Those pages of the report to Congress (that the American people will never see): what if the report shows that Al Queda was directly funded by Saudi Arabia? Would the USA have to re-evaluate its position of support for the kingdom?
My theory is this: Al Queda will be found to have received substantial monetary support from both the Saudi government and many wealth individualsin SA. When this information becomes public, the US government will face the outrage of the American people, who will demand that SA doe something to compensate for this. Knowing that the ruling Houseof Saud can never acquiesce to this, there will be a breakdown in the USA-SA relationship. This will undermine the House of Saud, and lead to an Iranian-style revolution in SA.
What emerges then? An anti-western, reactionary state?
What do you think?
I think that you’re ovcerestimating the reaction of the American electorate. Certain vocal individuals will be upset, but the spin doctors have shown an outrageous skill at medicating public opinion.
I would imagine that if that were the case, the US would have an interest in making preparations in advance so that the global oil supply and economy is not thrown into utter chaos if/when SA is confronted.
Hey, look! Iraq’s only a few months away from full production capacity. What a co-inky-dink!
My understanding is that the report could not come to a conclusion on whether Saudi officials had knowingly funded al-Quaida but that it recommended further investigation by the CIA and other agencies, which, according to the stories I’ve read, could take years, like, say, till sometime in the next administration.
To achieve the conclusion posited by the OP, US outrage over this presumed connection would have to build enough that US officials would be forced by popular opinion to obtain UN economic sanctions against Saudi, and that they be strong enough so the resulting effects would precipitate internal revolt. I have a hard time seeing that happening within the next few years, given the number of bridges that the administration burned with its allies over Iraq.
An alternative to the above scenario is that the US take some sort of massive punitive military action against the Saudis, but this seems highly unlikely under the current US administration, given their cozy relations with the Saudi leadership.
Cite, please.
Although some questions remain as to how knowingly, there’s pretty strong evidence that the house of Saud did support the hijackers. I’m hoping the one trillion dollar lawsuit goes through. It’s just hard to imagine Shrub’s oil friendly administration not subverting justice in this case.
The more I find out about SA, the less likely it is that such a “nation” even exists. Their national motto ought to be “Please don’t hurt us, here’s some money.” Plus, they have an amazingly top heavy beauracracy made up of thousands of rabbit-breeding minor nobility.
Is it likely that some Al Queda money made its way from SA. Connected with what might be termed a “Saudi official”? Sure! Hell, bet on it. But whether or not that could be anything remotely like a “state policy” is another question.
Wait for it…
I agree with elucidator.
There. I said it.
I’d like to hear Collounsbury’s take on this, because admittedly my knowledge of SA is pretty sketchy. However, based on my sketchy knowledge, it seems to me that Saudi Arabia is run by a rather feckless oligarchy, and they keep their power and keep the ‘street’ from rising up against them by shrewdly playing one side against the other. They keep the Americans at bay by being friendly, allowing military bases, giving to U.S. charities, and above all continually working the PR machine. They run commercials in the U.S. extolling their friendship, they have PR flacks doing the pundit shows, etc.
Then on the other side of the coin, they keep the Islamists in their country happy by funding their madrassas, giving them bottomless wells of funds with no strings attached for their other ‘projects’, and allowing them to run a rigid theocratic state at home.
So I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find that ‘mid-level regime officials’ were implicated in the funding of 9/11. But one thing to remember - Saudi Arabia’s monarchy is HUGE. When we talk about a Saudi offical, it’s not like talking about a member of the White House. It could be more like your crazy second cousin, twice removed.
This doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to get away with this - some kind of reform in SA may be necessary. But it also doesn’t mean that a connection with 9/11 means that it’s official regime policy to bring down western civilization. More likely, they’re just making deals with the devil in order to keep their phoney-baloney jobs.
While we wait for Collounsbury to join and enlighten us all, I have a question for you Sam.
If, as you say - “More likely, they’re just making deals with the devil”, that means that they are in cahoots with the devil. So, what motive would the devil have in not allowing them “to get away with this”.
Is it because certain things are beginning to hit the fan? Could the devil’s formulation and conduct of Foreign Policy lead to its own demise come November 2004?
I’m assuming we are speculating on the Saudi government being the source of funding? Osama bin Laden is Saudi, ergo the financing came (comes) from that country (his personal fortune, in this case).
Go ahead, beat me up.
Not until you beg.
The bin Ladens are from Yemen, actually, but you’re correct that his family’s money comes from working for the Saudi monarchy and I think that’s where most of them live. I think his personal assets have been frozen for years, however: some of the royals probably sympathize with him, but he was plotting against them because of their collaboration with the US - remember that American troops in Saudi Arabia was one of his stated ‘issues’ - which is why he was kicked out of the country and why he needs to rely on other backers, not just his own considerable fortune.
“Full production” is hard to define, and “months” may too much. But my point was that the massive production potential of Iraq will, before long, give the US a freer hand in dealing with SA should they so choose.
The cite says 1 million BPD for Iraq.
SA puts out about 9.5 mil BPD.
So Iraq’ll be able to provide about 1/10 of what SA puts out.
I don’t think that it’ll be enough to do what you’re implying it’ll be able to do.
At least not in the time frame you’re suggesting.
Now, I’ve seen estimate of Iraq’s oil production hitting 6-7 mil BPD by 2010. That would seem to have abetter chance of alleviating whatever instability could come from a US SA confrontation.
Full production is not at all hard to define. You need only do to the data I provided in my Iraq Reconstruction thread. BTW, current production is below 1 million and export capacity remains minimal.
As to “before long” well again see the Iraq Reconstruction" thread. To hit the 6-7 mpd mark there needs to be substantial reinvestment in the infrastructure. That is, it is a complete fantasy to believe Iraq will any time soon (I will define soon as within one year, possibly two) be in any shape at all to take up Saudi slack.
Try again.
Now Zenster graces us with this reference to this past tripe:
First, there is not pretty strong evidence, there is a series of assertions, coincidences and guilt by association bullshit to make strong claims about offical Saudi support without regard to contexts or time frames of the associations and moments of actual support. We have confusion between past support when it was kosher to do so, with perhaps occasional dealing with people like the Taleban and other related types of contacts, deliberately conflated with real support, as opposed to elements in Saudi apparatus subverting their own rulers. If one thinks critically about this it should be fairly clear.
Sloppy, sloppy thinking by people who either don’t know much or better about the situation, or those with axes to grind. I refer all to Tamerlane’s rather better informed response in the prior thread.
Sam and to a lesser extent Elucidator here has it more or less right, although I would note that
(a) the concept of nobility is misplaced, the Saud do not really meet native concepts of ‘nobility’ – they’re just rich lords with highly bounded legitimacy;
(b) the Saudi state is not a state in the usual sense, it is a patronage system largely based on increasingly anachronistic and unstable clan or tribal bases – one of its main functions is wealth redistribution through loyalty payments;
© as such, on (b) one of the main pillars of Ibn Saud legitimacy has been redistributive grants to Islamic foundations, to key families and the like – without regard or oversight as to the use, to buy loyalty;
(d) the other key pillar is their support for the most extreme of the Wahhabite Ulema, again through redistributive grants and allowing them a more or less free hand in certain limited areas of activity – that is social control excluding politics.
To be clearer, this is not a state set up in European bureaucratic terms, although it has become more like that over the years, but something more like a tribal system bureacratized. As such, lines of power and where money goes do not follow what Western observers reflexively think of as right and proper standards.
I consider it without any doubt that some members of the Ibn Saud family, either as payoffs or because of disaffection, have given money to people who run in al-Qaeda circles. It is a vast and sprawling family, not a bureaucracy, and it’s only real rule is power and influence. However, by that same mark, I consider the assertion the Saudi ruling clique/government officially and deliberately funded al-Qaeda to be fundamentally illiterate and mere axe grinding or perhaps blind prejudice.
As for the law suit, it should be thrown out immediately as a matter of policy – although regionally here it is nice to have the rather large capital flows coming in. But cheap posturing may have the day. It is not in the national interest to make foreign policy through poorly informed, politically motivated lawsuits against sovereigns. Bad precedent all around in my opinion, from a policy perspective, and bad rubbish to boot.
I think the 28 pages were classified not to protect the Saudis but to protect the Bush family, who is in deep with these guys. The law firm that is defending the Saudis in that trillion dollar lawsuit is none other than Baker Botts, headed by Bush consigliere James Baker III. Bush and his field marshall, Grover Norquist, have more links to Wahhabi terrorists than Saddam ever did. Read “Wahhabis in the Old Dominion:”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/072kqska.asp
Attacking Saudi Arabia sure would be easier if the USA had a nice piece of real estate next to it…
Lets see,. where might that be?