None of this is very surprising. Saudi Arabia funds terrorist activities, sponsors schools where Muslim boys are taught to hate the West, and of course the Sept. 11 hijackers were mostly Saudi. They’re a backward, despotic medieval princedom, and if they weren’t floating on oil, they’d get very little respect from the U.S.
Question born of ignorance – Does Saudi Arabia fund terrorism, etc., or do Saudi Arabians? I mean, bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, but I understand he’s been (for lack of a better word) excommunicated.
It’s one thing if the government is doing this stuff. It’s something else if individual citizens are doing it on their own.
I suspect the DoD would not be keen to start a diplomatic crisis prior to a possible attack on Iraq by saying otherwise, whether they believe it or not.
Both. The Saudi government was the chief financial sponsor of the Taliban for the past several years, and has also helped finance Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Yet somehow it doesn’t appear on the State Department’s list of governments that sponsor terrorism.
Here is the official Saudi position. What is interesting is the disappearance of another official Saudi website I used to go to. On that one you could actually find specific budget line items where the Saudi government supported Hamas and the Palestinian Intifada. Ten months or so ago, I posted a link to that site here. Now I cannot seem to find it.
I think the Saudis are starting to get a little nervous. Look at the pop-up when you go to this site.
The briefing wasn’t given to the DoD, it was given to a think tank called the Defense Policy Board (“a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy.”) and it was given by Laurent Murawiec, employed by Rand Corp (a private consulting firm) and whose chief qualification seems to be as “a former advisor to the French Ministry of Defense”. The briefing is a consultant giving advice to a think tank, so it is completely understandable that the Pentagon aren’t going to jump up and say “By God! Frenchie’s right!”. Nope, they are going to stick to their current policy.
Also, Mr. Muraawiec’s advice seems a bit extreme. From the article:
Now, I’m all for dismantling the terror chain, but the first thing he asks for is for the US to demand the Saudi’s stop funding fundamentalist Islamics of any sort. I don’t think he meant just the violent terrorist cells, I think he meant all fundamentalist muslims. Demands regarding what kinds of religous support is and is not acceptable are not going to go over well in the region. Even more amazing, he asks that the US stifle the Saudi’s freedom of speech (well, what little there is of it) by stopping “all anti-US or anti-Israeli statements in the country”. Speak ill of us and you will pay the price? That’s insane. Not only is it against everything we stand for, but even attempting to enforce that type of edict on a foreign country is only going to make things worse.
I am not saying the Saudi’s are saints, but I for one am glad that the Pentagon has not jumped on board with this crazy French uber-hawk.
I agree it’s unrealistic and simplistic to ask for that kind of ultimatum against the Saudi government; and probably the best way to bring about democratic reforms in such countries involves the kind of interaction and influence that doesn’t go along with ultimata.
It’s just that the White House, over the past 11 months, has made a number of sweeping statements that we can’t back up: “We will treat any state that harbors or sponsors terrorists the same as the terrorists themselves.” Not going to happen, because of political realities that involve our interests (oil and money) outweighing our principles (fighting terrorists).
I’d just like to see a consistent policy regarding the Arab world that’s not dominated by our insatiable need for oil.
How about a pony instead? (Until we get serious about conservation and alternatives, our oil dependency has got to be a major factor in our foreign policy considerations.)
The duplicitous policy apropos Saudi Arabia also mirrors the relationship the US has with Pakistan – this revelationdidn’t prevent Bush arranging $billions of debt relief and sundries for Pakistan in the immediate wake of 9/11.
It’s not entirely a secret that significant elements within the Pakistani military and Intelligence communities are ‘familiar’ with a-Q – that they’re quite possibly still assisting OBL, etc is, of course, a moot and highly sensitive issue. Yet Pakistan remains the big regional ally of the US.
It would be nice to think the idea was to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’ but that would be to presume there are friends.
I tend to the view that the Gulf War was something of a watershed for the Arab/Muslim world – having been promised all manner of goodies in relation to Palestine (for the war support) and being later shafted by Bush 41, the Arab/Muslim world appears to have overcome many of their previously divisive issues to present a more coherent and sophisticated play-'em-at-their-own-game front.
I guess if everyone’s duplicitous the playing field becomes even. Kind of tricky though.
