bad guys."

Another senior prince added, "The fact is, reform is imperative and not a choice, so is participatory government." There will always be opponents to reform, this prince said, however the family is capable of facing opposition "with resolve, but with understanding for the other view."

If he issues the decrees, Abdullah will have to contend with those religious authorities who will resist reforms and a change in the fundamentalist contract that has empowered a clergy who practice one of Islam's most conservative interpretations, based on the teachings of Sheik Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab and sometimes referred to as Wahhabism.

American specialists on Saudi Arabia said it appeared that Abdullah was seeking a national consensus to maneuver around the most conservative elements of the clergy by appealing to the influential Saudi business establishment, the military and tribal leaders. The aim, Saudi officials said, is to create an Islamic parliament that would be able to wrest some control over social policy — even basic questions like whether women can drive — away from the puritanical religious establishment.

"If this turns out to be solid," said Richard N. Murphy, a leading Arabist who served as President Reagan's assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, "it is a dramatic demonstration of leadership, which people have been worried about" since Abdullah took over day-to-day rule from King Fahd. "It also shows that they are capable of generating movement from within, which is where it had to come from if they are going to survive as a ruling family," Mr. Murphy added.

One royal family member said there was a great deal of frustration among younger princes who feel that the older generation, most in their 70's and 80's, have been unwilling to take on the religious establishment.

"There is nothing in the Koran that says that women cannot drive," one prince said. "But we never tested the theory that women could drive," he added, explaining that the royal family simply subordinated itself to clerical rulings because that was the historical bargain under which the House of Saud came to power.

"As it stands now, one religious leader can veto anything that you want to do," one prince said. "Eventually, we became the culprits under this system," the prince added. "And now, we have exhausted every inch of that coalition" with religious leaders. "It is time to move on to the next generation."

The last time Saudi Arabia purged itself of foreign military forces was 1963, when the late King Faisal ordered the Strategic Air Command squadron of nuclear-armed bombers to evacuate the base they had maintained at Dhahran since the 1950's.

The reason at that time was a streak of Arab nationalism coursing through the region with the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, said David E. Long, a longtime State Department specialist on the Saudis. "Our presence in a military base became a liability" for the Saudis, he said, "and we were asked to leave."

Saudi Arabia's dalliance with democratic process also dates to the early 1960's. King Faisal told President John F. Kennedy that he would create an assembly whose appointed deputies would advise the throne, but not make laws. But nothing came of the proposal until 1992, when King Fahd finally carried it out after the Persian Gulf war.

Whether Abdullah can push through the deeper change now apparently envisioned is unclear. The decision by some family members to air the debate seemed in part intended to nudge the Saudi leader forward.

"Doing political reform in Saudi Arabia is like publishing the Kama Sutra in the Victorian Age," said one royal family member, referring to the Hindu encyclopedia of erotica. But, he added, "The changes that Abdullah is doing show that he is willing to proceed with only a slim majority of religious support" and a significant amount of opposition.

In doing so, Abdullah has concluded that he will need to put distance between himself and the United States.

"I think they will step away from us, and I think it is healthy for both sides," Mr. Long said. "The median age in Saudi Arabia is now 15, and within this demography, there is an ideological justification for getting mad at American troops on your soil."

"But over and over again, we have given them the umbrella of our security, and our interest in them is that they own one quarter of the world's oil and can export a higher percentage of it than anyone else," Mr. Long said. "That has created a very strong relationship that is under a lot of strain, but I think it will survive."

Thanks for posting this. The world is changing rapidly!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

My older brother (officer/lifer) was very involved in Saudi both during and after Desert Storm.

He told me lots of stories about hauling prince this and that around in Apaches, Abrams and Bradley fighting vehicles like it was Disneyland.

His impression of the Saudi armed forces is that THEY ARE A JOKE! After Saddam was contained, the Saudis purchased BILLIONS of dollars of the latest hardware on the condition that WE would perpetually man the gear. That's why this article saying that the royals want us out is bullsh*t, who are they going to hire??

The Saudi royals believe that everything (especially war) should be out-sourced.

I Iraq is defanged, who would be the Saudis natural enemy? I think the handwriting is on the wall for Iran as well. Their citizens are going to get increasingly restless with both Afghanistan and Iraqi citizens having their lots increased.

As self-determination comes to more individuals in the middle-east, the need for US troops wains. That's good, not bad.

If ever there was a need for the "Radio Free Europe" type of propaganda machine, there is one now for the middle-east. And I might add, perhaps we can get that force fed into the offices of the LAT, WP, NYT and other leftist rags. They don't seem to understand this nation's true intentions very well.

Saudi officials said the departure of American soldiers would set the stage for an announcement that Saudis — but probably not women, at least initially — would begin electing representatives to provincial assemblies and then to a national assembly, Saudi officials said.

Democracy and equal rights for the Saudis and their women. Right! The mullahs are going to go along with this. Sure, especially without a U.S. military presence. Maybe it will be a good thing for the Saudis to experience some of their own terrorism.

The goal would be the gradual expansion, over six years, of democratic writ until a fully democratic national assembly emerged, a senior official said.

Yep, I can see it working, no problem. Well, I guess anything can happen.

5.56mm

I think what this means is that the Saudis are feeling the pressure to change their political structure. Once the U.S. and British troops disarm and defeat Saddam Hussein, they realize that the U.S. and British forces will no longer need Saudi bases to launch operations on terrorism. The Saudis know they would be surrounded by forces capable of conducting strikes at the heart of their culture in a matter of minutes, not months. Therefore, they have little room to negotiate and it would be only a matter of time before they would be taken down. This way they keep a large portion, albeit diluted power.

In defeating Iraq, the U.S. and British will be able to effectively impress change on the part of the world that has created, facilitated, and supported terrorism on the western world. If nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran insist upon conducting business as usual, they will risk the elimination of their current political power structure. We are already seeing the effects of our President's policy on terrorism. They and the Euroweenies can't stand it because it brings change to their lives and power base.

We might be in more agreement then we realize. But I have a slightly different take on this specific situation. Kicking out the US military, doesn't bode well for the future of Saudi Arabia. The war on terrorism has just begun and the Saudi's have supported terrorists like Usama Bin Laden from the get go. I will be the first to admit, I'm no expert on the Arab's, but closing off their nation to all US military force, will only isolate them further and possibly lead to the rise of more radical Islamic fundamentalism. In other words, more troublemakers!

Right now, however, these are only assertions being made in a leftwing rag and nothing more. We've seen the US and the Saudi's play this game before. Time will tell.

Saudi officials call the first significant democratic reforms at home, and to rein in the conservative clergy

If they want to do this they better pull us closer than ever, because we are the only thing that can keep them from sleeping with the Shah of Iran.

Sounds to me like the Saudis have read the tealeaves.

After a successful Iraqi campaign, the US won't need bases in Saudi Arabia. Instead, Iraq will become our Middle East base of operations -- from whence we can prosecute the War on Terrorism without interference from the Saudis.

And, with a newly installed democratic and capitalist government installed in next door Iraq, the Saudis will be under significant (and intended) pressure to reform their own state.

The Saudis have seen the future. And they don't like it very much...but they'll go along. For now, at least...

We especially won't need to be in Saudi Arabia once we have our troops in Iraq.

Exactly. It almost makes me wonder whether we haven't coordinated this with them. We'll need so many troops in Iraq, at least to begin with, that we won't want to keep any in Saudi Arabia. This way they can look like they kicked out The Infidel, we can look like we left when asked -- see that, we're not imperialists -- everybody wins.

I suspect they are going to have a bumpy ride trying to push the Wahhabis aside, but that's their problem.

I think Saudis Plan Democratic Reforms, Will Form Elected Assemblies would have been a better headline. That is certainly the more significant development here.

The bottom line is that they are planning to do what we would have done had we taken the place over. This means that they understand exactly what the deal is. They will move toward a democratically-elected government, they will reduce the influence of the Mullahs, and who knows -- they might even let women drive cars. Getting those places out of the 13th century is Job #1. That's the only long-term way to stop the terrorism. If they want to do it themselves, that's fine. Good luck to them.

I wouldnt really call it round one to UBL. Once it was demonstrated just where the saudis stood, leaving the Magic Kingdom is a mutual benefit; we are rid of a foolish and transparent ally and they can go on appeaseing the wahabbis. I give the House of Saud 20 years on the outside after their only buffer (The US) leaves. Good Bye and good riddance.

"Kicking out the US military, doesn't bode well for the future of Saudi Arabia. The war on terrorism has just begun and the Saudi's have supported terrorists like Usama Bin Laden from the get go. I will be the first to admit, I'm no expert on the Arab's, but closing off their nation to all US military force, will only isolate them further and possibly lead to the rise of more radical Islamic fundamentalism."

The Saudis won't be "kicking us out". They full well understand that we'll just be "moving next door."

"Even if American troops do leave, Saudi and American officials said, security cooperation would likely continue, and they noted that the soldiers could return if the Saudi rulers faced a new threat."

Our leaving the Saudi bases for Iraq will ease Wahabbist pressures on the Saudis. Our presence there, in the kingdom officially ascribed as "The Protector of the Holy Places", is a serious annoyance to the radical Islamists. Our departure will defuse the tension, not heighten it.

In the end, one of the most important moves in the War on Terror will be the moving of our base of operations from a hostile and compromised Saudi Arabia to a liberated and cooperative Iraq.

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.