U.S. Allies IV: Saudi Arabia
It made news in the past few weeks when it was revealed that Saudi Arabia is considering developing nuclear weapons. The Saudis immediately denied that they have made this decision, but they are clearly considering options, and indeed they may have leaked this story themselves to make sure they got the attention of the U.S.
Questions are being raised as to whether the Saudi government is more or less actively supporting terrorists in Iraq--the same questions that are more commonly asked about Syria, and that continue to arise about the relationship between the Saudi government and the 9/11 terrorists.
Michael Moore's latest book apparently argues that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by the Saudi government. Many people have suggested that radical Islam and terrorism both enjoy at least semi-official support from the Saudis. This is generally seen as potentially embarrassing to the Bush family, who are friendly with many "ruling" Saudis, including several members of the Bin Laden family.
An investigation of the story of how several Bin Ladens and other Saudis were allowed to leave the U.S. shortly after 9/11 has apparently revealed
the following: various individuals were flown to Houston from several sites in the U.S., at a time when virtually all flying was banned. Special permission was obviously granted for these flights. The flight from Houston to Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, took place after the ban on flying had ended. (Link via Instapundit).
Joel Mowbray has written about friendly ties between the State Department and Saudi Arabia, resulting in outcomes including very effective lobbying for Saudi Arabia in Washington, and extra efforts being made to smooth the entry of Saudi nationals into the U.S.--even after 9/11. (It was Mowbray's appearance on Pat Robertson's show that caused Robertson to say something like "the State Department should be nuked").
Mowbray seems to be a loyal Bush Republican, who is trying to say that none of the perfidious State Department actions are any of Bush's fault. But who has been president for two and a half years?
A number of things seems to be going on here. Partly, the Bush administration is frustrated both with the State Department and the CIA. (Rumsfield also has problems with the Pentagon, but that is more about scale and type of missions than over-all orientation or "ideology"). The classic debate between State and Defence goes something like this: State has more "experts on the regions and countries," people who speak the languages and have lived there, and have enormous sympathy for the local people. This may not lead to any intense loyalty to existing governments, but there is likely to be a sense that "we have to work with the status quo," "they're the best we can do," and even "making a change, especially by violence, will only make things worse." In the 50s, of course, State became hated by Republicans for arguing that the Communists, i.e. the bad guys, were going to win in Vietnam and perhaps other places, just as they had in China.
Defence may be cautious about deploying force (especially after Vietnam), but when they are convinced there is a problem, they can become impatient with diplomacy, and they know that force can work--they've seen it happen.
The CIA I guess often sides with State. My son who's now 13, and going to public school in Canada, came home with a joke one day about the CIA, the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department. All three organizations are given a mission: neutralize a specific bear in a specific forest. The CIA reports back: they are in regular contact with many creatures in the forest; they even have some creatures of their own working under cover; they are getting daily reports on several bears, one of which is no doubt the bear in question. They will need a great deal more time to complete the assignment, but impressive progress is being made.
The FBI reports back: they deliberately burned the entire forest, killing everything that lived there. They can report with confidence that the suspect bear is dead.
The LAPD arrives late for their briefing, and they are dragging a rabbit, kicking and screaming, badly bruised from a severe beating. Alright, alright, the rabbit says: I'm a bear! I'm a bear!
The Bush people are attracted to moral certainty and rapid, decisive action. They distrust anything that looks like consciously making accomodations to the enemy. To over-state for clarity, one could say that State might have recommended "constructive engagement" with practically anyone--even the South at the outbreak of the Civil War. Make a deal; give them what they want, if you have to. What is war going to accomplish? The Bush people would like to think they are like Lincoln, FDR/Churchill, and the greatest Cold Warriors: here is a moral cause. We must do what is right, no matter how risky or imprudent it seems.
The French and Germans have made it clear they are not buying this at all, so some Bush supporters are inclined to say it's "surrender to evil" in these countries all over again.
The U.S. allies, however, generally seem to show how complicated the situation really is. What exactly is Saudi Arabia doing, either to further U.S. efforts or to impede them? Does anyone know? To what extent have Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups had semi-official if not official sanction from the Saudis? If the Saudis officially gave some kind of support to the 9/11 attacks, would this have been sheer stupidity on their part? Or would they like to see the U.S. re-arrange the Mid East to some extent, as long as doing so doesn't directly harm the Saudis? Perhaps the Saudis know they have helped to release a dangerous genie (radical Islam/terrorism), along with Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and the madrassahs in Pakistan, so it wouldn't be a bad thing if the sherriff came to town for a while. I just don't know.
How much do we really know about 9/11? Without getting into the crazier conspiracy theories, there are certainly those who say the attacks were a bit too professional for Al Quaeda. I remember someone saying on 9/11 or the next day: this doesn't look like a typical Al Quaeda attack--it's too smart or sophisticated. The World Trade bombing in 1993 was crude and unsophisticated--although, in the case of a typical high-rise, it would have succeeded in bringing the building down. Other incidents that have been shown to be the work of Al Qaeda are similar--includling the idiot who was stopped at the Canada/U.S. border, with his trunk full of explosives. A smarter person would have found a way to acquire explosives once inside the U.S.
Update:
Just scanning recent headlines: Saudis
say
they will not send troops into Iraq now (contradicting an earlier report); in fact they will not do so until they are asked by a "legitimate" government there.
Saudi police arrest 4 "suspected Muslim militants" trying to cross into Iraq.
The Saudis are given credit for cracking down on Saudi nationals with links to Al Qaeda--but they have done so mainly since the bombing in Riyadh in May.
Meanwhile, Iraqi police say Saudi nationals were involved in some of the more serious bombings in Iraq in recent months--especially the one at Najaf which killed a mullah and many others. The Saudis say they have no knowledge of the involvement of their nationals in such acts, and anyone with solid information should come forward.
|
