How Long Will The House of Saud Last?

[ralph124c]

By any standard, the house of Saud is an anachronism. Here you have a family with over 5800 members (around 3200 prices), who rule an entire country! Given the recnt bombing, it appears that the grip of this monarchy is loosening..how long can a monarchy like this last?
To my mind, 3 things could happen to Saudi Arabia:
(1): the monarchy could put itself out of business, and lead the way to a democratic, elected government. This would be the best possible outcome.
(2) The monrachy decides to hand on..and uses foreign ,mercenaries (ie "us") to destroy the Islamic opposition. great bloodshed comes from thois, and the monarchy eventually topples (in 5-6 years time).
(3) The monarchy collapses..to be replaced by an islamic dictatorship as happened in Iran. This is the worst thing that couls happen.
So how long do YOU give the house of Saud?

[Ice Wolf]

I don't think there's a factual answer to your questions, only speculation, ralph124c.

How long is a piece of string?

[BrainGlutton]

This really belongs in Great Debates, not General Questions.

[manhattan]

Off to Great Debates.

[BrainGlutton]

ralph124c, you are omitting:

(4) the United States invades Saudi Arabia, just to prevent the possibility of the House of Saud falling in a direction we don't like.

I don't think Bush is going to try to sell us any more wars until the 2004 election, but if he wins it, anything goes. We've already set a precedent for a pre-emptive invasion to eliminate a possible future threat. And the prospect of an (even more) Islamic fundamentalist regime coming to power in Saudi Arabia definitely counts as a threat. And we're in a position to use Iraq as a staging ground. The best hope for the House of Saud might be that, by the time its turn comes around, we find ourselves too busy with North Korea.

[Johanna]

The article "The Fall of the House of Saud" by Robert Baer in the May 2003 Atlantic Monthly set out a damning list of indictments of Saudi Arabia and why their entanglement with America is harmful to America. Read it, and prepare to be very disturbed. Saudi Arabia is a car with no brakes speeding toward an imminent crash. America had better figure out how to get disentangled, but quick. Also very sinister is the way top al-Qa‘idah members are blood related to the Saudi internal intelligence agency, which explains why they have been less than enthusiastic about catching the terrorism perpetrators. Saudi Arabia itself is responsible for aiding and abetting al-Qa‘idah. The whole country is as rotten as can be. Ick.

[John Mace]

"I don't think Bush is going to try to sell us any more wars until the 2004 election, but if he wins it, anything goes"

(my bolding)

I think you're forgetting about that small group of legislators called The Congress. They autorized the Iraq war, and he'll need to get them to do it again for another country. Very unlikely except possibly for NK. And that is still not very likely.

[Kalt]

That depends on how adamant congress is about enforcing the War Powers Act (which is of dubious constitutionality anyhow). The Commander in Chief can send troops w/out the permission of congress. He just can't "Declare War."

[Sampiro]

There's no way the House of Saud will step down: what's in it for them? There's no way the U.S. or any other superpower could force them to because that would involve an invasion of Saudi Arabia and if anything would bring every Muslim together against a common enemy it would be hostile forces taking over the land of Mecca, Medina, and the Prophet Muhammad. The only way to fight the House of Sa'ud is economically and their personal fortunes can withstand one helluva long siege.

They'll decline when reliance on non-petroleum based energy sources declines and there are so many members of the family and their revenues have so dwindled that they're no longer all filthy rich. That won't happen in this generation.

[Fang]

BrainGlutton, the United States will not invade Saudi Arabia. The political sensitivities of the US controlling the land of al-Makkah and al-Madinah are untenable, and I think that at minimum, a direct attack on the US by the Saudi government would be necessary for such an invasion to occur.

I second Jomo Mojo's recommendation that everybody read Robert Baer's article in the Atlantic Monthly. It is available online here (I didn't think that would be legal, but the site appears to be a legitimate part of a university - if it's not appropriate to link there, mods please remove the link). You will be extremely troubled by what you read. According to the article, the number of members of the House of Saud is actually around 30,000, and all of them get to take advantage of the expensive privileges offered by the government/family at the cost of the Saudi Treasury's wealth. Meanwhile, the economy is going entirely down the tubes; per capita GDP is incredibly low compared to what it used to be, and 70 percent of all jobs are filled by foreigners. Prince Nayef will almost certainly prevent this investigation from happening properly, just as he did with the Khobar Towers bombing.

As to the OP, my prediction is that King Fahd will die in the next year or two, and there will be a power struggle for the throne. Crown Prince Abdullah is considered the legitimate heir, but he is widely disliked among both the royal family and the extremist clergy, for his somewhat reformist views. As he, Prince Sultan (the defense minister, considered pro-American, though in what respect is debatable), and Abdul-Aziz (one of Fahd's spoiled sons) fight it out, the House of Saud will most likely crumble. While the idea of a bunch of corrupt, theocratic tyrants falling out of power sounds nice, its replacement will be probably even worse. War may break out if another major terrorist attack (at least Bali-scale) occurs against the US, and the US might be glad to have bases available in Iraq at that point. This is all speculation of course, but in predicting the political future, what isn't?

[Johanna]

Crown Prince ‘Abdallah is the only one in that whole sorry bunch who has a glimmer of intelligence or integrity. No wonder the rest of them hate him. He seems to be not very impressed with Wahhabism, and probably is astute enough to recognize that Wahhabism is what got the country into the whole sorry mess in the first place. He is up against a deeply entrenched religious/political power elite that has been working to thwart his modest moves toward reform. ‘Abdallah has been the de facto king for several years already, since Fahd is now a useless vegetable. The Sudayri gang of full brothers, of which Fahd was the ringleader, are the chief cesspool of corruption. They are allied against ‘Abdallah and will do anything they can to bring him down, because they know once he comes into his own they're finished. When Fahd finally dies and the daggers come out (so to speak), it ain't gonna be pretty.

Good analysis, Fang, only one nitpick: while al-Madinah is correct, there is no "al-Makkah": it's just plain Makkah (or Mecca). If the Book of Psalms (84:6) is any indication, the name comes from a Semitic root that means 'weeping' (baka).

[Guinastasia]

Well, now, what was the name of the King before Fahd-the one who was assassinated? Wasn't he supposed to be a reformist?

[Johanna]

The one before Fahd was Khalid; you're thinking of the one before him, Faysal, who was assassinated in 1975. He had lots more intelligence and integrity than anyone now living. Those days are long gone.

Faysal was the only Saudi king to actually depose another king. His brother Sa‘ud who he replaced was a fat blithering idiot.

[John Mace]

Is there any real opposition movement inside S.A.? Any groundswell of revolt against these (revolting) royals? Other than ObL, that is. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on S.A., but you certainly never hear about any in the news media.

[RandySpears]

Given the oil reserves of S A.

If this country falls into chaos, civil war. If it is transformed into a theocratic state, be it Taliban style or Iran style.

That would be an economic and foreign policy disaster for the US administration. I would say that US Foreign Ministry do not see it as an option allowing either one of those to happen. If they can stop it.

[Guinastasia]

Faysal-that's the one I was thinking of. Thanks.

[vibrotronica]

Given the oil reserves of S A.

If this country falls into chaos, civil war. If it is transformed into a theocratic state, be it Taliban style or Iran style.

That would be an economic and foreign policy disaster for the US administration. I would say that US Foreign Ministry do not see it as an option allowing either one of those to happen. If they can stop it.

I don't know, Randy, now that we have liberated the Iraqi oil, couldn't we just tell them to take a flying leap?

[rjung]

The United States might not declare war on Saudi Arabia, but if the transition isn't peaceful, would George W. Bush "volunteer" to have the U.S. "rescue" Saudi Arabia from falling into chaos?

Strictly as a "peacekeeping" effort, of course. And since it wouldn't be a declaration of war, it doesn't have to go through Congress. I mean, we've got troops conveniently nearby in Iraq and Kuwait already...

[John Mace]

RJUNG:

That's an interesting proposition, although I can guarantee you that Clinton would've been just as likely to do so as Bush.

Would the US populace countenance having our troops make S.A. safe for monarchy? I remember there was some criticism about this wrt Kuwait: Why are we fighting to restore a monarchy (or is it an emerate)? But this never got any traction. I would like to have seen our efforts to rescue Kuwait tied to their commitment to democracize. I don't know the details of the Kuwaiti gov't, but IIRC it's hardly a democracy. I'd welcome correction on that if I'm wrong.

[Fang]

Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
Good analysis, Fang, only one nitpick: while al-Madinah is correct, there is no "al-Makkah": it's just plain Makkah (or Mecca). If the Book of Psalms (84:6) is any indication, the name comes from a Semitic root that means 'weeping' (baka).

D'oh! :wally : I actually did know that, despite my pathetic show of ignorance not reflecting it.

As to John Mace's question re the democratic opposition in Saudi Arabia, they are generally not very vocal (the main opposition is Islamism, as if they were not Islamists already), though a recent New York Times op-ed suggests that the pro-democracy movement is stronger than appears. How strong? Who knows? Transparency is a serious issue in SA.

[Johanna]

Saudi is so opaque, they make the People's Republic of China look like cellophane.

[rjung]

Originally posted by John Mace
That's an interesting proposition, although I can guarantee you that Clinton would've been just as likely to do so as Bush.

Oh, no doubt about that -- Clinton never had enough clout during his eight years in office to blow off America's oil needs without facing the consequences.

Would the US populace countenance having our troops make S.A. safe for monarchy?

The last eight months have convinced me that the US populace will believe anything if it's slickly wrapped in a jingoistic package. Just cite the Saudis as our long-time allies, paint the rebels as being backed by terrorists (Osama bin Laden! Booga booga!), toss in a little fluff about how "America stands for freedom," and stand back.

Of course, coming off an invasion of Afghanistan and an invasion of Iraq, an invasion of Saudi Arabia would simply reinforce the notion worldwide that we're in it for the oil and fuel more Islamic fundamentalism against us, but I don't think anyone in the White House cares about that.

[Marley23]

The United States might not declare war on Saudi Arabia, but if the transition isn't peaceful, would George W. Bush "volunteer" to have the U.S. "rescue" Saudi Arabia from falling into chaos?

US troops matching into Mecca? That'd go over huge.

I hope the House of Saud doesn't last long, but it's hard to imagine anything better coming along to replace them.

[RandySpears]

vibrotronica
I don't know, Randy, now that we have liberated the Iraqi oil, couldn't we just tell them to take a flying leap?

Hell yeah! You have just "liberated" the worlds second largest reserves of the worlds second cheapest oil so then it would make good sense asking the worlds largest reserves of the worlds cheapest oil to take a flying leap. Hrm.

[Testy]

Originally posted by John Mace
Is there any real opposition movement inside S.A.? Any groundswell of revolt against these (revolting) royals? Other than ObL, that is. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on S.A., but you certainly never hear about any in the news media.

I rarely hear anyone in Saudi slam the royals, it ain't healthy. They won't have you shot or anything like that, foriegners just get deported and locals mysteriously fail to succeed. The only revolt I hear in Riyadh is a vague and general wish that the royals would go away so someone else could get that huge slice of the pie for a while.
The only people who are (somewhat) outspoken about getting rid of the royal family are the hard-core types from Qassim and they regularly get rounded up and sent back up there. The royals, for all their faults are infinitely preferable to these Taliban wannabes.

Testy

[Collounsbury]

Interesting article.

Strikes me as generally a good read, but I feel it may be underestimating the distributive channels of the Ibn Saud. Not everything flowing through family coffres are spent on themselves, much is spent on side payments to clients.

In the end the Kingdom is a huge client network, not a real nation.

Unsustainable to be sure, but in the near term, next five years and even ten years, they're probably sustainable. however a number of things about this series of bombings suggests that there are moles for al-Qaeda within the Saudi security apparatus. That's.... not a good thing.

Problem is the alternatives to the Ibn Saud are rather unpalatable. Rather. Saudi society is seriously dysfunctional.

I would note that the article is likely overstating the economic problems in SA. Per the information I have access to, which is certainly not classified, but I don't feel the Intel folks have better econ. data, they're managed some stabilization of PCI around $8k, but still.... There are real efficiency gains to be had, and work on privatizations may be helping. Without a radical overhaul, of course, it is a matter of treading water.

A note on SA oil. If SA took its production entirely off stream, even with a fully operational Iraq on stream, oil markets would go crazy. Simply there is not much productive flex globally, and SA is the single largest and best quality swing producer. If they're offline, the author is right, the world economy is truly fucked. Really, truly fucked. Everybody else, presuming moderate average demand, has to operate flat out for a sustained period. Short term rigidities mean very little excess supply in the system and that would mean prices go nuts, nuts enough depending on the circumstances one might see triple digit spikes.

[Testy]

Mr. Baer has some good points and his views agree very closely with the things I see on a day-to-day basis. Princes selling work visas, having property condemned and then resold to themselves at cut-rate prices, all of the little revenue earning scams that infuriate the average guy. Riyad's tallest building, the Faisaliah tower was built on land acquired in this way. The ex-owner machine-gunned several of the cement trucks during the foundation pour. The thing was then settled out of court.

Baer is also right about Ras Tanura and Abqaiq being vulnurable. RT has always struck me as the world's largest piece of unexploded ordnance.

As far as the moles in the Min. of Interior, that has to be much on the mind of the royals. How to isolate and contain the more rabid types without appearing too secular/westernized themselves? The royals have based much of their public-relations on being extremely devout and open distrust of their fellow believers would have some very negative consequences.
On a more personal note, I now have several truck-loads of armed security people in front of my compound, vehicle-mounted heavy machine guns, body armor, serious GI-Joe equipment. The problem is, many of them are of the heavily-bearded type. In the event of an attack, which side would they be on?

All the best.

Testy

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Testy
Mr. Baer has some good points and his views agree very closely with the things I see on a day-to-day basis. Princes selling work visas, having property condemned and then resold to themselves at cut-rate prices, all of the little revenue earning scams that infuriate the average guy. Riyad's tallest building, the Faisaliah tower was built on land acquired in this way. The ex-owner machine-gunned several of the cement trucks during the foundation pour. The thing was then settled out of court.

Yup, I did not mean to seem to question his read. Matches what I hear and see as well, although you being in place you obviously get a deeper view.

I have an amusing story as an aside. You may have read in the Pit on Japanese Chicks and Camel Masters my slight aside on an Agency guy .... spanking the monkey to surveillance. Same fellow has an amusing tale to tell of him arranging the writing of a certain Provincial Governor's PhD thesis. The Emir wanted a nice set of letters and an American degree to help with advancement. So, he got it. Ghost-written.

However, I wanted to take slight exception to the idea (to be sure Baer was not predicting this) that the Ibn Saud are going to fall tomorrow. I read Baer as making a very public plea to start looking at the options for 5-10 years down the road, before it's far too late.

My read.

As far as the moles in the Min. of Interior, that has to be much on the mind of the royals. How to isolate and contain the more rabid types without appearing too secular/westernized themselves? The royals have based much of their public-relations on being extremely devout and open distrust of their fellow believers would have some very negative consequences.

Catch 22 they have themselves in. Not many people believe the family is devoit as far as I can tell, from convos outside the country. Certain parts, but in gross....

On a more personal note, I now have several truck-loads of armed security people in front of my compound, vehicle-mounted heavy machine guns, body armor, serious GI-Joe equipment. The problem is, many of them are of the heavily-bearded type. In the event of an attack, which side would they be on?

Yes, are they going to kill their cousin to protect the Kafir?

Don't answer that.

I've got a good close friend going down to join you boys soon. Mil intel, and for the first time for his position, an Arabic speaker, just for the fucking novelty of it. Of course as he said to me, the Saud are going to ask why are we suddenly sending an Arabic speaker to this post.

[Collounsbury]

Actually rereading, I am questioning his read slightly, on the adaptive capacity of the Ibn Saud. I think there is bit more flex there than might seem. Bit more. But as I think I conveyed in the first message, it's flex that means delaying the ultimate crisis, not overcoming it. Although I rather think that the crisis will come as a Palace coup first.

[istara]

It is said that the doctorate of a certain Sheikh in one of the Emirates was entirely ghostwritten. Its title: "The Myth of Arab Piracy."

[Testy]

Agreed that the Sauds will be as flexible as they have to be and delay settling accounts with the fundamentalists as long as possible. My concern is that this will be a protracted process and will cause serious social unrest while they're doing it. As I'm sure you know, they don't encourage public demonstrations around here and my belief is that if there were to be one it would almost inevitably turn violent.

In Riyadh, the government has hauled away a few of the more vicious Imams in the past week. Rumor has it that they didn't do anything drastic, just stashed them in some garden spot like Sharoura in the Rub Al-Khali. Aside from that, nothing much has changed except the mosque down the street has toned down the anti-western rhetoric a bit.
Speaking of which, I had forgotten it earlier but there is one source of public dissatisfaction with the royals. I have heard several denunciations of the them during Friday prayers. I am sure there is someone taking notes on who said what but, publicly at least, these diatribes seem to be ignored.
Tell the intel guy to stop by, I'm sure he'd be interesting to talk with and I could introduce him to the local equivelent of single malt. My hotmail account is testy_1@hotmail.com

Best regards.

Testy

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Testy
Agreed that the Sauds will be as flexible as they have to be and delay settling accounts with the fundamentalists as long as possible. My concern is that this will be a protracted process and will cause serious social unrest while they're doing it. As I'm sure you know, they don't encourage public demonstrations around here and my belief is that if there were to be one it would almost inevitably turn violent.

In Riyadh, the government has hauled away a few of the more vicious Imams in the past week. Rumor has it that they didn't do anything drastic, just stashed them in some garden spot like Sharoura in the Rub Al-Khali. Aside from that, nothing much has changed except the mosque down the street has toned down the anti-western rhetoric a bit.
Speaking of which, I had forgotten it earlier but there is one source of public dissatisfaction with the royals. I have heard several denunciations of the them during Friday prayers. I am sure there is someone taking notes on who said what but, publicly at least, these diatribes seem to be ignored.
Tell the intel guy to stop by, I'm sure he'd be interesting to talk with and I could introduce him to the local equivelent of single malt. My hotmail account is ****


Best regards.

Testy

I'll forward this on. He's off in Europe getting some R&R before being condemned to the pleasures of Saudiyah, told me he'd be in place sometime during the summer.

[Testy]

Originally posted by istara
It is said that the doctorate of a certain Sheikh in one of the Emirates was entirely ghostwritten. Its title: "The Myth of Arab Piracy."

Myth? That must have been a tough one to defend! As Collounsbury mentioned, ghost-writing is fairly common around here. One of my employees just had a thesis written by a westerner working for one of our customers. I can't wait for him to hit me up for a raise when his degree is granted. Saudi has an amazing number of "Doctors" to the square mile.
It is odd how many job applicants I get that did really well on Islamic studies. Unfortunately, being an IT company, I can't really use them. This causes a lot of grief in the office.

All the best.

Testy

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Testy
It is odd how many job applicants I get that did really well on Islamic studies. Unfortunately, being an IT company, I can't really use them. This causes a lot of grief in the office.

By the way, how are the Saudization decrees applying to you guys? Also how do you do local recruiting?

[Eva Luna]

OK, this is a hijack, but what kind of masochist would ghostwrite someone else's dissertation? All that work, and you'd never even get to take credit for it. What kind of scholar would have that little academic integrity? And how could one survive the defense of a dissertation written by someone else? I know when I had my defense, I'd done all the work myself over a period of years, and read a lot of material on the fringes of my topic that even my committee hadn't read, and I still felt like a blithering idiot at the defense.

[Collounsbury]

Cash and carry, my dear, cash and carry.

As to what kind of scholar would have so little "integrity" -- well recall that this was not a.... well recall who told me the story. Integrity is a saleable commodity.

Originally posted by Eva Luna
OK, this is a hijack, but what kind of masochist would ghostwrite someone else's dissertation? All that work, and you'd never even get to take credit for it. What kind of scholar would have that little academic integrity? And how could one survive the defense of a dissertation written by someone else? I know when I had my defense, I'd done all the work myself over a period of years, and read a lot of material on the fringes of my topic that even my committee hadn't read, and I still felt like a blithering idiot at the defense.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by Kalt
That depends on how adamant congress is about enforcing the War Powers Act (which is of dubious constitutionality anyhow). The Commander in Chief can send troops w/out the permission of congress. He just can't "Declare War."

I wish forces could not be used in any offensive measure without a vote for war done in the House and Senate. I really think we need that power check in place for own protection. If a President is unable to convince the House/Senate that his actions are justified, then he should not be doing them. This kind of vote could be done secretly, with the entire body sequestered if it has to be a covert start. This is getting off on a tangent, though.

[Testy]

The Saudi-ization decrees are a mess and technically apply to everyone. Somewhat surprisingly, the Saudi businessmen hate them the most as they are put in a truly bad position. They hate hiring Saudis as they can cost in lost productivity. Of course, the local businessmen can't publicly say this as they would appear unpatriotic or worse.

The younger Saudis aren't well trained. Extremely high grades in Islamic studies are the star of most resumes with technical training coming a VERY distant second place.

To add to the grief, there is the high expectations of most young Saudis. Department manager is seen as a good entry-level position along with a western-level salary and benefits.

Most western companies, including mine, do hire Saudis but compete with ARAMCO and the Saudi government. Like most governments, this one offers unlimited job security but a low salary. ARAMCO pays better along with the security. An additional issue is the possibility of being taken to labor court if a Saudi doesn't feel he has been treated fairly. This is a guaranteed lose for the westerners and it is generally easier to just pay up and move on.

The local labor office is a sinecure for otherwise unemployable Saudis. The applicants pay to get their resumes on the top of the pile and the companies pay to be issued a Saudi-ization certificate saying they have met their quotas. The men working there make some good money. In one recent adventure, the labor office sent me a driver. It turned out he was both strabismic and epileptic. He had a seizure in the office. Quite an exciting day.

Frankly, given the unemployable nature of many younger men and the enormous (and increasing) quantity of them in the population, I'm not sure how this is going to work out. These men have been more-or-less educated and are theoretically good to work but nobody, including their own countrymen, wants to hire them. That causes some serious frustration. I don't know the truth of it but have been told that one of the main reasons women are forbidden to work here is that it would simply exacerbate the unemployment issue.

Our own local recruiting is generally through personal recommendation by present employees. If someone is willing to put their own head on the block for their relative it is a good recommendation. Aside from that, we wind up hiring a lot of nephews and the like in return for contracts. It sounds bad, I know, but that is the way business is done here. Most of our Arabic technical talent comes from either Syria or Egypt.

I intended to simply answer a question, apologies for turning this into a bit of a rant.

All the best.

Testy

[Eva Luna]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
Cash and carry, my dear, cash and carry.

As to what kind of scholar would have so little "integrity" -- well recall that this was not a.... well recall who told me the story. Integrity is a saleable commodity.

Yeah, but again the defense question. The university in your friend's tale was American; I don't claim to know anything about the Saudi educational system, but I've never heard of a U.S. university that would grant a non-honorary Ph.D. without a formal defense. So how did the guy survive the defense, if he didn't do the work for the dissertation?

I do imagine there are a certain number of unemployed M.E. Studies Ph.D.s running around who would be willing to write a dissertation for a fee. I guess after one can't get an academic job, one might figure that one might as well do something with one's hard-won knowledge, even if it's ethically slimy. And some extra cash probably wouldn't hurt, either.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Testy
The Saudi-ization decrees are a mess and technically apply to everyone. Somewhat surprisingly, the Saudi businessmen hate them the most as they are put in a truly bad position. They hate hiring Saudis as they can cost in lost productivity. Of course, the local businessmen can't publicly say this as they would appear unpatriotic or worse.

No surprise, I followed the Saudizaiton of taxi cab debacle with immense amusement.

I was actually curious as to the patterns of exceptions. Bit more familiar with UAE - but then Emirates is a better deal in general, Emiratis at least to my view having something approaching a relevant education in many circumstances. Not that the rentier class is not as lazy....

The younger Saudis aren't well trained. Extremely high grades in Islamic studies are the star of most resumes with technical training coming a VERY distant second place.

Yup. Legacy of the deal with the devil (aka Wahhabite ulema).

Of course structurally you get similar problems in the remainder of the Arab world. Too many kids opting for the Islamic studies department because one doesn't have to work to get good grades.

A big joke in many respects -- except that of course it creates a sort of lumpen proletariat of quasi educated but unemployable kids. At least outside the Gulf many turn to other venues such as private schools.

Devaluing education. It's a crime, but that was the policy of the 1980s, only started to change a bit in the 1990s (speaking to outside the Gulf).

To add to the grief, there is the high expectations of most young Saudis. Department manager is seen as a good entry-level position along with a western-level salary and benefits.

Ah you know that "work" is something best done by Egyptians and other low class people! What are you thinking?!? A real Saudi/Khaliji manages. Directs. Drinks coffee. Vacations.

Most western companies, including mine, do hire Saudis but compete with ARAMCO and the Saudi government. Like most governments, this one offers unlimited job security but a low salary. ARAMCO pays better along with the security. An additional issue is the possibility of being taken to labor court if a Saudi doesn't feel he has been treated fairly. This is a guaranteed lose for the westerners and it is generally easier to just pay up and move on.

Was wondering to what extent you have more or less set asides. Dealing with some Saudi ops my exp was we had to assume non-productive Saudis at X rate, and staff per that. Luckily one can build that into pricing, but then that just is a deadweight loss to the country.

Wondeful fucking circus. Or mess.

The local labor office is a sinecure for otherwise unemployable Saudis. The applicants pay to get their resumes on the top of the pile and the companies pay to be issued a Saudi-ization certificate saying they have met their quotas. The men working there make some good money. In one recent adventure, the labor office sent me a driver. It turned out he was both strabismic and epileptic. He had a seizure in the office. Quite an exciting day.

Ahhh. Yes. The stunningly unqualified ....

Frankly, given the unemployable nature of many younger men and the enormous (and increasing) quantity of them in the population, I'm not sure how this is going to work out. These men have been more-or-less educated and are theoretically good to work but nobody, including their own countrymen, wants to hire them. That causes some serious frustration. I don't know the truth of it but have been told that one of the main reasons women are forbidden to work here is that it would simply exacerbate the unemployment issue.

Well, the Wahhabite obs. with women staying at home predates these issues, but certainly it makes it harder to move on in the present circum.

Our own local recruiting is generally through personal recommendation by present employees. If someone is willing to put their own head on the block for their relative it is a good recommendation. Aside from that, we wind up hiring a lot of nephews and the like in return for contracts. It sounds bad, I know, but that is the way business is done here. Most of our Arabic technical talent comes from either Syria or Egypt.

I was wondering if any of the new electronic recruit services have been of use to you folks.

No surprises on the talent pool. W/o the Shamis and the Egyptians, there would be no Arab talent in the Gulf. (Well and the Iraqis too, but I hope they'll get sucked back to their own country in time.)

I intended to simply answer a question, apologies for turning this into a bit of a rant.

no, no. Not a real rant. It's informative.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Eva Luna
Yeah, but again the defense question. The university in your friend's tale was American; I don't claim to know anything about the Saudi educational system, but I've never heard of a U.S. university that would grant a non-honorary Ph.D. without a formal defense. So how did the guy survive the defense, if he didn't do the work for the dissertation?

Apparently there are 3rd tier American unis that can be .... had for an understanding. Esp. if the right people arrange it.

I do imagine there are a certain number of unemployed M.E. Studies Ph.D.s running around who would be willing to write a dissertation for a fee. I guess after one can't get an academic job, one might figure that one might as well do something with one's hard-won knowledge, even if it's ethically slimy. And some extra cash probably wouldn't hurt, either.

Technical dissert, not softy. I can't see a ME study major writing an analysis of KSA infrastructural development.

But polishing the English, that's another role.

Slimy, the Gulf is the seat of slimy.

[litost]

That is a scary article. With the resident experts agreeing with the overall gist, let me ask a few things. I am particularly interested in the support for Al-Qaeda in that country. The article seems to indicate two very different recruiting grounds:

(i) the unemployed but rich and restless youth, indoctrinated with Wahhabism/extremism.
(ii) those who hate the Royal family and its association with the US/West and are attracted by the anti-US rhetoric.

If those in (i) are the main receipients of "welfare" from the royal family, why would they find Al-Qaeda's motives appealing?

With the middle-class imploding, who exactly are the people in (ii)? The article didn't discuss any serious poverty issues that Saudi Arabia may be facing. But, I sure can understand how financial impotence can make Al-Qaeda's recruitment easier.

IIRC, Mohd. Atta was poor, and had trouble finding a stable job before he became active in Al-Qaeda. I have also read here and there that most of the hijackers were from families which were financially OK or rich.

Lastly, who are the biggest financiers of Al-Qaeda? The article mentions instances of Saudi money going to the Taleban and some members linked to Al-Qaeda, but are they the biggest sponsors?


Any input will be appreciated.

[Johanna]

Originally posted by litost
who are the biggest financiers of Al-Qaeda? The article mentions instances of Saudi money going to the Taleban and some members linked to Al-Qaeda, but are they the biggest sponsors?

AFAIK, yes.

They are hoping to stave off criticism that they're not "religious" enough by subsidising Islamist extremists. Idiots.

[litost]

Mohd. Atta is believed to be Egyptian. My mistake for insinuating otherwise. But, I would like to know if a growing sense of financial impotence is driving the Saudi youth to Al-Qaeda.

[litost]

Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
AFAIK, yes.

They are hoping to stave off criticism that they're not "religious" enough by subsidising Islamist extremists. Idiots.

The article mentions liberal funding for bogus charities provided by one of Fahd's sons. Of course, his motivations are to succeed King Fahd by currying favor with the extremists. There have also been allegations that the royal family "buys off" the extremist clerics by allowing them to preach and incite hatred as they like. I am stunned that the ruling family doesn't realize that this will eventually bite their own beings (and if the recent terrorist attack is any indication, it already is turning out to be true).

But, is the royal family involved in directly and knowingly funding an international terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda? That seems like a very serious charge.

[Testy]

Originally posted by litost
<SNIP>
The article seems to indicate two very different recruiting grounds:
(i) the unemployed but rich and restless youth, indoctrinated with Wahhabism/extremism.
(ii) those who hate the Royal family and its association with the US/West and are attracted by the anti-US rhetoric.

If those in (i) are the main receipients of "welfare" from the royal family, why would they find Al-Qaeda's motives appealing?

<SNIP>

Lastly, who are the biggest financiers of Al-Qaeda? The article mentions instances of Saudi money going to the Taleban and some members linked to Al-Qaeda, but are they the biggest sponsors?

Any input will be appreciated.

Well, maybe Collounsbury will drop in (I suspect he has better information and is certainly more of an Arabic scholar than I) but while we're waiting I'll take a stab at this.
The two different recruiting grounds aren't really different. Most of the "unemployed youth" being recruited are far from rich. Many of them are in their 20s or older and still living with their parents as they can't get a job, (nobody wants them, they have no skills) can't get married, (no bride price) and don't get enough money from their parents to lead the kind of life they see around them. This situation is obviously demoralizing.
In addition to this, they have been spoon-fed a religious education with a stiff dose of hatred and xenophobia mixed into it. Atop this is a general feeling that they are hated and despised, held in contempt, and that people are plotting against them. The CIA and Mossad are the favorite plotters, followed by a general "westerners." This attitude is encouraged by the rulers to deflect criticism away from themselves and onto anyone else, anyone at all.

So, we have a young, single man with no job and no immediate prospects of a family who's only success is in parroting religious teachings. He is being actively plotted against by Western and Jewish intelligence agencies, and the money his country receives from oil is being stolen in some mysterious manner by westerners, a belief his rulers reenforce. The guy has no control over his life. Even leaving his country wouldn't help, there is little demand for Wahabi scholars elsewhere. Now, along comes an OBL type, successful in business, a warrior, someone to respect; promising a more equitable distribution of oil wealth, an Islamic holy land where all are taken care of. Basically, a paradise on earth. The young man has very little to lose at this point so he signs up.

As far as who are the largest sponsors of AQ, my guess would be Saudi Arabia but this is not something that is going to be proven. I do not believe that the royal family gives money directly to AQ, that would be suicidally stupid of them. I believe it is more the case that they give large quantities of money to Islamic charities which is then passed on to someone with a much more hard-line set of beliefs. The money may go through several sets of hands before it finally winds up with an arms dealer or paying rent on a safe-house. The royals may know or suspect where the money is going but it can't be proven and that is the main thing.

In another post you asked:

The article mentions liberal funding for bogus charities provided by one of Fahd's sons. Of course, his motivations are to succeed King Fahd by currying favor with the extremists. There have also been allegations that the royal family "buys off" the extremist clerics by allowing them to preach and incite hatred as they like. I am stunned that the ruling family doesn't realize that this will eventually bite their own beings (and if the recent terrorist attack is any indication, it already is turning out to be true).

So, why don't the royals dumb the Wahabbi and pick a new sect? The royals can't publicly disavow the Wahabi, they are stuck with them.
In my head, I equate the situation here to something I bumped into in Kentucky, part of the Bible belt. There, most of the counties are dry and have been since prohibition. It is legal to posess alcohol but not to manufacture or sell it. The laws are stupid and create a thriving black market. Everyone knows things would improve with more liberal laws but no politician has been willing to risk coming out in favor of repeal, the opposition would slaughter him at the polls for "coming out in favor of sin."

Same thing here. The Wahabi claim to adhere the most closely to the strict word of the Quran and to disavow them would be perceived as rejecting some aspects of Islam, leading the country in a "less Islamic" or more Western direction. The Saudis have been taught since infancy that secular, Western states are more-or-less evil. Leading the country toward secularization would be tantamount to "coming out in favor of sin."

So, the royals can't publicly reject the Wahabi doctrines without cutting their own throats in the process. In fact, the royals have to encourage and promote these people. After all, they are spreading the "true" version of Islam and who could argue with that?.

This was long and not as well arranged as I would have liked but I hope it helps.

Regards.

Testy

[Collounsbury]

Actually I can't do much to add to Testy's analysis. Seems more or less dead on with my understanding.

In the end, the Saud are in a Catch 22 and I don't see what way out they have.

On al-Qaeda recruitment. These and similar orgs seem to get their activist core from the frustrated "lumpen-intelligentsia" as one analysis called them. Educated, perhaps from a modest "middle class family, frustrated aspirations..... The truly impoverished lack many of the skills it takes to succeed at this, and are more in the role of demonstration fodder and the like.

Mind you, I want to stress terms like "middle class" in the Arab world context are deceptive. Don't think US style middle class. Usually we're refering to people whose buying power is fairly pitiful, but have white collar jobs or come from white collar families.

Structurally I find it a bit .... distorting to refer to them as Middle Class as while technically accurate from a social pyramid point of view, it also seems to me to imply things to Westerners that are not sociologically the case in the Arab world.

[litost]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
In the end, the Saud are in a Catch 22 and I don't see what way out they have.

How about improving the quality of education? How about reducing the gigantic welfare state? I can understand their motivations in "buying off" the extremist clerics but what do they have to lose by improving the quality of education and arming Saudi youth with the abilities to be competitive in oil and other businesses?

I can imagine how a burgeoning "middle-class" living off their parents and the state, while "equipping" themselves with a sloppy education creates a breeding ground for irrational hatred.

[litost]

Thanks, Testy for taking the time. I know you recently experienced the brutal terrorist attacks and am glad you can find the time to contribute here.

[istara]

Also interesting: don't know if I posted this before, but I read one statistic saying 80% of mosques in America and the UK have wahabbi imams. This statistic from a (non-wahabbi) muslim. Will try to find again later.