When before in history have large numbers of men been found fighting against the forces of a friend and ally of their own country? How long will it be before a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources is implemented, with an eye toward enabling the United States to extricate itself from this sham alliance with the Saudis? From UPI, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Five Saudi nationals fighting with insurgents in Iraq have been killed in clashes with U.S. forces, the Saudi daily newspaper al-Watan reported Wednesday....They noted that many Saudi youth fighting in Iraq "are encouraging their friends and relatives at home to join them and participate in the fight against the coalition forces."
How long will it be before a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources is implemented, with an eye toward enabling the United States to extricate itself from this sham alliance with the Saudis?
Definitely not before January 2008.
http://www.electablog.com/picts/oharmony.jpg
A blast from the past (nearly a year ago) and a reminder urbi et orbi that many of the articles, and even a good many of the postings, preserved in the JihadWatch archive (and carefully tended by a staff of uniformed archivists in green eyeshades) do not date.
This makes the JihadWatch archives quite different from what you will find if you look back at, say, the last 2-3 years of the vaporings of Tom Friedman, the parti-pris earnestness of the editors of The New Duranty Times or The Bandar Beacon, the careerist loyalties and received ideas of Bright Young Conservative Things on the make, the silliness of those Spiritual Searchers suffering from Weiss-Schwartz Disease, and so many others who presume to have opinions, but will not read and will not study, Islam or Iraq or anythinig else, but from the vantage-point of their comfy academic chair, or think-tank conning tower, or television studio bland crystall-balling, full of non-educated and thoroughly wild guesses, carefully received opinions, and prefabricated phrases used so often they never need the dust to be blown off.
On the subject of Saudi Arabia, one posting from a year ago, summoned at the click of a key from File Box #578 at JihadWatch:
"That Saudi Arabia was ever thought to be an ally of the United States is a tribute to the power of money, and to ARAMCO (now owned by the Saudis). The best book on the subject of the Saudis is "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West" by J. B. Kelly; the most sober article on oil pricing, one by Douglas Feith (yes, that Douglas Feith) some years ago in Policy Review.
Congress, if it is really wishes to understand how 9/11 came about, and wishes to understand three decades or more of folly in American policy based on a dreamy belief in the "friendship" of Saudi Arabia, should investigate how Saudi and other Arab money has been used to pay, directly, or indirectly, for various academic positions (it hardly matters if it is the King Fahd or the Edward Said Chair -- the opinions expressed will be much the same), for "Centers of Muslim-Christian Understanding," for assorted "Middle East Institutes" headed by supposedly incorruptible in-our-national-interest people (in contradistinction, of course, to the Douglas Feiths of this world). One would like Congress to reveal, for the edification of all, what exactly Raymond Close wrote in his reports, when he was C.I.A. station chief in Riyadh, from 1970 to 1977. What did the late John C. West, whose personal foundation received half-a-million dollars from the Saudis, and who even while still ambassador managed to wangle a job for his good friend Crawford Cook, report at a critical time, when he was ambassador? What about James Akins -- how exactly has he been faring, with his lectures and Op/Ed pieces, and is there any hint that some of his support comes not from his retirement money from the American government? What about all those others crawling around Washington offering their advice on American foreign policy, the wonderfulness of Saudi Arabia, the benevolence of Islam, and so on and so forth? Shouldn't this all be investigated, publicly? Would it not be salutary if certain people were forced to disgorge certain sums? After all, the failure of the United States to recapture oligopolistic rents has cost all American taxpayers a considerable sum of money; the oil-consuming world might, in the last 30 years, have spent 1-2 trillion dollars less had it not relied on the "kindness of Saudis" but on hard-headed taxation of gasoline at the pump and Arab oil at the borders, the real price -- the price now being paid in Iraq and Afghanistan -- being internalized.
In "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies" (Encounter, June 1979) J. B. Kelly described scathingly the foolish "twin-pillar" policy of relying on Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Here is what he wrote about American policy toward the Saudis:
"Much the same kind of creative licence [as with Iran], with appropriate adjustments, was used in depicting the strength and importance of Saudi Arabia. Here, instead of a contemporary Xerxes and the burgeoning 'second industrial power in Asia', we had the Badu Kingdom, ruled over by the stern yet benevolent House of Saud, supported by and themselves upholding the austere verities of the Wahhabi practice of Islam. Borrowing heavily from the propaganda circulated in the United States for many years by the Arabian-American Oil Company, the State Department in successive hearings before the Congressional commitees spun a tale about the Saudi ruling house, its rise to power, its mode of government, and its conduct towards its neighbours that the ghost of Scheherezade could not have bettered. At the heart of the State Department's presentation lay the argument -- first propounded and assiduously propagated for many years afterwards by ARAMCO for its own obvious purposes -- that a natural affinitiy existed between Amerians and Saudi Arabs, a sense of immediate camaraderie that made them logical allies. To give this notion of a mutualityr of intersts and outlook between the citizens of the world's most advanced democracy and the inhabitants of one of the world's most unenlighted states a little more credibility, ARAMCO in its poublications had employed a terminology delibeately evocative of the American West in pioneer days, of Bdu homesteaders, of grazing ranges (diyar in Arabic), of the Saudis as Unitarians (muwahiddun, 'believers in the unity of God'), of manifest destiny -- in short, of Arabia as America's last frontier. The State Department adopted the same practcie, while updating the imagery to that of Pittsburgh and Houston arising by the Red Sea, of a grand economic Saudi-American partnership, with the Saudis supplying the oil and finance and the Americans technoloogy, arms and political guarantees.
To some extent the State Department was aided in its endeavours to portray Saudi Arabia as a rapidly evolving, modern kingdom by the gullibility of some Senators and Congressmen.
'The notion that we are dealing in Saudi Arabia with primitive Beoduins is not only patronising but obviously mistaken,' George McGovern infomred his colleagues in the Senate in May 1975 after a lightning visit to that country. As one American Embassy official had put it to him, 'What you are dealing with here is a government run by 3,000 American university graduates....' Further testimony to the efficiency of the Saudi government -- its constructive use of its oil revenues, its benign outlook upon its smaller neighbours in the Gulf, its reliability as an ally of the United States, and its solicitude for the economic health of the West, as evidenced by its moderating influence in the counsels of OPEC -- was liberally provided by the parade of witneses from the universities, the oil companies and other outside bodies who appeared before the Congressional committees from 1971 onwards."
Posted by: Hugh at September 15, 2004 05:30 PM
Saudi Arabia, it needs to be repeated, is not, was never, and never can be, a "friend," or an "ally," or much less a "staunch ally," of the United States. Sometimes its interests have appeared -- but only appeared -- to coincide with ours. Thus the Saudis were eager to remove the Russians from Afghanistan, and so was the American government -- but for entirely different reasons. And once the Russians had left, Saudi Arabia was, along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (which should not 'scape whipping), the sole diplomatic and financial supporter of the Taliban, and hence of Al Qaeda, which was given refuge and other aid by the Taliban.
Saudi Arabia, or rather, the House of Al-Saud that has been robbing the country that it named after itself blind for decades, depends entirely for its security (and Prince Turki is not the only one to have bought a Xanadu-esque refuge or two in the United States, for possible future escape) on the United States. Yet the American airman stationed there are treated with contumely, as hired hands -- just as all foreign workers are, from the domestic servants (if female, possible sex-slaves) from Asian countries, to the Europeans and Americans who form the so-called upper class of wage-slave in Saudi Arabia.
In Iraq today, the war of two kinds of Sunnis against the American military and the Shi'a civilians proceeds. There are the Sunni Ba'athist irredentists (the Shi'a Baathists are not part of this, never having been terribly enthusiastic about the Sunni domination in the first place), and the Zarqawi AliQaedists. The first group simply does not wish to relinquish Sunni control of a strong central government -- an impossible putting of the Shi'a (and Kurdish) genie back in the bottle. The Shi'a, and the Kurds, must be harmed -- and of course their protestors, the Infidel Americans, must also be harmed, and that harm can also, as Al Qaeda missives hardly noticed in this country have stated, by inflicting "economic damage" on the United States through forcing it to remain in the Briar Patch, clinging to the Tarbaby of Iraq.
The second group, that which one associates with the Palestinian Al-Zarqawi (always carefully referred to as "Jordanian-born" so no damage is done to the sacred cause of the "Palestinians"), also fights the Shi'a, but for another reason: the Shi'a are Infidels, or practically so. Simply read what Wahhabi clerics say about Shi'a, and how the Shi'a of Saudi Arabia, in Najran, in the entire Hasa province (where the Shi'a mainly live, and where the Saudi oilfields are located -- though exploration is going on elsewhere, in the Rub al-Khali, by Totalfina and Elf).
The Saudis fighting in Iraq are part of the second group -- the group that wants, naturally, both to kill the Infidel Americans, and to promote the cause of Sunnis (never mind that some are far more "secular" in a few ways than the Saudis -- that can be sorted out later).
The Americans need to see Saudi Arabia steadily and whole. The two greatest enemies that the Infidel world now has, among the Muslim countries, are Shi'a Iran, and Sunni (Wahhabi) Saudi Arabia. The Sunnis of Saudi Arabia regard the Shi'a of Iran as virtual Infidels. The Shi'a of Iran regard the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia as corrupt and monstrous in their attitude toward Shi'a.
Can anyone in the American government think of anywhere in the world where, just possibly, simply by not making an effort, but rather by withdrawing, we can encourage a clash, or even a proxy war, between our two greatest Muslim menaces -- Shi'a Iran, and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia?
Can anyone guess where that might be allowed to occur, if only we saw Islam as the menace, and not the mere tactic that a "war on terror" suggests? Can anyone give a correct answer to the question: was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing for American and other Infidel peoples and polities, or was it not?
Anyone in a guessing mode or mood?
Possibly even in the Pentagon, or Congress, or somewhere in well-fed Washington?
Hugh:
What more can one say except to recommend reading Craig Unger's House of Bush; House of Saud: the Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/074325337X/104-3130333-0995956?v=glance
and, Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400050219/qid=1124285736/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-3130333-0995956
I cannot think in all history of an alliance between two nations which is more incongruous and mystifying.
"When before in history have large numbers of men been found fighting against the forces of a friend and ally of their own country?" It seems to me that these jihadists cannot be considered as having a country. They have no allegience to any government on earth, and the only government they would ever bow to would be an Islamic caliphate. Their citizenship might say Saudi Arabia, but their Country is Islam. Alliences mean absolutely nothing to them, and they give no gratitude to the USA for defending their "homeland" from Saddam less than fifteen years ago, or the US help in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan, or our help to save the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. In all likelihood, if they were not fighting in Iraq, they would be fighting the Infidels in the Sudan, or Nigeria, or Chechnya, or Israel, or Kashmir, or Thailand, or the Philipines, or wherever else. How many wars are currently being faught on this planet, and how many of them involve Jihadists?
"I cannot think in all history of an alliance between two nations which is more incongruous and mystifying."
--- from Mentat's posting above
Not "mystifying" at all. Think ARAMCO. Think all those well-paid "consultants" who are former diplomats to the Arab countries. Think of Raymond Close, and how he has spent his time, and acquired his pocket-money, since retiring as C.I.A. station chief in Saudi Arabia, in 1977. Think of all those giving their "disinterested" advice in lectures, Op/Ed articles, and son -- "disinterested" advice that always seems to correspond to the Arab League view of the world.
"Mystifying"?
Remember that song in "Cabaret"?
"Money makes the world go round
The world go round.
Money makes the world go round
Of that we can be sure!"
Think Joel Grey and Liza Minnelli, at their most pseudo-decadent. Think Alan Cumming, with the Kit Kat Girls, ditto.
Those businessmen angling for Saudi contracts, those ex-ambassadors, those ex-intelligence agents, those journalists, those academics in Saudi-funded chairs, were never in any danger -- unlike the characters played by Joel Grey and LIza Minnelli -- of having empty coal-bins, and freezing to death in the Berlin winter. No, they are motivated by pure greed. greed.
An un-exculpating couplet for the occasion will explain:
"How to explain the decline of our West?
Radix malorum cupiditas est."
When before in history has the leader of the greatest nation in the free world been pictured a-kissing and a-hugging with the leader of one of the most backward nations in this world? And holding his hand while strolling around, to boot! And all to show the world a phony friendship in practice!
Hugh:
Yes, of course, you are right about greed being the source of the problem; that is also the conclusion of both Baer and Unger.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
Mentat:
Unger's book, unless it has been revised, is a rather flawed document that Michael Moore relied on heavily for f/911. I am not familiar with the other and hope it is a more carefully researched and presented set of facts.
Others have written on other threads that the close US-Saudi relationship was initially fostered by F.D. Roosevelt's government in competition with the Brits, certainly for the sake of US oil interests.
Waterdragon52:
Unger's desire to implicate the Bush clan as being directly culpable in maintaining the alliance with the Saudis is obviously politically driven; however, the book, though flawed, at least points out that the Saudi relationship is a problem. Baer's book is very hard-hitting and disturbing. Even left-wingers I know found it disturbing. It is amazing sometimes how much it takes to roil the calm, placid waters of the "see no evil" crowd. As Daniel Pipes says, "Education by murder" is the only thing that sometimes works.
Once again, Hugh employs the short-sighted vision of pitting two enemies against each other and presuming they will exaust each other in interminable conflict. A much more likely outcome is the triumph of one side over the other - in the case of Iraq, the Shiites will most likely triumph by virtue of their numerical superiority in Iraq and the strength of Iranian support.
The result will either be the emergence of an Iran-Iraqi superstate or the break-up of Iraq.
In the case of the former, small neighbors like Kuwait and Qatar will be compelled to embark on a policy of accommodating the new realities. They will ingratiate themselves to the new superstate by ejecting the USA - already proven unreliable by the abandonment of its commitments in Iraq - from its bases in these two countries. This will further complicate any American attempt at a timely intervention to forestall a future existential threat to Iraqi Kurdistan.
In the case of the latter, again what Hugh seems to perceive as a desirable outcome could actually be the precursor of the coming Caliphate. The legacy of colonial boundaries are one of the principle impediments to Arab unity, which is a godsend for the West. Shattering that legacy by dismembering Iraq will create a strong centrifugal pull throughout a besieged Sunni Arab Muslim world.
Hugh, the policies you advocate are playing with fire. We need to see through our commitment to the Iraqis; a unitary, de-centralized Iraq closely allied with the West is infinitely preferable to the alternatives.
Sorry.....should read "centrepidal pull" (instead of centrifugal).
The formation of a broader Shi'ite state is probably an inevitability. The lands from Mesopotamia to the Makran coast have been a coherent political entity for much of human history: under the Archamenids, the Parthians and the Sassanids, the area formed the Persian empire. Just as Shi'ite Islam was created to fuse the new "religion" onto older traditions. so the Iraqi and Iranian Sh'ites might now fuse together to reform a greater Persia.
And of course, a state founded on the basis of religious unity is not going to be a model secular democracy...
Cornelius, who is to say that is not what is happening today and we have our soldiers there. I like Hugh's idea. All this nationbuilding has a history that should tell you it rarely works. There's going to be an Islamic war between Islam and the West, we're just expending our fine men and women and treasury to, at best, defer it.
Pedestrian Infidel
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog
Mormom kills 3 innocent people in the West Bank
Wait... It wasn't a Mormom
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/613936.html
Given the US State Department's love affair with the Saudis, and the number of ex-US Ambassadors on the Saudi payroll, I would expect that sooner or later we will learn that some member of State Department itself will be captured fighting along side their "good friends" the Saudis.
Ryan:
Please note that Ha'aretz called the man a terrorist and go back to your ISM/PSM envelope stuffing activities.
Money does indeed make the world go around, and money may ironically be the last moving cause of the happy-happy relationship with Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the reason why nations around the world finally get around to sanctioning military action against Arabia. Islam might have nothing to do with it, on the surface at least.
Consider these three questions:
Will there be civil war in Iraq?
Is a violent confrontation with Iran inevitable over its nuclear program?
Will unrest in Saudi Arabia and violent, jihadist opposition to the Saud family inevitably bring choas to the kingdom and a regime change?
If the most probable answers to these three questions are 'yes', then it is also highly probable that there will be further panic, and unimaginable prices, in oil markets. The economic fallout of $100+ per barrel oil (who knows how high actually. Anyone want to go for $200?) should get everyone's attention. Surely even soft-skinned European powers will be unable to stand idly by. And what of the Chinese? The Indians? The Japanese? And every developing country on earth plunged into depression from such prices. What will we all do? Let Bin Ladenites take over the kingdom, while mad mullahs send suicide bombers abroad, while Kurds, Sunnis and Shia butcher each run over the trillions in oil reserves? (And the Iraqi civl war will be the real 'blood for oil' war. Not the idiotic 'light unto Muslim lands war'. And where will the protesters be? Anyone for making signs?)
And what would be the single greatest cause of our collective economic misfortune? Well, Islam, of course. But, that won't matter, at least not at NATO meetings, perhaps not even in the UN. Something will have to be done. Islam will be the reason we lose so much money (and is the reason, of course), but Islam will not be the reason nations move to take action to secure patches of sand in Arabia.
JTF:
Don't you think there's an equally likely scenario underwhich the west decides to get as serious about reducing their dependency on petroleum as the Brazillians and other South American countries that aren't oil producers have done and put an end to being made hostage by the sheiks, mullahs and stateless Islamists? At this point, with a strong(although deficit ridden) economy, with low unemployment, we are still being nickled and dimed and some of the biggest beneficiaries of the high price of middle eastern crude are actually the "domestic" sources like Alberta.
As for the cost of barrels of oil, a business columnist in this morning's Globe & Mail pointed out that, relatively speaking, we're still paying less for gasoline than we were in the 1970s when OPEC first started jacking up the price of crude.
The absurdity of being held economic hostage by an arab world that couldn't even manage to feed itself without our help. Maybe if the civilized world decided it's ultimately in it's best interests to work together ....?
"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."
King Fahd bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993
Our ally, right?
Sorry, this is off-topic, but I'm curious. What does "swt" stand for, as in "...Allah (swt)..."? I know "pbuh" is "peace be upon him", but can't figure out swt. Thanks. S.G.
Please note that Ha'aretz called the man a terrorist and go back to your ISM/PSM envelope stuffing activities.
Waterdragon,
Really, you don’t need to spoil Ryan’s joy!
For so many years he has been waiting and hoping for a Jewish murderer and lo, the devil sends TWO within ONE month! He hasn’t been waiting in vain!
Oh, if only those Jews would also want to dance on the street and celebrate the atrocity instead of condemning it Ryan’s joy would be complete! But Ryan is too realistic to hope for that.
And if you think Ryan is going to his ISM/PSM envelope stuffing activities you are sorely wrong. Not tonight! Because tonight Ryan is busy buying drinks!
(Love you Catherine for your understanding, heart and spirit)
Hugh, great post. I knew you were not just another pretty face (LOL - dont know what you look like)
Thoroughlky dislike the duplicitous Saudis, including the current Prince Turki papering over Washinton with our petrodollars, as we speak.
Would love to see accountability of the ex ambassadors and yes men and the academic chairs and disgorgement.
But support the Iraqi war, think Rumsfeld's great. Only caveat - the rebuild should be financed by a mortgage on Iraqi oil.
Militarily Iraq is the furthest thing from a quagmire - it is a great killing ground for killing Jihadis - the more killed or captured the better - and in the right location - another country with a relatively friendly population, fortunately with few casualties relatively, to ourselves.
We are winning the war.But we must also win the peace - no sharia basis to the constitution - no immams or religious leaders controlling the law.
If we dont win the peace, then we can call in Machiave.....oops...Hugh and follow his advice (sorry Hugh, couldn't resist this last bit even though I think the world of you)
(W)ahabbster will continue to kneel under the saudi thobe for three more years.
Israelis will die, Americans will die, islam will flourish.
That is The Plan.
What were you were expecting, presidential leadership detailing a national energy-independence policy as a matter of National Security?
Silly Infidel, you are only expected to die!
The ball is already rolling with the Jews, please to wait your turn most patiently.
Thank you and come again!
dgene said:
dgene, this sounds great, but how do we prevent them having the Sharia, if they vote for it? Do we have to stand back and let them submit themselves to that when they have never had a chance to know what freedom is?
Freedom (democracy) hasn't been that successful in Turkey, has it?
How is this going to work?
OT
Look who is helping the "b*tch in the ditch"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165946,00.html
Special Guest,
From an earlier post....
Cher Hugh,
SWT stands for "Subhanahu wa ta'ala," which means "May he be glorified and exalted," or more fully: "Glory be to Allah on high. Far removed is he from any imperfection." These words carry more weight than they may seem: most commonly they are understood by Muslims to mean that "Allah is pure of having partners and he is exalted above having a son." In other words, the statement carries anti-Christian overtones.
As ever
Robert
Posted by: jihadwatch at June 10, 2005 02:12 PM
Hi Catherine!
Here's a little speech by "all American mommy dearest"
http://www.sweetness-light.com/
Corax:
winning a war is the same way one eats an elephant
How do you eat an elephant ?
A little at a time.
Keep the objectives clear and limited.
Admiral Lord Nelson, a wonderful man and strategist, at the battle of the Nile and at Trafalger, relied on both his officers and his crews to win the battle; his job was to close in with the enemy ships - AND SEIZE OPPORTUNITIES AS THE OPPORTUNITIES AROSE. They performed marvellously, few let him down.
We got Rummy who is outstanding, and we have excellant military.
A change in U.S. foreign policy in one regard is vitally necessary: NO THEOCRACY WILL BE ALLOWED TO OWN OR OPERATE THE GAS STATION , whether it be Saudi A., Iran or Iraq. This thread will help make that change. The military can only do so much
by itself. America needs our help too.
>>How long will it be before a Manhattan Project to find new energy sources is implemented,
Robert,
You've got it. That's the solution. This country needed a bold leader, someone like FDR, with the intelligence and spine to say what needed to be said, and do what needed to be done, on September 12th, 2001. Now there will not be another opportunity until 2008, and even then only if there is another attack on US territory. Without that, the Jihad will continue to be well financed, and hence powerful and deadly.
Who is advocating this? This is not an idle question; does anyone know of anyone who is making the case for fighting "terror" with new energy sources?
Quijybo
50 cubic miles.
I always had a hard time visulizing those numbers bandied about (billions barrels etc.). So I took out a notepad and converted roughly what we are talking about. 50 cubic miles of proven reserves of crude oil world-wide. That's it. There might be a little more, but not much more. OK, lets say 60 cubic miles. 60 cubes of oil, each 1 mile high, deep, and wide. About 40 of those are in the Middle East, the rest distributed in other places in the world. Each year, the world burns one of those cubes. 1 cubic mile of oil. That is now; with China and India coming on line, we need more; soon we will burn 2 cubes per year.
So, the end is in sight. I don`t know what comes next, but within my lifetime that stuff will be burned, and we will continue financing the Jihad while we burn it.
Frankly, I now think that the sooner the better. Burn the stuff! Buy SUVs, expand, burn, waste, the faster this unholy alliance breaks down, the better.
Whatever comes after oil -- coal, nuclear, or the collapse of civilization, is preferrable to what we have now.
The whole problem with the Saudi's, is that we have not given them enough. They want more. They want the key to the executive restroom. If Geo keeps kissing them, they may get it. The Saudi's can make a mess in any restroom, the exec is no exception. As it is, Geo has had to hire an extra janitor, just to follow them around with a broom and dust pan. Maybe the next president will have the guhanchos to kiss a Saudi, without falling in love, and above all, wont give them key's to anything...