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?
I don’t think there’s a factual answer to your questions, only speculation, ralph124c.
How long is a piece of string?
This really belongs in Great Debates, not General Questions.
Off to Great Debates.
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.
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.
“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.
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.”
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.
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?
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).
Well, now, what was the name of the King before Fahd-the one who was assassinated? Wasn’t he supposed to be a reformist?
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.
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.
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.
Faysal-that’s the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
I don’t know, Randy, now that we have liberated the Iraqi oil, couldn’t we just tell them to take a flying leap?
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…
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.
D’oh! :smack: :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.