Saudi instability, contd.

I am not the only person judging (as I did in this recent post) that Saudi Arabia may well be on the verge of a major breakdown. Today, during a meeting of many other Middle East specialists whom I respect, I heard serious discussion of planning for the contingency of a “civil war” in the Kingdom.
Well done, George W. Bush!! (Irony alert there.) Within just the past 18 months your policies have transformed Iraq into a land of brigandage and rampant insecurity, and a place of refuge for many terrorists and other criminals; and your inattention to what’s been going on in Saudi Arabia means there’s a growing chance that it will now go the same way, too.
I am not actually a supporter of any nation having military bases outside its own borders. (Or inside, come to that: look at demilitarized Costa Rica. But that’s a different story.) But I do note that for many years right through to 2003, the Kingdom’s major defense posture depended heavily on the presence of some 7,000-10,000 US military people.
In April 2003, Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, still cock-a-hoop in the wake of the “victory” in Iraq, announced it would withdraw nearly all the US military from Saudi. According to this April 30, 2003 report in the Chicago Tribune:

    the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday…
    The Persian Gulf, Rumsfeld said, “is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq.” [!!, ~HC] He also said U.S. planes no longer are needed to enforce a “no-fly” zone over Iraq. American military aircraft patrolling the southern half of Iraq did so in part from Saudi Arabia.
    The U.S. also is likely to continue to use air bases in Iraq, increasing its military “footprint” in the region overall.


That US military withdrawal from Saudi Arabia had long been a pet project of the neocons, who chafed under the fact that the longterm interdependency between the governments of the US and of Saudi Arabia meant that Washington every so often had to at least pretend to listen seriously to the concerns the Saudi leaders expressed over issues like Palestine. The neocons (not to mention the many islamophobes hanging around this administration) just totally hated the relationship with the Saudis.
Of course, the withdrawal of nearly all the US forces from the Kingdom handed Osama a major political gift on a platter, since one of his major demands has always been the withdrawal of all foreign forces from his native land.
The neocons (and Rumsfeld, and Bush) didn’t let that little fact stand in the way of their rush to fold up their tents and leave.
In addition, the relatively large US military presence in the country had given the US many valuable eyes, ears, and boots on the ground so the US government had a pretty good idea what was going on in different corners of the Kingdom… Oh, including the ever-vital eastern parts of the country where the great concentration of Saudi oilfields are.
And now?
… So here we are now, a bare 14 months later, and I’m trying to think like serious Pentagon planner. What on earth can the US or any other allied military do in the event of a total implosion of political power and legitimacy in the gerontocratic Kingdom?
Probably, at this stage, not a whole lot. One evident temptation would be to send forces in to try to seize control of the oilfields, at least, while leaving the rest of the Kingdom to whichever local forces could hold them. That would include Mecca and Medina, which are much closer to the west of the country.
But this would be opening a truly massive can of worms.
First of all, there’s a real question in my mind as to whether the US and any conceivable coalition could succeed in not only seizing but also holding onto an area the size of the oilfields. They are already so unbelievably overstretched in Iraq.
Second: yet another US-led invasion of an oil-rich Muslim country– how on earth would this be received around the world?? How could the US ever gain any approval from the international community for such an action? (They couldn’t. It would be like the Franco-British-Israeli invasion of Sinai in 1956: quite discredited.)
There are truly no good military options in this arena, at all… Which leaves politics. And specifically, the politics of hoping-against-hope that those Saudi gerontocrats can somehow find a way to resolve their present, truly terrible political dilemma.
Okay, call me a softie if you like, but I do feel very sorry for these old guys as they cast around desperately trying to find solutions to these intense political problems. Particularly because for the past 65 years their rule has been propped up by the twin pillars of (1) their very close relationship with Washington, and (2) their ability to use their oil wealth to purchase or hire whatever expertise they actually needed from someone else, without having to do any really hard work (including, most of their national planning or national decisionmaking) themselves.
Now, suddenly, it’s wake-up time. And there’s King Fahd (where’s King Fahd? They haven’t actually shown him to the public for an awfully long time… ) and his doughty stand-in Crown prince Abdullah (he of the intriguingly boot-blacked goatee beard), and they have to suddenly act like national leaders.
Yikes!
Today, according to the website of the Saudi Embassy in DC, King Fahd addressed the nation on the surrender of terrorists. Well, make that, “King Fahd”, in quotes, since it was actually Crown Prince Abdullah who did it on his behalf.
Here’s some of what he said:

    My fellow citizens:
    Our state was established on the principle of upholding monotheism in every heart and mind. We realize that the unity of the country did not stem from a vacuum but was the result of the struggle of noble men following their leader, the late King Abdulaziz, the founder of our nation. May God bestow his mercy upon all of them.
    Fellow citizens:
    God revealed in the Holy Quran:
    “Those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” [Al-Maeda, 24].
    Therefore, we announce for the last time that the door for forgiveness and return to righteousness is open. Islamic Law, Shariah, will be applied to all those who deviated from the right path and committed crimes in the name of religion to spread corruption on earth.
    We give all those who belong to that group, which did injustice to itself, and who were not arrested in terrorist action, the chance to return to God and reconsider. Those who accept this and choose to surrender voluntarily within a period not exceeding one month from the date of this speech will be safe and will be treated in accordance to the Law (Shariah) with regard to the rights of others.
    Fellow citizens:
    All know that we do not make this announcement out of weakness or powerlessness, but to give them the choice so that we, government and people, will be excused because we have offered an open door for revision and safety.
    If the rational accept this, they will find safety. And if the arrogant reject it, then by God, tolerance will not prevent us from striking them with all the power we drive from our reliance on God Almighty.
    We pledge to God our relentless strength and unwavering resolve, with God?s support and power.
    May God’s Peace, Mercy, and Blessings be upon you.

Okay, so we have a one-month window for Al-Qaeda surrenders… And after that, it’ll be strike-’em-hard time…
You have to wonder if there isn’t a better way to tackle this problem? After all, in Algeria, the decision by the military there to “strike the Islamists hard” led to ten years of anguish, strife, fear and widespread abuses, and left that whole oil-endowed country in tatters.
Yes, there certainly has to be a better way.
How about if they invite Lakhdar Brahimi, or someone else, to come in and organize an authoritative, nationwide consultation on the country’s future? That could buy time. It could give the gerontos the opportunity to involve a broad range of younger citizens (of both genders–and most certainly, not limited to the so-called “royals”) in decisionmaking. And it would give the country a good chance transform the currently badly strained relationships among the different groups of Saudis away from outright conflict and toward an eventual cooperation.

18 thoughts on “Saudi instability, contd.”

  1. I doubt that Lakhdar Brahimi is up for another bout of nation-saving quite so soon.
    I would not put it past the US to seize that Saudi oil fields if the country unravels. We have shown an unerring ability to make a bad situation worse.

  2. Faced with civil upheaval in Saudi Arabia and keeping a security presence in Iraq, I believe this administration would choose to withdraw troops from Iraq for duty in Saudia Arabia. It has sufficient cover for such a move although I think it would prove futile in the end and further throw the Middle East into turmoil. If, however, civil warfare in Saudia Arabia begins during a Kerry administration, I haven’t a clue as to how he would respond to such a situation.

  3. Here’s what needs to happen (warning, irony here!):
    Georgie boy needs to be consulted. Whatever his “gut” reaction is, do the opposite!
    This president needs to saved for such uses. During the whole rest of his life, he can be a “reality check.” Since he has already unerringly picked the worst possible choices in just about any situation, we can save ourselves in future by steering clear of them.
    Seriously, Georgie boy has gotten us into such a mess this time that even his cronies won’t be able to put right for him (or us). It is amazing this man was given bigger “toys” to play with when he clearly had already failed so completely with the smaller toys he’d played with in the past.
    I hate to be a pessimist here but if things can get worse, they will. And with the bush folks fighting on so many fronts now, I can’t imagine any sanity coming out of them any time soon.

  4. If you could clarify this point: wasn’t it a mistake in the first place to keep troops and bases in Saudi Arabia at the conclusion of the 1991 war? It would seem to me that 1) we were too quick to “lead the parade” to throw out Saddam from Kuwait,then 2) got into a complicated “no fly” regimen that failed to protect Shias in the south, and 3) compounded the first two mistakes by staying in large numbers in the region.

  5. US/Saudi comity involves much more than military personnel and the ‘footprint’ of bases there.
    For years private companies have been reaping huge gains in Saudi Arabia, employing tens of thousands of Americans, and generating billions in the process.
    First published on December 10, 2001 in the Boston Herald, (not left leaning by any standard),
    “A Herald examination of corporate records, intelligence reports and published accounts – as well as interviews with terrorism and foreign policy experts – reveals an extraordinary array of U.S.-Saudi business ventures which, taken together, are worth tens of billions of dollars.”
    IOW, when Bin Laden et al use ‘infidels in the Kingdom’ as reason for continued aggression, they are not necessarily talking of military presence alone.
    I have written an article involving long standing US ties to the Kingdom. There is too much to go into here. The Herald article is a good place to start, and if you are so inclined, my article is posted here.
    Any comments pro or con are welcome concerning my piece. Thanks.

  6. Don’t forget the third major prop that the House of Saud has used since it unified the peninisula — its mutual hands-off deal with the fundamentalist clergy. The Wahabist clergy has a very strong power base now, something the Algerian regime did not have to deal with when it began its repression of the radical Islamists.
    The kingdom is a house of cards that has been stacked very high indeed.

  7. I’m an amateur on Gulf politics, but … wouldn’t the US taking over Saudi oilfields in the event of internal collapse just set the whole Islamic world on fire, because of Mecca? Is the idea that we could “Protect” the oil and leave Mecca alone? Isn’t Osama’s beef that we’re in the country of Mecca in the first place?
    I just don’t get how we could consider taking over Saudi oilfields. But then, I couldn’t believe we would invade Iraq because it seemed like such a losing proposition for us. THen again, I’m just a little old Lebanese-American housewife who lived in Lebanon and Cairo as a girl, so I can’t know as much as our vaunted military planners…right?

  8. But KSA has an army, a modern air force and air defences.
    There were reports not so long ago of visits to Pakistan to discuss other methods of self-defence, if you get my drift.
    The US, quite sensibly, never attacks any country that has the ghost of a chance of defending itself.
    I mean look at what a dog’s breakfast it makes of invading a crippled defenseless country, for heaven’s sake.

  9. HC writes:
    “Today, during a meeting of many other Middle East specialists whom I respect, I heard serious discussion of planning for the contingency of a ‘civil war’ in the Kingdom.”
    What meeting? What specialists? No press coverage? Any papers they will post, blog, or publish? Was the “planning” loose conjecture or focussed on specifics? Any risk of mutiny by the security forces? Or is their loyalty a given? Any US aircraft carriers or RDF units on alert?

  10. To those wishing to understand the situation at hand in the middle east I would recommend “GHOST WARS” by Steve Coll. At this juncture I believe we have crossed into a cultural quagmire; our best option would be to invite every one in for a cup of followed by a long nap.

  11. I vaguely remember some quote attributed to Dick Cheney regarding Saudi Arabia, to the effect that he thought invading and securing the oil fields was a bright idea – and the Saudis could have the rest of the country for themselves. This was a few years ago – before Iraq was invaded. I remember this because it struck me as the height of folly – an open invitation for UBL to lead the Muslim world against the US in a global jihad. I can just imagine what would happen to oil prices – and the world economy – if this happened. Cheney seemed to be unbelievably arrogant – and ignorant of the consequences of such an action. I can’t help but wonder if that secret meeting he had with oil honchos included plans to divvy up Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran among themselves. It would sure be interesting to finally get to see the details of those meetings!

  12. One of America’s biggest problems is a tendency for her leaders to wear blinkers, and to be blinded by hatred. We all remember that during the Cold War, the US supported any old regime at all that declared itself to be “Anti-Soviet”, and looked the other way at any abuses of human rights, etc, that the leadership was committing. One of the best examples was the Shah of Iran, whose SAVAK secret police were so brutal that, according to two books I’ve read written by former KGB officers, the SAVAK was the only police/counter-intelligence service in the world that even the KGB feared! But he was America’s buddy because he was Anti-Soviet. It’s this sort of thing that makes a total lie out of the proposition being advanced that America “cares” about democracy in the ME, etc. She only cares about compliant or puppet regimes!
    In 1981, having become a Mujhahenin Commander in a very short time, thanks to his brilliance, a Saudi Afghani by the name of Osama bin Laden was interviewed by the international media in Pakistan while giving his unit R and R. He was asked what he saw as “the goal” (“al quaeda” in Arabic) of the Mujhahedin. His response was, “Our first goal is to chase the Soviet Imperialists from the Isalmic Lands, and then to chase the American Imperialists from the Islamic Lands”! Yet during the Soviet War, he was armed and trained, etc, by the Yanks! (And termed a “Great Freedom Fighter!) It seems that Washington chose to hear the first part of his statement, but to ignore the second part! I can only surmise that the thought was, “If someone is Anti-Soviet, he must be Pro-American!” Duh? And now, this same Cold War mentality still grips Washington. There are, I’m sure, lots of countries in one way or another fighting terrorism, but does that mean they are all pro-American? Somehow I doubt it.
    Also, most politicians seem to have the silly idea that if the leaders say they are such and such, their people must also be such and such! That’s why I term Bush’s invasion team the “Coalition of the Unwilling”. The leaders may have been willing, but in most cases, the people were almost totally opposed!
    Regarding KSA, I feel that no matter what happens, or who does or doesn’t do whatever, the joint is doomed to serious internal warfare.
    As the Russians say, “Those who attempt to divert the River of History, will surely end up drowned!”

  13. You’re incorrect to assume the global division would continue should the Saudi regime fall or weaken in civil unrest or war. The Bush administration’s unilateralism is foolhardy, yet grounded in a justifiable certainty that where core interests are concerned, developed nations are exceedingly predictable. A Saudi civil war would excite the war machines of every nation capable of one, and the most powerful would fall in line behind the U.S., lest they lose their grips on that treasured status.

  14. John Koch asks what the meeting was that I was writing about. It was a private, off-the-record meeting of an organization I am involved with. I can’t say more. Many of the participants were seasoned M.E. specialists but only a couple of them are people with much strategic-affairs experience. Other kinds of organizations do contingency planning, too!

  18. slots

    Am [video poker, video poker game] online poker.Sometimes [slots, slots online, free slots] texas hold em!This [texas hold em, hold em] !This [texas hold em, hold em] September 2018

    Categories