Saudis Plan to End U.S. Presence

The New York Times ^ | 02/08/2003 (for editions of 02/09/2003) | Patrick E. Tyler

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

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)

[HadEnough]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[M Kehoe]

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

[DeuceTraveler]

We especially won't need to be in Saudi Arabia once we have our troops in Iraq. We'll make some new US bases in the new Democratic Republic of Iraq or any other name they decide to call it.

[TennTuxedo]

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.

[Guillermo]

Give Mohammedans the vote and they'll vote for revenge, murder, war and mayhem.

The Saudi regime is not repressive enough for the Saudi citizens.

[Reagan Man]

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.

[PhiKapMom]

Just a note to all to remind them that the NY Times is
Anti-American and Anti-Bush and has been trying to split the Saudi and Americans for sometime now.

Just who does the NY Times support in this War with Iraq -- it sure doesn't seem to be our side?

[and the horse you rode in on]

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.

[okie01]

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...

[P-Marlowe]

Ok. No Problem. We'll just have to move all of our bases to Iraq.

[L`enn]

Hope this is true. Get rid of Hussein and we do not need to be there. Move on towards another bug that needs squashing. Might be back later, in bugsquashing mode though.

[Cachelot]

Trivial Pursuit question: On which day during the hajj would you get the most bang for the bucks dropping a largish H-bomb over mecca?

[tall_tex]

....They noted that the soldiers could return if the Saudi rulers faced a new threat...

Unbeleivable statement. I am speachless..

[Ax]

And round one goes the late but totally unlamented Usama Bin Laden. The expulsion of U S Forces from the pagan capital was the number one priority on his agenda.

[Nick Danger]

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.

[cardinal4]

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.

[okie01]

"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.

[Mark Felton]

No problem.

We'll have major military bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan, Turkey and ...Iraq.