If the Iraqi Shi'ites weren't happy when this idea was originally floated by the private security and energy advisor to the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal (who has very recently announced his resignation), they're certainly none too pleased about this.
"Saudis Say They Might Back Sunnis if U.S. Leaves Iraq," by Helene Cooper for the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.
The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.
A senior Bush administration official said Tuesday that part of the administration’s review of Iraq policy involved the question of how to harness a coalition of moderate Iraqi Sunnis with centrist Shiites to back the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq’s minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred. Those fears, United States officials said, have become more pronounced as a growing chorus in Washington has advocated a draw-down of American troops in Iraq, coupled with diplomatic outreach to Iran, which is largely Shiite.
“It’s a hypothetical situation, and we’d work hard to avoid such a structure,” one Arab diplomat in Washington said. But, he added, “If things become so bad in Iraq, like an ethnic cleansing, we will feel we are pulled into the war.”
The Bush administration is also working on a way to form a coalition of Sunni Arab nations and a moderate Shiite government in Iraq, along with the United States and Europe, to stand against “Iran, Syria and the terrorists,” another senior administration official said Tuesday.
Until now Saudi officials have promised their counterparts in the United States that they would refrain from aiding Iraq’s Sunni insurgency. But that pledge holds only as long as the United States remains in Iraq.
The Saudis have been wary of supporting Sunnis in Iraq because their insurgency there has been led by extremists of Al Qaeda, who are opposed to the kingdom’s monarchy. But if Iraq’s sectarian war worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders.
Well, officially wary. Private citizens in that country are reportedly funneling millions into Iraq to support the Sunnis.
The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who told his staff on Monday that he was resigning his post, recently fired Nawaf Obaid, a consultant who wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post two weeks ago contending that “one of the first consequences” of an American pullout of Iraq would “be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.”
Mr. Obaid also suggested that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half by raising its production, a move that he said “would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high oil prices.” The Saudi government disavowed Mr. Obaid’s column, and Prince Turki canceled his contract.
But Arab diplomats said Tuesday that Mr. Obaid’s column reflected the view of the Saudi government, which has made clear its opposition to an American pullout from Iraq.
In a speech in Philadelphia last week, Prince Turki reiterated the Saudi position against an American withdrawal from Iraq. “Just picking up and leaving is going to create a huge vacuum,” he told the World Affairs Council. “The U.S. must underline its support for the Maliki government because there is no other game in town.”
Prince Turki said Saudi Arabia did not want Iraq to fracture along ethnic or religious lines. On Monday a group of prominent Saudi clerics called on Sunni Muslims around the world to mobilize against Shiites in Iraq. The statement called the “murder, torture and displacement of Sunnis” an “outrage.”
The resignation of Prince Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief and a son of the late King Faisal, was supposed to be formally announced Monday, officials said, but that had not happened by late Tuesday.
“They’re keeping us very puzzled,” a Saudi official said. Prince Turki’s resignation was first reported Monday in The Washington Post.
So? Let the Saudis back the Sunnis against Iran's proxy. The fact that the Saudis are so adamant about the US remaining in Iraq is reason alone to bring the troops home as soon as possible. Washington doesn't want to lose face by pulling out yet it doesn't mind how much face is being lost by appearing as Riyadh's vassal. Unbelievable. Saudi money is definitely a corrupting influence in the US.
Why don't the fat Saudi's put their money and arms where their mouths are and promote a Sunni led coalition with the rest of the interested parties and bomb the damn Iranians and thier nuke sites. Arming Sunni's in Iraq won't stop Iran from getting the bomb they intend to use to blackmail the whole region (if not wipe out Israel) and how much $ are the filthy rich Saudi's providing for the war and Iraq and its rebuilding ? they want America to do it all, let us pay with $ and American solidiers lives, how many Saudi soldiers are casting shadows on Iraqi soil or spilling thier blood ? These fat b*stards make me sick.
Unlike some of our Congressmen, I know that Al Qaeda is composed of Sunni's. So, I am highly suspect of Saudi Arabia's intentions in this matter. Perhaps they are threatening us in an effort to keep us in Iraq...
I'm sure Hugh has some thoughts on this, and I wait with baited breath to read his comments.
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Ideally, the Sunni-Shia antagonism could go a long way to keeping both the Iranians and Saudis preoccupied and tied down in the region, expending their energies in each trying to offset the other. Unfortunately, this would also result in a huge toll in terms of human life and suffering. Also, I can't help but worry about their anatagonism being resolved, even if only intended as a temporary truce, in order to settle matters with Israel. Such an alignment of interests could create a "perfect storm" with very serious global repercussions. A strategy must be formulated that ensures such a perfect storm never happens.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are two sides of the same filthy coin. Both do nothing but create misery throughout their region and the world. One day both will pay the price for their despicable behavior.
Islam is the snake that's eating it's own tail. Isolate them and watch them Destroy themselves from within.
It will save Western Lives and Money.
Sounds good , if it were not for the OIL. what a cruel Joke it is for our Enemies to have most of the OIL.
Gee...that's awfully nice of him. lol
He's having enough trouble trying to keep his saudi soviet states within the arabian peninsula together...he can't do it and deal with iraq at thsame time...something's amiss here big time.
Sounds good , if it were not for the OIL. what a cruel Joke it is for our Enemies to have most of the OIL.
Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 13, 2006 03:37 PM
Sometimes, I think a little naked imperialism might not be such a bad thing, especially since the West is so reviled anyway. Perhaps the West should seize that oil when these idiots fight. After all, who found and developed all those oil fields in the first place?
Bush today said again that it was democracy for Iraq and that a few extreemists were trying to stop it.
Just cant get it straight, can he?
The US should pull out. Not retreat, just wash its hands of the whole sorry mess. The US achieved its main objectives. It removed Saddam and made sure no WMD's were around. If they want to protect something, protect the Kurds. Let the Shi'ites and Sunni's go at each other. Let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, whoever, choose sides. Let them have a proxy war in Iraq or a hot one if they choose. Give Iran something to think about besides Israel. Once they have depleted themselves, let the US knock over the last man standing...
YOU BETTER NOT LEAVE, OR ELSE!
Everyday more dead Americans. Everyday more dollars flushed down the toilet. And now the goddamned Saudis telling us: "You better not leave or else!"
Really, how much more fubar can things get?
Yes, and we should get out of Saudi Arabia also...disabling our equipment there too. Let them all deal with each other and the consequences of their actions.
This all sounds like good leverage for the US. We stay but the Saudis pay. Let them pick up some of the cost of the development projects. They can help pay for the water and electricty in Sunni neighborhoods. The Saudi's and Jordanians can improve border security. Maybe Iran can compete and help pay for services in Shia neighborhoods. Maybe they all create a peace keeping fund to pay the US military.
Gee...what a threat.
It'd be entertaining to watch the Middle East fall further into chaos at America's behest. Perhaps we are employing aysmetrical warfare. I didn't think the Middle East could get more messed up, but look what we did in a few years with a small number of Amercan forces. Total chaos!
Aha! This is exactly what I've been looking for. Iran backed Shiite militias versus Saudi backed Sunni militias.
A nice decade or so long civil war between these two is exactly what wer and the world needs.
Let these animals kill each other as they currently are.
I stated this earlier in the week. Now that Bush was told, since he is incapable of realizing it internally, that his utopian end for Iraq is impossible, the only course of action that would make sense militarily, is to continue to de-stabilize the middle east with an emphasis on Iraq.
Let a civil war distract our collective enemies whilst we prepare for war!!
Sad really. At the dawn of the 911 era, I too assumed that all men yearned for freedom. As we moved on the Taliban, I dontated money to Afghan relief funds. As we advanced into Baghdad, I hoped for an Iraqi Thomas Jefferson. As I learned more about islam, I began to realize that no such man can exist in the muslim world.
We did try, though.
I'm beginning to feel like Bob Barker.
"Come on Down" Lets make a deal!
What's it worth to the Iranians for us to pull out?
What's it worth to the SOWDIS for us to stay?
What's the bid? Eventually there is a little nationalism in this Islam? Very interesting?
I think I smell a deal!
It's very interesting that the study group has focused minds in Turkey and the House of Saud alike.
We ought to move a few bases quietly into Kurdistan push the envelope a bit, really stimulate those minds.
How long will it take "Bandar Bush" to give W his marching orders? How would you like one of your kids to die or be maimed carrying the water for the Kingdom? How do you like paying the butcher's bill with American blood and treasure? Those slugs in Riyadh deserve what is coming their way. Burn,baby burn. Start worrying about U.S. borders rather than the borders of Iraq.
Nawaf Obaid was educated at Harvard with the job since 9-11 to divert attention from Saudi links to terrorism or the insurgency in Iraq.
Lisa Myers and WaPo had pieces saying that they did research or consulted those who did that concluded that over 50 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq were Saudi. Obaid then had a paper from CIS a DC think tank that cited sources at Saudi Intelligence. But he was a consultant to Saudi intelligence at the time. So he may have been his own source. He said Saudis weren't, and WaPo believed him. In a recent WaPo piece they cited Obaid's numbers. So did a recent UK chart, I forget which paper used his numbers, but a major one.
Debunking Nawaf Obaid CIS report
Analysis of Obaid's WaPo Column that got him fired
Tell the bum, how can you threaten us with something you are already doing? We are outta here.
It is certainly understandable why the Saud King will support the Sunnis', they are by far the majority of the Islamic population throughout the world. The greatest concentration of Sheites' is to be found in Iran and parts of Northern Africa which makes one wonder why America seems to be hitching their wagon to more Sheite influence in Iraq.
This is getting interesting, evidently a Saudi spoke out of turn, and now Saudis deny Iraq intervention plan
And then there is the analysis from Family Security Matters The Curious Case of Nawaf Obaid and Prince Turki
Of Nawaf Obaid (a smooth talking shyster), Another source reports "The Saudi ambassador to the United States Prince Turki al-Faisal told his staff on Monday that he had resigned. His resignation emerged just days after Turki fired a consultant who wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post suggesting that the Saudis would back Iraq's Muslim Sunnis in the event of a wider sectarian conflict.
The article by a Saudi government security adviser, Nawaf Obaid, said the oil-rich desert kingdom would intervene with funding and weaponry to prevent Shiite militias from attacking Iraq's Sunnis. It also suggested Saudi Arabia could bring down world oil prices to squeeze Iran's Shiite rulers. "
This would also squeeze Bush's oil buddies and the fortunes of the real base of the Republican Party, the oil and defense based oligarchy.
A couple years ago Obaid said the Saudis would back the Sunnis by crashing the oil market. He was fired.
That was a very wise threat by the Saudis. Bush/Cheney want high oil prices. That's one of the reasons that drove the invasion of Iraq -- to keep its oil off the market so their cronies could sell at higher prices. Threatening to drive the price down is a strong lever to manipulate the current US regime to 'stay the course' in Iraq. It's working. Obaid will receive his reward for a job well done.
But LGF'ers, JW'ers, and FReepers know nothing of affairs like this, since they don't involve god, guns and gays or flags and "fags".
l am totally disgusted with the how lame the US has become in iraq, fighting too pc, it was supposed to be a stepping stone to squash iran, who is the one with the nukes. if they are not going to take down iran. l for one would think taking out the US military out of iraq would makes. let the shites and sunni kill each other, and then when there a few standing and wanting to be civilized and or the West wants to really win this war, otherwise its a waste. Bush has to be more decissive, l know he does not want to work with the Bake report, and the media and Dems are just going nuts about this. that is fine with me, as the Baker report is about appeaseing and taking down Israel.
You think? I thought that Saudi Arabia was already backing the Sunnis in Iraq.
Why else would there be such a push for a civil war and insurrection from Saddam Hussein's followers?
The Saudis know full well that if they lose their power base in Iraq, Iran becomes that much more of a threat to them as the Shiite are gaining strength and territory at Sunni expense.
Niv
finally!
now that there is saudi support for the troops in iraq,
maybe the liberal left will stop pushing for a pullout until the job gets done,
since the only thing the liberal left does consistently,
is to go back on its principles when it conflicts with islam
(in this case, mainstream sunni islam)
exdemexlib
I completely support a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in the hopes it spurs a major civil war. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner the Shia and Sunni Muslims can begin the butchering in earnest.
Saudis can pour money into the Sunni Iraqis. Al-Qaeda can continue to support the Sunnis and Iran can support the Shia. We can sit back and take a deep breath and enjoy the show. Let them pour money and treasure into this hellhole.
Bring home our soldiers. Give them a rest and get ready for Iran and Syria. Obviously, we can not invade and occupy wither but we can kick the hell out of them and leave a major mess. Let the ME destabilize. It will also give the Israelis some breathing room
It is a classic case study: Islam collapsing on to itself.
To mtriviso:
I too supported the invasion of Iraq. I too supported tsunami relief. Then i read the Quran and Hadith. It opened my eyes. I would've never donated a penny or supported the liberation of Iraq if i knew then what I know now about Islam. Oh well, I am only 30 years old, so better later than never. At least my eyes were opened (eventually).
I say let the saudis start a peace keeping mission as soon as we pull out! ;)
"Unfortunately, this would also result in a huge toll in terms of human life and suffering." Posted by Chatillon
This is one little problem that must be dealt with. Deal with it this way: Ignore it; close your eyes and ears. We cannot get emotional over their suffering. There are many non-Muslims who will be saved when Muslims are preoccupied with killing each other.
I think there are several ways to play this that would be advantageous to the US. The only problem, of course, is Bush 43.
If the Saudis really want us to stay, then they need to pony up at the table. They are the reason we are there (crazy al Qaeda Sunnis and wahhabis). It will take us a year to leave, anyway.
Or we leave and let it spin into disaster. Who cares? Hell, lets incite something. Briefcase nuke Mecca, and then blame it on Iran. Have the military dress up in bedsheets and wipe out al sadr. Trick the AP into saying it was a bunch of Shiites (that shouldn't be too difficult). Have Jimmy Carter and his brother David Duke tell Iran that Saudi Arabia is massing for an attack.
Think of how many jihadists there would be..
They would have to come up with the counter-jihadist, who blows himself up in order to wipe out the other guys suicide bomber.
You know France would be in on it. So would Russia... All that money to be made while the tan-man wipes himself out.
I see this as nothing but good news.
'But LGF'ers, JW'ers, and FReepers know nothing of affairs like this, since they don't involve god, guns and gays or flags and "fags".'~ nariz
The meds have clearly lost their potency nariz. Time to up the dosage.
'But LGF'ers, JW'ers, and FReepers know nothing of affairs like this, since they don't involve god, guns and gays or flags and "fags".'~ nariz
Obviously, Nariz doesn't even understand what we are talking about
God - well, we are discussing islam. They at least *think* they have a God to wage jihad for.
Guns - That is what they carry, along with rocks and bombs
Gays - They are islamofacists. to them, gay is not a choice, its a reason to behead your buddy.
Flags - Show a nice white and blue flag with the Star of David on it. That should warm them up.
Fags - I they all smoke over there.
I think that about wraps it up for the above poster.
Move our troops to Kurdistan and make popcorn!
I hope Iraqi bloggers get out while there's still time.
The fact that the Saudis are so adamant about the US remaining in Iraq is reason alone to bring the troops home as soon as possible.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 13, 2006 03:29 PM
Come to think of it, daddy Bush invaded Iraq, not to liberate Kuwait, but only to save his wahabbi petro-dollar masters. That and that alone is the reason why Saudi allowed daddy Bush to use bases in Saudi, causing Bin Laden to slap his wahabbi brothers on the wrist. Point is, from the very begining, Iraq invasion was only to protect daddy & dubya's Saudi masters. Now the Saud, Bush game comes togather.
......shoot, now even the first Iraq war stinks.
Bush has to be more decissive, l know he does not want to work with the Bake report, and the media and Dems are just going nuts about this. that is fine with me, as the Baker report is about appeaseing and taking down Israel.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 13, 2006 05:03 PM
Zena, I know you won't like this, but Bush just can't be decisive. Reason? not only he, but his daddy was bought and pocketed by Saudi wahabbis. What is worse is that their integrity is so compromised that even a mention of 'Islamofascist' did not last a day. No sooner call from Riyadh ended dubya quickly turned the changed 'Islamofascists' to 'individuals. Add to that Saudi being 'ally' against terror, pages on Saudi blanked, even while 9/11 was a Saudi operation, are clear indications of Bush treason. And I have not even mentioned Bandar Bush or smoking cigars while WTC rubble was still smouldering or seeing Bin Ladens to safety while all commercial aircrafts were grounded. But then, I admire your Bush/party loyalty.
Plan to rescue youths from far-right
13 December 2006
AMSTERDAM — The multicultural institute Forum will set up a special programme with the Interior and Justice ministries and the anti-terrorism co-ordinator NCTb to guide people with far-right ideas away from extremism.
The Dutch government hopes the programme will
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=35052
Iran grows strong, the world yawns
By Haaretz Editorial
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800263.html
Brit Hume says Nelson (D) reports after his trip to Syria that they are ready to help stabilize IraQ..(what a tool..)
Mr. Obaid also suggested that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half by raising its production, a move that he said “would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high oil prices.”
This is very interesting. Everyone and their mother has been telling us for years now that a break-down in the Middle East would result in $5 a gallon gasoline.
So the reason we don't pull back to Kurdistan now is to... protect Arab Muslims from each other and play fantasy democracy? I vote no. Keep your popcorn Beagle, this might just call for sipping whiskey.
"... the west should sieze that oil."
posting from above
How do we sieze oil without seizing the oilfields, the pipelines, the storage tanks, equipment sheds, the workers quarters and the surrounding terrain..in short, the whole of the countries which have the crude beneath their otherwise worthless desert? Not only do we need to seize oil related territory we need to defend it from endless attack by those who need no supply lines (they live there). Lets not forget, we would need to control the waters which are used to move the crude to refineries. Just a trifle ambitious isn't it?
"seize"oil
I before E, except in February which has 28!
saudi arabia and iran are two heads from the same snake. Iran supports the shia snakes and saudi arabia supports the sunni snakes. Here is the dilemna. Both want to control and influence the region. Each wants to influence the region with their own islamofascist ideology.
Unfortunately, because of the global market, too many Us and European countries do business with saudi arabia and iran. These companies could care less about the safety and welfare of a particular country.
Their main interests is a global government with a global market. We live in an oil economy. Those who control the oil supply rule the world. We need to cut back or eliminate the need for oil and use alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen fuel cell, biosynethic fuels, ethanol, solar and wind, etc.
Too bad none of that oil over there in middle east is water.
“The Sunni-Shia rift is a direct result of U.S. policies in Iraq — the policies of invasion and occupation,” Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha told a meeting at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Islamic advocacy group."
Saudi Arabia entires at Complete 9-11 Timeline
Complete 9-11 Timeline
Nawaf Obaid entry in Complete 9-11 Timeline
(search in above page on Nawaf Obaid to find his entry)
Alhazmi and Almihdhar: The 9/11 Hijackers Who Should Have Been Caught (Essay)
Alhazmi and Almihdhar entries
These two were Saudis going back and forth between al Qaea, Saudi Arabia and US.
Is there something in the upper atmosphere that guarantees that generals will be stupid? Again and again I read perfectly sensible remarks by ordinary soldiers, and captains, and majors, and colonels, about the impossibility of these Iraqi troops, of how half or two-thirds of them never show up, about how when they do show up they never know what to do, and always leave the Americans to do all the heavy lifting, and furthermore show such indifference -- with a handful of well-publicized exceptions -- to the very idea of "Iraq" as a nation-state, instead inveigling and wheedling every last bit of equipment or favors they can from the Americans, just as Iraqi civilians have done the same, the Iraqi contractors overcharging and never performing, the Iraqi school principals who complain that the Americnas don't provide exactly what American schools, they think, all have, including central air conditioning (fans just won't do, apparently, though there never was anything before), and so on -- an endless gimme, gimme, gimme, which disgusts the soldiers and younger officers.
But those generals, those loyal, don't-rock-the-boat generals, with their absolute ignorance of Islam, their bottomless desire to accept the idiotic definition of "victory" that Bush offers, their utter lack of sufficient cunning and ruthlessness to openly - or even privately --declare, that they see many advantages, and no disadvantages, in a permanent Shi'a-Sunni war within Iraq that, in fact, spills over into Shi'a-Sunni conflict outside Iraq, and forces both Saudi Arabia and Iran, among others, to squander their own money, men, and materiel fighting each other.
No, you will not get it from the generals. But from the younger officers, with direct experience of the real "Iraq" and not the false Iraq, the truth has been grasped. And it is they, who are more and more disturbed by the waste, and the observable behavior of too many of those "brave Iraqis" who supposedly, if they only receive more training and still more stuff from the Americans, will somehow change their spots, with the Sunnis acquiescing in their loss of dominance and the Shi'a generously treating the Sunnis as they, the Shi'a, were never treated -- well, it will not happen. Not this year, not next year, not in five years, not ever.
And instead of bemoaning this, the generals parrot Bush and talk about what a "catastrophe" it would be.
Why do they say this? Do they think that the Iran-Iraq War was a "catastrophe" for the Camp of Infidels? Do they think that the Sino-Soviet split, such as it was (and such as it might have become) was a "catastrophe" for the West? Isn't the oldest rule of warfare "divide and conquer"? Do those generals learn the oldest rule of warfare, or do they learn all about cultural awareness, and how everyone wants "freedom," and how we are all god's chillun and there is no conceivable reason why we should not, in the end, all get along?
Is there not a single general who has the wit to learn, really learn, about the tenets of Islam, and the many instruments of Jihad, and to begin to start telling home truths even if it endangers his position?
He will become a hero. He can run for any office. He will -- and so will any civilian political figure who does the same -- be unstoppable. All he has to do is say "basta" with this nonsense about "Iraq." We have far more to gain, and nothing whatever to lose, to see the Camp of Islam convinced with ethnic and sectarian and economic fissures and hostilities and war. Bush may be hopelessly obstinate and stupid, but why should others follow Captain Queeg on the rudderless and confused S. S. Narrenschiff?
This is why I supported the war initially. Pull out now and let them fight it out. Instead of the US bankrupting itself funding the Iraq war. It can make a profit off of Saudi arabia's petro dollars by selling them arms. And hopefully an independent kurdistan comes out of this.
Hugh - Generals are politicians as well as soldiers. The only general officers who will speak their mind are retired. Those on active duty still have something to lose. Sad, but true.
How do we seize oil without seizing the oilfields, the pipelines, the storage tanks, equipment sheds, the workers quarters and the surrounding terrain...
I say that some corporate entity should take it all and keep it with a wink from the West.
Iran’s output is ~4 million barrels per day; Iraq’ just 2 million only because they don’t have their act together. Six million barrels per day times $50/barrel is $300 million gross per day. Assume only half of the oil fields are readily defendable so give yourself a budget of $150 million per day, or $55 billion per year.
Assume a ‘start-up’ security down payment of one half of the first year’s oil revenues ($27 billion). M1A1’s go for $4 million, a decent land-attack jet in the range of $30 million, gunboats for maybe $10 million. Allocating one third of your start-up costs to heavy equipment would buy, for example, 750 M1A1’s, 100 F/A-18s, and 300 gun boats. Allocating one third to mercenaries @ $300,000 per man per year buys 30,000 top-notch soldiers. The final third is for logistics and ice cream.
As the Iraqi oil fields are in Shia-controlled territory, and the Saudis hate the Shia probably more than us, the only opposition would be Iran, who would be in a blood-feud with the Saudis. If having to make the choice between ‘Halliburtistan’ and Ahmedinejad, the West (or at least the US) would favor the Corporation-state.
Ambitious yes, but it sounds like a solid business plan to me. There are some pretty powerful corporations out there. Goldman Sachs just gave out $16 billion in Christmas bonuses. The rate of return for anyone who could pull this off would be stunning.
This is getting better and better...
According to CNN Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah gave Cheney a verbal "dhimmi slapping" for failing Allahs Kingdom.
See for more!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/13/saudi.sunnis/index.html
"[Iraq is in] everybody's backyard -- Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran," he said. "And they all have interests, they're all watching each other very closely lest one get an undue advantage over the other. And it's going to take an extraordinarily skillful, wide-ranging regional diplomacy on America's part to cope with that."
Hahahahahahahaha!
Heck this stupid war in Iraq might work out better then thought! Now just get out and declare victory! In the grand view of history we can count this as a victory by just leaving!
Keep them busy for year!
Many of the comments here have a familiar ring. Must be something in the air.
Great post Hugh!
Generals are puppets and parrot whatever their civilian bosses demand. Look at Peter Pace on Rummy's shoulder nodding along and affirming Rummy's plans.
Generals know who is buttering their bread. It is ignorant politicians who threaten to fire them if they veer off course. Look at Gen. Shenzeki (sp?) who was sacked for demanding more troops.
Where is our General Patton?
Much of Saudi oil production and nearly all the infrastructure for crude exports are along the Persian Gulf, where the population is predominantly Shiite. By openly supporting Iraqi Sunnis, the Saudis would be inviting Iran to stir up trouble among the KSA's Shiite minority. Which is why this whole Obaid/Turki business sounds like a bluff.
"Generals are puppets and parrot whatever their civilian bosses demand."
-- from a posting above
No, that's not true. General Frederick Weyand told the truth about Vietnam. So did Colonel David Hackworth. General Omar Bradley and other generals of World War II vintage did not trim their talk. But I don't know why you single out Patton for praise -- he was, contrary to myth, not much of a leader, and not much of a general. There are histories of World War II that make that clear. And in the Philippines, as a recent excellent book of military history makes clear, it was not MacArthur who should be celebrated, but General Wainwright.
And I will add one more general to that list above. It is not an American but a Russian general -- General Kutuzov. For when the strongest army in Europe invaded Russia, the Grande Armee under Napoleon, Kutuzov dealt with it by engaging it here and there (as at Borodino, the subject of a famous Lermontov poem recited by children), but mainly by drawing back and drawing back. Kutuzov, you see, enrolled on his side General Winter, the inevitable Russian winter that nothing could stop but that could stop the French. Of the 200,000 troops that entered Russia, scarcely 20,000 straggled back across the border.
There is a lesson there for the American military and civilian leaders in figuring out what to do in Iraq.
Enroll General Winter. That is, enroll, exploit, turn to your own advantage, the natural sectarian and ethnic fissures. Do not try to fight them. Do not deny them.
Use them.
That has been said, at this website, and elaborated upon, at this website, more than a thousand times since the very beginning of 2004. It is now beginning, at long last, and not only here, to have an effect.
But not as quickly, nor was wide an effect, as it should have. Because it all makes perfect sense.
Young boys from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sudan are still being sold as camel jockeys, but thanks to Anti-Slavery International the cruel and often life-threatening trade is finally being tackled.
Dubai is one place they are sold to. Dubai is part of UAE.
Dubai at Complete 9-11
"1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with Bin Laden in Afghanistan
Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, who is said to go falcon hunting with bin Laden, will later rule the emirate that owns DP World, the UAE company attempting to purchase a number of US ports in 2006.
After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001]
General Wayne Downing, Bush’s former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses.” [MSNBC, 9/5/2003] One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai. While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money.
Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries’ outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001]
On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he’s falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates’ royal family (see February 11, 1999). "
Complete 9-11 Timeline has a matching grant of 10,000 for contributions now.
More on General Wainwright:
"Following the relocation of MacArthur to Australia in March, to serve as Allied Supreme Commander, South West Pacific Area, Wainwright inherited the unenviable position of Allied commander in the Philippines. Also that March, Wainwright was promoted to Lieutenant General (temporarily). On April 9, the 70,000 troops on Bataan surrendered. On May 5, the Japanese attacked Corregidor and on May 6, in the interest of minimising casualties, Wainwright surrendered. By June 9, Allied forces had completely surrendered.
Wainwright ordering the surrender of the Philippines and watched by a Japanese censorWainwright was then held in prison camps in northern Luzon, Formosa, and Manchuria until his liberation by Russian troops in August 1945. He was the highest-ranking American POW, and despite his rank, his treatment at the hands of the Japanese was not pleasant. After witnessing the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri (BB-63) on September 2, together with Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival he returned to the Philippines to receive the surrender of the local Japanese commander, Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita.
He was later awarded the Medal of Honor. Wainwright won the respect of all who were imprisoned with him. His men often dubbed him a "fighting" general who was willing to get down in the foxholes. Wainwright agonized over his decision to surrender Bataan all during his captivity. He felt he had let his country down. Upon release, the first question he asked was "How am I thought of back in the states?" He was amazed when told he was considered a hero. During Wainwright's imprisonment, General Douglas MacArthur angrily wrote a memorandum saying Wainwright should be denied the Medal of Honor. He forwarded this to Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall. He derided Wainwright's leadership abilities and implied he was both a coward and an alcoholic. Many had criticized this memorandum as slanderous and cruel. Ironically, MacArthur was widely scorned for leaving the Philippines and many felt his Medal of Honor was a publicity stunt because, unlike General Wainwright, he was never anywhere near the front lines. Even after General Wainwright learned of MacArthur's comments, he still remained friends with the man and even supported him in his Presidential bid in 1952.
His Medal of Honor citation reads:
'Distinguished himself by intrepid and determined leadership against greatly superior enemy forces. At the repeated risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in his position, he frequented the firing line of his troops where his presence provided the example and incentive that helped make the gallant efforts of these men possible. The final stand on beleaguered Corregidor, for which he was in an important measure personally responsible, commanded the admiration of the Nation's allies. It reflected the high morale of American arms in the face of overwhelming odds. His courage and resolution were a vitally needed inspiration to the then sorely pressed freedom-loving peoples of the world.'"
Meanwhile:
"Bush to seek $100 billon more war funds"
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will soon seek about $100 billion in additional emergency funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report on Wednesday by Democratic staffers for two key panels in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Such a large request would mark a rapid escalation in the cost of the Iraq war at a time when public support is plummeting and Bush is looking for new answers to stem violence that threatens to spin out of control.
In a broad report criticizing Republicans' fiscal decisions, Democratic staffers on the House Appropriations Committee and House Budget Committee also noted that Congress already had appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq
more @ http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-12-13T231453Z_01_N13170850_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-FUNDING.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Hugh,
I assumed you were referring to the recent war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
My comments were directed towards this conflict and no other in the past except for the Patton comment.
Agreed about Wainright. If I am not mistaken he was a POW and badly emaciated when freed. MacArthur was a prima donna.
Tell the Saudis to use their pull to stop their Sunni brethren from attacking our troops. Then we can help them with their Shia problem. Get the Saudis to foot the bill and drop the oil price. to boot.
Buys us time and cheap prices to add to the national reserve.
The Saudis didn't make a big fuss over Lebanon did they?
Israel pounding Ha mas and Hezbollah could be part of the price of our mutual support.
Didn't the Army Brass (as reported) talk of pounding Al-Sadar?
The Bushevics and the Saudis got exactly what they deserved.
Each other.
Now can we please exile this psychotic family? I'm tired of them stabbing their country in the effin' back.
Hitler. Khomeini. Hussein. Reverend Moon. Who's next. Lex Luthor?!!
is time to start drilling for oil off of the East and West Coast where I understand a they think their oil reserves that could rival Saudi Arabia's but we would have to tell environmentalist shut up, and for that matter since almost all cars made in the past 10 years have hardened valves can be easily converted a propane why can we not do the same with hydrogen and use atomic power to crack a h02 into hydrogen and oxygen and become free of paying jizha to the alturki family in Saudi Arabia. So let's get out of Iraq put the troops really should be in Israel between the Palestinians and their targets the Saudi's and Iraq stew in their own juices while were at it turn Iraq's parliament and the so-called peaceful use of atomic power fuel enrichment that coincidentally can be used to make atom bombs into radioactive glass butby our own oil sources are converting to a hydrogen-based economy would be the first step in telling the alturki family rules Saudi Arabia that thejizha gravy train has left the station and make them pay for the mess in Iraq
MacArthur was a prima donna.
Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot
Heck he was worse then that. He was without a doubt the most overrated U.S. General in American history. He knew the Japanese had already bombed Pearl Harbor and still did not take action like getting his planes in the air. Instead all of his fighters and bombers were grouped together on the runway and were all finished off by Japanese bombers without any real problems. He then made an even bigger mess with his silly defense of the Philippines. The U.S. Army could have held out much longer if he had not made such a mess of things. Poor Wainright was left to try to save some pride with what little he had left to work with.
MacArthur saved his own rep a little in 1944-45 but once again made a mess in Korea by getting suprised by the Chinese.
I'm not real up on this- what would the result be if Saudi Arabia DID invade and prevent sectarian bloodshed? What would the political ramifications be? http://sacredscoop.com
I was referring to generals now, and how timid they seem to be, in the way in which they apparently have all acquiesced in Bush's crazed definition of what would constitute "victory" instead of arguing, more sensibly, that "victory" is whatever most weakens the Camp of Islam through dividing and demoralizing it, and causing Muslims to expend money, to waste lives, and use up war materiel, and cause the Camp of Infidels to cease expending money, to waste lives, to use up war materiel, all by Kutuzov-like exploiting what is present or inevitable, and that only the very foolish would overlook.
You mention agreeing with me about MacArthur. But Patton was also, in his grandiose racing ahead (with tanks also breaking down, running out of steam or gasoline), quite so wonderful as he was made out to be in the popular press. And his treatment of soldiers was awful(remember his slapping of that soldier in the hospital?), though some claim he was just the ticket. I don't think he was. The glory-seekers and publicity-hounds (MacArthur) got that glory, and received that publicity, but so what? Other generals and officers were more worthy of being honored.
Who cares whom SOWdi Arabia plans to back. They sure don't back US. And yes, I agree, if they want us to stay - that means we should get out.
Let the moslems do what they do best witout us involved: Kill each other.
Saudi Arabia needs to be sold an insurance policy. That insurance policy will guarantee, not the safety or security of the Sunnis in Iraq, but only the safety and security of the House of Saud and, if they are very good, the safety and security of the oilfields of Al-Hasa.
Now what might that insurance policy cost? I'd suggest an annual premium of one hundred billion dollars. Too much, you say? Well, okay, because Saudi Arabia has been such a "staunch ally" all these years, a special price -- good until Dec. 31, 2007: $95 billion a year. And not one cent lower.
And if Saudi Arabia doesn't take that insurance? Then let the Shi'a take over the islands in the Gulf, let them cause all kinds of trouble in Bahrain, Kuwait, and even in Yemen. In fact, let the Shi'a in Yemen start receiving weapons shipments from Iran.
We don't have a dog in this fight. I'll repeat: our dog is the fight.
The Al-Saud may think they can retire to lavish exiles anywhere in the West. I wouldn't be so sure that hit squads will not come after them, as they did for Iranians in exile from the Khomeini regime. It may not be so easy to stay safe, or to assume they will be able to carry on as before.
If I were they, I'd buy the insurance policy.
I was feeling like Bob Barker again.
Let's make a deal!
Ok Sunnis-SOWDIS what are you going to pay us to stay in Iraq. How about picking up all of the expenses for the Iraq war? We will stay around long enough for things to get stable. We will even help the shoot the Irianian refugees from the nukeing of their country by Isreal. What a deal!
We ought to seize the output of the SOWDI oil fields and pension out the Al-turki family. That sounds about right. What do you say SOWDI-Arabia?
What a deal!!!!!!!
Tailhook neutered Flag Officers. They used to drink in the back of cars as they were driven around Washington. Today they’re scared to have a beer at dinner. Today’s military leaders prostrate themselves before politicians. Balls in 2006 are found in the private sector. If there is one of you remaining, prove me wrong.
Investors expect a return on investment.
Patton was very much a glory hog. He dragged his men through the mud all for the glorification of his massive ego. He would bark at his quartermaster four times a day for more gasoline. All because he wanted to be the first to make it to Berlin. I honestly do not believe he cared much about the soldiers.
And I do agree with your comments now about the Generals. I think they are terrified to stand up to their civilian masters lest they be fired or transferred to an undesirable post. Either that, or they do not understand any better than our p0olitical elite, the enemy we are all battling.
Hugh
"But I don't know why you single out Patton for praise -- he was, contrary to myth, not much of a leader, and not much of a general."
I disagree. He was the only U.S. general who understood tank warfare and esp. modern warfare based on movement. Patton was critical in the early stages esp. after the Kasserine Pass disaster. His problems however were due to his overcharging personality and yes wasteful use of troops at times. You could accuse U.S. Grant of the same thing however. The point is Patton is a top 5 U.S. general no doubt. He was a master modern strategist on the use of the indirect approach and had a strong backing in military strategy and history which many of our generals today lack.
The trouble we get into however with all allied generals is that they had a big advantage which was air power. The Germans simply could not compete and their armor was wasted everytime they made any move except in the early part of the Ardennes due to bad weather. In truth the U.S. and allied victory had more to do with Mustangs and Thunderbolts then had anything to do with Patton and Bradley.
Let me put this in a modern view. If the U.S. develops a missile defense that is laser based as it appears we may already have then why does it matter what Iran does in five years. It changes the strategy does it not. Unless they can rig some kind of tanker or other novel means to get at Israel or the U.S. becuase otherwise their big gun is already out of date.
let us exit to Kuwait..........
and let the war begin............
Below is a quote from King Faud: Dead now, but his attitude lives on in the Saudi 'Royal'family.
KING FAUD SPEAKS
"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
Not much has changed, has it?
Nariz 'da nose' -
you say: But LGF'ers, JW'ers, and FReepers know nothing of affairs like this, since they don't involve god, guns and gays or flags and "fags".
Posted by: Nariz
I have heard of the oil conspiracy and take note of the al-Bushi al-Saud connections. I think you may have some things to back you up on these points. One day we will have a president not beholden to oil interests... and on that day you, Nariz, may not like the lack of restraint coming from the President. Coudl be the best thing to happen in this world war on jihad we're in the middle of.
As to the jabs about guns and the like.... I've never voted for a Republican president since the Mondale-Ferraro daze. I have always aligned myself with Democrats. But this threat we face has forced me to move Right due to the fact that some people calling themselves Republicans are the only people in power who are speaking and acting in appropriate ways. I'm not really 'conservative' in the general understanding of the term as applied to U.S. politics. I'm not 'red-neck' or 'blue-collar' or 'bible-thumpin' Baptist or any other pigeon hole you care to stuff me in. I'm here because Islam is in an active phase and jihad is everywhere. When things calm down I can return to the Democratic agenda, but not until they understand what we're up against and 'why we fight'.
Here are other responses to you, Nariz:
god = I'm all for it.
guns = Winchester model 94, mossberg m590a1, smith & wesson model 686+
gays = I actually have lesbian 'lunch buddies' at work and correspond with others who have moved to Brooklyn (pre 9/11)
flags = http://www.navyjack.info/
and "fags" well -- "don't ask, don't tell" Remember? I don't want to talk about your sex life or preferences... I don't go around telling people that I'm into my old ladies pussy and that they better respect me for it. I don't think we should focus on a person's sexual preferences. We should be past that by now. I've been in places where dudes hold hands while shopping, give each other sloppy kisses before work and the like, but I don't like. And I don't have to like. But I do like dykes.... have several as friends.
.....first consequences” of an American pullout of Iraq would “be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.”
So what? What the f... you are waiting for? Let the US troops pull out and retreat either to Kurdistan and or to Kuwait and let the Sowdis have a go at Iranians.
Let the party begin !. Music please ! The belly dancers are now walking into the scene.
Ooonn my riggght ! Weighing Plutonium 262 pounds, the champ Mahmouud Ahmadinejadd ! Oooon my left, the contender and weighing $68 a barrel, Kiiiing Fahd from the Sowdi Arabiaaa..
Or rather, should I have said King FART from Sod Arabia ?
duh swami
Where did you get that "quote" from King Fahd? Could you be that fly on the wall I've always wished I could be?
I want to see the "massive Saudi intervention" in Iraq (or actually anywhere). The only massive activity those clowns are capable of is spending money...some of which finds it's way into pockets on both sides of the aisle. The average Saudi is about as dedicated to the interests of His Royal Hinnie as I am.
KING FAUD SPEAKS
"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
WAS Charles Freeman the ambassador at that time??? I cannot recall. Other Americans of some note during that time period___
Robert Jordan
Ollie North
James Baker
Richard Armitage
Elliot ABrams
Janet Reno....
UHHH, I am getting a headache.
KING FAUD SPEAKS
"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
WAS Charles Freeman the ambassador at that time??? I cannot recall. Other Americans of some note during that time period___
Robert Jordan
Ollie North
James Baker
Richard Armitage
Elliot ABrams
Janet Reno....
UHHH, I am getting a headache.
Wow, between Hugh, Sir Oinks Alot, and greatcometof1577, I've never seen so much bad-mouthing of the men who led us to victory over Fascist Germany and Fascist Japan. Amazing!
Did it ever occur to you guys that these men were HUMAN? I mean, in spite of their desire for personal glory, did not men like Patton and MacArthur strategise the means towards victory after victory over the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese?
I can't wait for you guys to start on D. D. Eisenhower's poor leadership and whatnot. Yeah, that's a good idea...let's list off all the big-time Generals and Adirmals in the American armed forces during the Great World War 2, and make it sound that we won it in SPITE of them.
I guess the Germans' Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, and Rundstedt had to be even WORSE.
"I guess the Germans' Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, and Rundstedt had to be even WORSE."
Yes, I know that this is an absurd notion, since Hitler's stupidity nagated any of the Germans' military strategy by his generals. You guys just piss me off with your denigrating the honor of our military leaders during that great ('great' as in HUGE) war. What does that have to do with this topic anyway?