Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz pointed out we will no longer need troops in Saudi Arabia after Saddam is gone. I’ll just quote him because he says it all:
“First of all, let’s talk about Saudi Arabia. We won’t need troops in Saudi Arabia when there’s no longer an Iraqi threat. The Saudi problem will be transformed. IN Iraq, first of all the Iraqi population is completely different from the Saudi population. The Iraqis are among the most educated people in the Arab world. They are by and large quite secular. They are overwhelmingly Shia which is different from the Wahabis of the peninsula, and they don’t bring the sensitivity of having the holy cities of Islam being on their territory. They are totally different situations. But the most fundamental difference is that, let me put it this way. We’re seeing today how much the people of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe appreciate what the United States did to help liberate them from the tyranny of the Soviet Union. I think you’re going to see even more of that sentiment in Iraq.”
The general tenor of what is coming out of Washington lately is much less “diplomatic” than in the past. Spades are being called spades; phony allies are being given the respect they deserve…. and I imagine the rate of coronaries inside the beltway has fallen considerably.
Soon is a good time to get out of Saudi Arabia in any case. They are seeing serious poverty in the cities now; they are seeing young men hanging out on the streets and ignoring the the Vice and Virtue cops and there is considerable terrorism occuring inside the country. The ruling family has done everything in its’ power to cover this last fact up. They imprison and torture a few Brits or others every time something gets blown up. They claim the bombs are “gang” murders for the alcohol trade between foreigners.
There is also some liberalization going on inside the country and it would be best for the liberalizers if we were not there as a target for the conservatives.
I heard on the radio either earlier this week or last week that SA has asked us to leave after the Iraq war.
Wonder who’ll start the bloodbath, or will it turn into no-mans’ -land like part of Pakistan.
I meant the islamfascists will head for SA and we’ll know where they are.
I think a Saudi kingdom without any foreign troops stationed in it is likely to be a lot more pro-Western than with them still in.
As instability increasingly threatens, the royal family will be desperately doing deals with all sides – Islamic fundamentalists and the US – even more than before.
I can’t think of a single country where the US has removed troops once they were comfortably entrenched. Not necessarily a good thing, but a pretty consistent military policy.
Well, France. And maybe Germany next.
Without question, our best way of dealing with the Saudi problem is to destroy Saddam’s regime.
I remain stunned at how few observers grok this.
S. Weasel: The U.S. removed its troops from the Phillipines, politely so, at the request of their government.
I believe that our troops are no longer in Panama, either. Nor are we in China, although we used to protect parts of it prior to World War II.
So yes, the U.S. does leave, usually whenever politely asked or when we simply have no reason to be there anymore.
The Saudi royal family have built their bed. Due to their attempts to control their people by using a form of religion, they have created what I think will be their own demise.
Bin Laden will be happy to have American troops leave Saudi Arabia, but his “war” against America and its allies will not be over.
It will take generations to repair the damage done by very twisted versions of religion.
I don’t think it is in the best interest of the US to plant our feet permanently in Iraq either. But I do believe he is correct that the people of Iraq will be better able to influence others in the region in a positive, liberated, democratic, educated, secular fashion than the muffled people of Saudi Arabia.
We need to be very careful not to repeat our mistakes trying to influence politics as in Iran. Their people have endured worse to worse political control.
Personally, I think SA is a lost cause, regardless whether we remove our troops or not. Having our troops there for thirteen years has already made us an enemy in the minds of the SA fundamentalists and many normal people. Invading Iraq will only reinforce that perception, and even if we removed all our troops from the entire region, many will still claim that somehow both the Iraqi govt. and the Saudi Royal Family are American puppets giving away their oil, and will use that to justify further terrorism. So I say, damned if we do, damned if don’t. We should remove our troops from SA asap, if only for the sole reason of bringing those people back home to their families and getting them out of uneccessary harm’s way.
Personally, I think SA is a lost cause, regardless whether we remove our troops or not. Having our troops there for thirteen years has already made us an enemy in the minds of the SA fundamentalists and many normal people. Invading Iraq will only reinforce that perception, and even if we removed all our troops from the entire region, many will still claim that somehow both the Iraqi govt. and the Saudi Royal Family are American puppets giving away their oil, and will use that to justify further terrorism. So I say, damned if we do, damned if don’t. We should remove our troops from SA asap, if only for the sole reason of bringing those people back home to their families and getting them out of uneccessary harm’s way.
Personally, I think SA is a lost cause, regardless whether we remove our troops or not. Having our troops there for thirteen years has already made us an enemy in the minds of the SA fundamentalists and many normal people. Invading Iraq will only reinforce that perception, and even if we removed all our troops from the entire region, many will still claim that somehow both the Iraqi govt. and the Saudi Royal Family are American puppets giving away their oil, and will use that to justify further terrorism. So I say, damned if we do, damned if don’t. We should remove our troops from SA asap, if only for the sole reason of bringing those people back home to their families and getting them out of uneccessary harm’s way.
Personally, I think SA is a lost cause, regardless whether we remove our troops or not. Having our troops there for thirteen years has already made us an enemy in the minds of the SA fundamentalists and many normal people. Invading Iraq will only reinforce that perception, and even if we removed all our troops from the entire region, many will still claim that somehow both the Iraqi govt. and the Saudi Royal Family are American puppets giving away their oil, and will use that to justify further terrorism. So I say, damned if we do, damned if don’t. We should remove our troops from SA asap, if only for the sole reason of bringing those people back home to their families and getting them out of uneccessary harm’s way.
Sorry for the quadruple post. I just wanted to make sure everyone got my point. 😉
To S.Weasel’s point about U.S. troops leaving. Obviously, the Phillipines is the best example since that was a very large presense. Not sure about Panama, I want to say we still have troops there, but I honestly don’t know. After the hand-off of the canal I’m not quite sure what happened. But our small anti-drug operations in Columbia are based out of somewhere, and it could be Panama.
Also, I’m pretty sure we no longer have a presence in Haiti. We aren’t in Granada any more. And we left France when asked back in the 60s.
But, I think we will definately leave Saudi and relocate the troops to Iraq for all the reasons stated here. We’ve already moved most command and control stuff to Qatar.
As for the Saudi’s becoming more pro-western with us not there. That’s probably true. But, Saudi pro-westernism isn’t worth anything if they are cointinuing to export their midevil interpretation of Islam. I understand realpolitik and all that, but our policy towards the Saudi’s very well could be the Bushies’ achille’s heel. I hope not, but if were the Democrats, I’d be all over that. But, they won’t because they don’t want to be seen speaking ill of “muslims.” I got to believe the statement by Wolfowitz referring to the “Saudi problem” that may be a precurser to a change in policy towards them. I hope so.
As for Iraq, I think we’ll have a presense their for a very long time (10 years at least).
“Spades are being called spades; phony allies are being given the respect they deserve…. and I imagine the rate of coronaries inside the beltway has fallen considerably”
Quite so. I like the more honest, though less-diplomatic approach. It’s refreshing. It shows the administration is composed of adults and not people reliving their student government/model UN days. But, as for the coronaries falling, something tells me the folks at the state department wince everytime Rumsfeld opens his mouth. Couldn’t happen to a better group of people.
About those “most educated” and “secular” Iraqis – don’t get illusions – they are Baathist – which menas -National-Socialists. There are many other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq. The chances Iraq will turn into a liberal free, exemplar democracy even after 10 years of American occupation – are very slim. SA is also ripe for regime change, with or without American presence there. Change to what ? Nobody knows.
Getting in to remove Saddam is necessary now, but don’t fall prey to illusions about a rosy future.
But Iran’s ready to pop. They’re just waiting for the flash.
And the Iranian students are not happy w/Europe.
Read the link at oxblog:
“…A standard of freedom and life that the illegitimate rulers of our country, with the support of the already mentioned European opportunists, withhold from our people: European governments and rulers who out of fear of there placement in the new world order by America on the one hand and out of fear of losing their illegitimate benefits in countries such as Iran on the other hand, not only have risen to opposition with their decades-long ally and have forgotten the efforts of the US for liberating them from the yoke of Nazism and, later, Bolshevism and then the inheritance of the Marshall Plan which raised them from rubble, but also in their effort to throw stones along the path of their ally of yesterday and her war against terrorism, are willing to trod over the rest of their own values to support regimes such as the Islamic Republic in order to continue looting the nations of such countries.”
We’re ready, W, let’s roll.
The big fly in this particular ointment is the Kurdish situation. The Kurds certainly aren’t going to welcome the Americans as liberating heroes if that means their aspirations for independence are doomed for the foreseeable future. Indeed, they could face becoming less independent once the US doesn’t see the need to protect them from Baghdad. However Turkey is totally opposed to any semblance of an independent Kurd state, and Turkish views carry more weight in Washington than the Kurds do.