US policy with an ally like the Saudis till 2016

[Ken White]

"Influence in the region must come through new means, and actions matter. It is time for the US to create allies amongst citizens who increasingly pressure governments, and enhance authority by being the global power that consistently supports the rights of local citizens. Being on the wrong side of values that our country was built upon is not only hypocritical policy, but makes us less secure."

More senseless meddling in store? How nice. Not. The "bear any burden" legacy lives...

[Bob's World]

Is it less "senseless meddling" when we manipulate governments of others to become what we thing will best support our own interests; regardless of the concerns, and certainly without the consent of the governed?

I won't speak for the author as to what he thinks he means by this statement; but it is consistent with my belief that in the modern information age we must learn to better account for the will of the people affected by our decisions regarding their governments and homelands. This does not mean meddle more, in fact, if done properly, should lead our own political leaders to realize they are better served by meddling less.

The Cold War was the peak of US meddling in the affairs of others.

The GWOT is merely our follow-up meddling in efforts to stem the negative effects of our Cold War meddling.

Being more cognizent of the impacts of our actions, not just on the target country, but also back at us as occurred on 9/11 and a dozen other times over the post-Cold War era, can only be a good thing. (Unless of course we use it to validate why we need to go in and change some regime...)

Getting our policy back in line with our professed principles as a nation (as defined pre-Cold War, not as morphed during and after) can only be a good thing as well.

No one likes a hypocrite, and no one likes to be judged. We've grown too used to doing far too much of both.

[Ken White]

Is it less "senseless meddling" when we manipulate governments of others to become what we thing will best support our own interests; regardless of the concerns, and certainly without the consent of the governed?

Meddling is meddling, no matter how you qualify it and you know that.

The issue is how much meddling in the version he and you espouse would be welcomed or tolerated -- consented to -- by those governed. I believe that is very difficult calculation and also believe that the US proclivity for overkill, intemperate action and confusion would almost guarantee we will mess it up...

I won't speak for the author as to what he thinks he means by this statement; but it is consistent with my belief that in the modern information age we must learn to better account for the will of the people affected by our decisions regarding their governments and homelands. This does not mean meddle more, in fact, if done properly, should lead our own political leaders to realize they are better served by meddling less.

What an optimist. Politicians meddle, that's what they do. It's a lifestyle choice, a vocation and an avocation -- and it is rarely beneficial to any with whom they meddle.

The Cold War was the peak of US meddling in the affairs of others.

Not really, we've long had a pre-disposition to meddle (see Jefferson, T; Adams, J.Q.; Monroe, J. et.al. up to and incuding Taft W.H.; Roosevelt, F.D and to Carter, J.E, Reagan, R.; Bush G.H.W.; Clinton, W.J and Bush G.W. plus Obama, B.H.). You just remember the Cold War and so does our inept media and the acedemic community. That communication explosion you cite had a part in that.

The GWOT is merely our follow-up meddling in efforts to stem the negative effects of our Cold War meddling.

Mmm. One way to look at it. Not sure I agree totally though I acknowledge it's correct in part. That 'GWOT' (a term even Bush said should no longer be used...) was as much a reaction to correct the sins of omission of G.W.Bush's four predecessors who responded very poorly and inadequately to a series of probes from Islam. Bush did the right thing, pity his executive agents, the Armed forces, were not properly prepared or trained to do what was needed...

Being more cognizent of the impacts of our actions... can only be a good thing as well.

No one likes a hypocrite, and no one likes to be judged. We've grown too used to doing far too much of both.

Agree on that -- We need to quit doing those things. It would be even more beneficial if we stopped 'helping' others who neither want or need our help.

Now, all you have to do is figure out how to keep a dysfunctional foreign policy crew from screwing up the drill -- an insure the force is prepared to execute whatever drill pops up. As I sad, best of luck to ye...

Oh, and in strategizing do recall that capabilities and potential probabilities must be considered. That should include such facts as that the possible courses of action and likely reactions to events by our political masters are almost certain to be rather inchoate. We too often tend to forget that. Not believing the enemy thinks like you do is a well known and generally observed fact. We often seem to forget that our bosses don't think like we do...

[Bob's World]

http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2011/...ails-12695.htm

Poor Governance at work. This is the type of governmental action designed to counter/prevent insurgents from getting up a head of effective steam (though with twitter, etc can now organize on the fly, so the Cost/Benefit/Effectiveness of such measures has changed dramatically in the past few years). This is also the type of gross injustice under the rule of law, a key component of the type of poor governance that makes the conditions of insurgency grow within an affected populace.

A populace denied legal venues to speak out or affect government WILL ultimately seek illegal venues when pushed hard enough. That is the essence of insurgency.

From the article dated 23 July:


"Human rights activists have said that a counter-terrorism law proposed by the Saudi Arabian government, that mandates jail sentences for criticizing the king, would effectively quash political dissent.

The proposed law would give the Interior Ministry broad powers and mandate jail terms for speaking against the king.

Additionally, the law would allow prisoners to be held with no bail and trials and appeals would be handled secretly, both Saudi and international rights advocates have said.

The new law gives Interior Ministry the ability to tap telephones or search houses without permission from the judiciary, The New York Times reports."

A critical Metric here for those who understand the drivers of insurgency:


"Saudi activists have long accused the judicial system and the Interior Ministry of a lack of respect for human rights, even when such rights exist legally."


Also important:

"Critics said the law's definitions of terrorist crimes are vague enough to encompass all manner of activity.

According to a translation provided by Amnesty International, it uses broad terms like "harming the reputation of the state."

It mandates a 10-year prison term for calling the king or a crown prince an infidel.

Some activists view the law as an attempt by Prince Nayef, the longtime interior minister, to consolidate his power and that of his son, Prince Mohammed, who runs counterterrorism operations."


What is the penalty for calling the King foolish? A piece of unsolicited advice: If you want to stay in power, if you want to retain the wealth, dignity and respect that your family has held for so long, and not always be remembered as the guy who lost it all, this is the absolute wrong direction to go. In the past, yes, this was viable. Now? No more. You cannot control the flow of information to your populace so you cannot control your populace. Now you must actually lead. Now you must actually govern. Now you must actually treat your people with dignity, respect and justice. A few small changes in approach that cost you virtually nothing to implement will make you the greatest king in the history of Saudi Arabia. Laws like this? This could cost you your throne or worse.

[Ken White]

What is the penalty for calling the King foolish? A piece of unsolicited advice: If you want to stay in power, if you want to retain the wealth, dignity and respect that your family has held for so long, and not always be remembered as the guy who lost it all, this is the absolute wrong direction to go.

Of an Iranian acquaintance who owned a Pizza Parlor in Tehran (you haven't lived 'til you've had Pizza with shredded Lamb as the meat topping...).

He'd previously owned one in New York and had moved back home. He once told me that in NY, they told him when he could open and had to close, how many people he could hire and what he had to pay them, where he had to buy his ingredients, how high his fire extinguishers had to be off the floor.

In Tehran, he opened and closed when he felt like it, hired and paid who he wanted, bought whatever he wanted, didn't even have to possess a fire extinguisher.

Another difference was that in NY, he could stand in the middle of the sidewalk and scream "The President is a stupid SOB" while in Tehran, he could not stand on the sidewalk and scream "The Shah is a stupid SOB."
He then asked "Now you tell me where there is more freedom?"

It does not have to be our way to be right. Freedom -- and oppression -- are in the minds of the residents and outsiders may not view things the same way.

[Dayuhan]

A piece of unsolicited advice: If you want to stay in power, if you want to retain the wealth, dignity and respect that your family has held for so long, and not always be remembered as the guy who lost it all, this is the absolute wrong direction to go. In the past, yes, this was viable. Now? No more. You cannot control the flow of information to your populace so you cannot control your populace. Now you must actually lead. Now you must actually govern. Now you must actually treat your people with dignity, respect and justice. A few small changes in approach that cost you virtually nothing to implement will make you the greatest king in the history of Saudi Arabia. Laws like this? This could cost you your throne or worse.

All very well said, but the truth is that they don't care what you think, they don't care what I think, and they don't care what the US Government thinks. We saw that in Bahrain, and we'll see it again. The President, the DoS, and both houses of Congress could jump up and sing the above in 3 part harmony and it would change exactly nothing. At this point they have more leverage on us than we do on them. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have signed up for some $120 billion in arms purchases from the US, enough to keep the US defense industry afloat for another decade or two. Everything they are buying could be had from other sources as well... and if the US-Saudi relationship got fussy, how many seconds do you think it would be before the Chinese, Russians, French, British, Germans, and a bunch of others had offers on the table?

How many well-paid American manufacturing jobs are involved? Exact counts vary, but Congress ain't gonna mess with that with the economy where it sits now. We may indulge in a bit of talk here and there, but both sides know we won't rock that boat.

I actually think you overestimate the unrest in the Kingdom. It's dropped off quite a bit since the bad days in the 90s, when the oil glut and the US military presence nearly brought things to a head. Like the Chinese, I suspect that the Saudis are likely to hold it together until there's a real economic crunch, which in Saudi Arabia may not happen until the oil runs out.

People seek liberty, but they also seek security and prosperity. When I'm in the Gulf I read a real desire for change, but it's tempered by an overwhelming fear that change could bring chaos and disorder and eventual foreign control. A substantial part of the populaces of these countries has something to lose, and they're very much aware that they could lose it.

I can't count how many times I've been told, in that part of the world, that American efforts at democracy promotion are a conspiracy to weaken and divide them and exploit those divisions to gain control of the oil. We will (the refrain goes) support parties that support our interests, undercut those that don't, foster internal division and cultivate chaos, manipulate elections, and take over. That may not be true (though given history they can be pardoned for believing it), but as you say, it is perceived as truth.

The whole assumption of "enraged populace struggling against despotic regime" is a construct imposed by outsiders because it's consistent with their views. There's some truth to it, but it's by no means the whole picture... and if we build policy around the assumption that it is the whole picture - or the assumption that we have to mount our white horse and ride to the rescue of these aggrieved populaces - we're likely to step on our equipment in a major way.

They will do what they want, and they will reap whatever consequences come. The consequences may land on us as well, even though we have little or no influence on what happens... but that's fair enough, our actions and our mistakes often have major influence on people who have zero influence on our policies. Our fault for getting addicted to a commodity we haven't got...

[ganulv]

I worked with a fellow who had spent several years working in the oil business in Saudi Arabia. He said one day his Saudi colleagues were bitching about something the State Department had done in a none too subtle way and he said, “Look, how much do you have to do with your government’s foreign policy? Probably about as much as I do.” Not to say that there aren’t stark contrasts between living your life as a citizen of and in Saudi Arabia and doing the same in the U.S., of course.