Saudi Arabia: seeking security (catch all)

[Granite_State]

In an article in the Atlantic I was reading the other day, a crazy statistic caught my eye:

The Saudis burn about a quarter of the oil they produce—and their domestic consumption has been rising at an alarming 7 percent a year, nearly three times the rate of population growth. According to a widely read December 2011 report by Chatham House, a British think tank, if this trend continues, domestic consumption could eat into Saudi oil exports by 2021 and render the kingdom a net oil importer by 2038.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...energy/395315/

[davidbfpo]

Via the Australian website of the Lowy Institute, a short pithy article by a ret'd Israeli Air Force officer:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...s-to-war.aspx?

A few passages:

Tanks, combat aircraft and missiles are only as powerful as the people operating, maintaining and supporting them. And in this domain, Saudi Arabia has a very long way to go. Not much is known about the proficiency of Saudi Arabia's military as a fighting force. The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991; and most of the fighting there was done by the US. More recently Saudi Arabia has been fighting in Yemen, but unsuccessfully so far. Foreign advisers speak about the difficulties in bringing Saudi Arabian soldiers to the desired combat readiness and proficiency.

(Concluding passage) Let me finish with a comment on 'Northern Thunder'. Exercises as large as 'Northern Thunder' take a very long time to plan and coordinate, and it also takes many months to gather the units together in one place. Yet, 'Northern Thunder' appeared in the media out of nowhere. (and nothing is known about it since it was announced). Where do you hide 350,000 troops? Are they really there?

[CrowBat]

Via the Australian website of the Lowy Institute, a short pithy article by a ret'd Israeli Air Force officer:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...s-to-war.aspx?

A few passages:

"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

************

Anyway, something that's a sort of a public secret ever since 2001, at least 2002, is now about to 'explode' into a major international affair.

Namely, in reaction to demands from the US Congress to publish full details about involvement of Saudi government in 9/11, Saudis are making their next dumb move:

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The administration, which argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas, has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot.
...

Of course, 'royals' in Riyad are not the only ones to blame: in essence, all of this is actually known since more than a decade. The issue is only that of the US government officially announcing this as a fact (in turn probably causing a mass of legal cases with demands for payment of damage against Saudi Arabia, just for example).

The actual reason for this issue being so 'sensitive' right now is that there were two US administrations (Qusay Bush & Oblabla) that did their best to prevent this from happening - and instead cheerfully continued upping Sauds, selling arms worth hundreds of billions to them etc: had they made this known right from the start, nobody would have said a single word.

So, the question is rather: why all of that, was it worth it, and why now...?

[OUTLAW 09]

"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

************

Anyway, something that's a sort of a public secret ever since 2001, at least 2002, is now about to 'explode' into a major international affair.

Namely, in reaction to demands from the US Congress to publish full details about involvement of Saudi government in 9/11, Saudis are making their next dumb move:

Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill


Of course, 'royals' in Riyad are not the only ones to blame: in essence, all of this is actually known since more than a decade. The issue is only that of the US government officially announcing this as a fact (in turn probably causing a mass of legal cases with demands for payment of damage against Saudi Arabia, just for example).

The actual reason for this issue being so 'sensitive' right now is that there were two US administrations (Qusay Bush & Oblabla) that did their best to prevent this from happening - and instead cheerfully continued upping Sauds, selling arms worth hundreds of billions to them etc: had they made this known right from the start, nobody would have said a single word.

So, the question is rather: why all of that, was it worth it, and why now...?

There was a book written in German that involved deep research into the Hamburg AQ cell that was the core driver of 9/11. BTW that book is now extremely hard to find even on the used book side of the house.

While several were Saudi.....the German researcher and he was actually for his time extremely thorough.... stated he found no direct link to anyone in the Saudi government, intel services and or any funding funneled to Hamburg from KSA....all instructions, personnel and funding flowed from AQ central as it was an AQ central operation from start to end and part and parcel of AQ central OPEC.

AQ central had a deep distrust for anything Saudi so I cannot fathom AQ central "getting into bed with the Saudi security services".

WHY not instead truly and definitively look at the total failure of the US intel community and FBI mistakes where the "dots" were all there to be seen and connected BUT where not...then why not as AQ central was suppose to be on everyone's radar screen.......

THEN let's look at the alleged NSA intercepts that picked up on at least two of the 9/11 cells in the US BUT somehow did not connect them to AQ central...if true then why not should be the question.

WHAT is missing often from US articles about 9/11 is the serious "near miss" by a AQ sleeper cell in Us that darn near knocked down the Twin Towers with truck bomb...they barely missed seriously damaging one of the key supports that would have in fact caused the eventual crash of the Tower.

So with this fore warning JUST why did the US think another attack was not coming and against the same target set???

[CrowBat]

There are also books - like Baer's 'In Bed with the Devil' - that are directly linking at least the 'wife of Saudi ambassador to the DC' with 9/11....

...and, to make sure: I perfectly understand there are three cliques within the Saud family, with sometimes diametrally opposite standpoints... including one that is kind of 'pro-al-Qaida' (or at least leaning in that direction, if for no other reason then because it would like to grow in importance), but simply 'irrelevant' and so far away from places where any of important decisions are taken, that it simply 'doesn't matter'.

Whatever, few things are sure:
- a) if Saudis - one of (officially) 'major non-NATO-allies' of the USA in the Middle East - were not involved, there should be no reason for such like Obama to censure the publication of the full report;

- b) versa-vice: if Saudis were not involved, there should be no reason for them to express threats like the one mentioned above.

Bottom line: what's all the fuz about?

[davidbfpo]

Crowbat,

I have seen several US media reports and blog columns on the "missing pages" from the 9/11 inquiry in recent days, but refrained from posting them here. Presumably our many Americans readers have seen them too.

For the Saudis (KSA) now to increase the diplomatic and financial pressure to prevent a bill becoming law, which is stuck in Congress comes as no surprise.

It also makes the recent deal between Egypt and KSA over the two islands in the Straits of Tiran even more interesting. Notably will the KSA really allow a US-manned MFO outpost to remain on now sovereign KSA territory? See this young, thin thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=23819

[CrowBat]

Hm... still not getting it: half the US defence sector is living from all the billions they're making with sales to Saudi Arabia. Little surprise then if the admin is curious to keep 'unpleasant' details of 9/11 investigation 'swept under the carpet'...

Would all the hundreds of thousands working for companies in question like to become jobless...?

I'm not 'defending' or 'taking sides' of anybody there. It's just that conclusion is on hand: the situation is like that with Israeli (and/or, since early this year: Saudi) nukes. 'No comment' is considered 'better solution under given circumstances'.

[davidbfpo]

Cited in part:

"The only real war the Saudis have taken part in was Operation Desert Storm in 1991..."

Sounds like the author never heard of Yemen Wars...

I agree, but somehow I expect very few people who were involved in the decision-making, let alone actual "boots on the ground" are now involved, let alone being listened to. Something in my memory tells me Egypt came to regard their "brotherly" intervention as their own Vietnam. The KSA did commit some troops, but it was mainly gold they contributed.

As Wiki reminded me this war was from 1962-1970. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War

Just found via Google a 21 pg paper:http://www.alexthorn.com/writings/Th...ptsVietnam.pdf

Once again your example reminds us that history has a habit of fading away, only to return and "bite" hard. Those who remind the decision-makers are all too often seen as "troublesome"; which seems to account for much of SWJ's infamy.

[CrowBat]

Cited in part:

I agree, but somehow I expect very few people who were involved in the decision-making, let alone actual "boots on the ground" are now involved, let alone being listened to. Something in my memory tells me Egypt came to regard their "brotherly" intervention as their own Vietnam. The KSA did commit some troops, but it was mainly gold they contributed.

As Wiki reminded me this war was from 1962-1970. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War

Just found via Google a 21 pg paper:http://www.alexthorn.com/writings/Th...ptsVietnam.pdf

Once again your example reminds us that history has a habit of fading away, only to return and "bite" hard. Those who remind the decision-makers are all too often seen as "troublesome"; which seems to account for much of SWJ's infamy.

Ah, you mean the Yemen War of 1962-1970: Saudis were 'only financing' that affair back then, they never became directly involved. That is: the British convinced them to sponsor arms purchases for 'Royalists'; then, with help of that Saudi money, British were purchasing arms from Israel, Jordan, Iran etc., and providin these to Royalists (BTW, majority of Royalists were the Zaidis - including Houthis - whom the Saudis are now fighting against).

(Note: strongly-recommended reading in this regards is The War That Never Was; Mind how shortsighted the British policy was, back then; they were de-facto supporting a Wahhabist regime against a laicist government in Egypt that was attempting to establish a laicist government in North Yemen...)

What I had in my mind when pointing out at that sentence is the Yemen War of 2009-2010. That was the actual Saudi 'military academy' - i.e. the 'crucial war-fighting experience' for their military.

...and this much more so than 'any' 1991: namely, what Saudis (i.e. the Saudi-led coalition) is (or was, considering the latest cease-fire) doing in Yemen since 24 March 2015, is exactly 'lessons learned from 2009-2010'.

Which in turn results in my POV that anybody gauging Saudi military performance in Yemen 2015-2016 by its (perceived or real) performance of 1991 simply has no clue what is he/she talking about.

[OUTLAW 09]

If you really think about it...the KSA response has feet and shoes and can walk for a number of reasons at least from their POV.

Any US law and or US court decision against the KSA and or KSA individual can easily be used to attach any kind of KSA assets much as is being done now in the Russian Kudos court decision being used against Russian assets in say France to the tune of 1B USD.

By eliminating say the 850B USDs they are no longer attachable within the US.

Secondly, there has always been a witch hunt in US media against alleged KSA 9/11 involvement since 9/11.

Saudi Arabia's king ran state charity that 9/11 victims say funded and armed al Qaeda
http://www.floridabulldog.org/2016/04/12513/

Lastly, this is another stone in a drumbeat against the KSA which actually parallels the Obama Goldberg interview comments concerning KSA.

After those comments I am surprised that Obama is going to the GCC meeting.

It is general knowledge of the "divided loyalities" within the KSA ruling elite...just look at the bin Laden family and that many in the US never did understand why the Bush Administration allowed bin Laden family members to leave the US just after 9/11 AND the RUIMNT that has been spun out of that move by Bush..or even look at the relationship of the first Bush to the KSA royal family.........

[OUTLAW 09]

Worth reading the Senate's initial submission and then the "marked up" Bill and one can see exactly what is the KSA "heartburn"....and along the way notice the US is precluded from the Bill...as one could construct something out of the Bill that actually fits the US.......notice the language....excludes any agent of the US working under the "color" of the US government.....meaning what happens if a Us CIA agent is working for an "opposition group" that goes rogue such as say the Kurdish YPG and attacks civilians in Turkey...is then the US government a "sponsor of terrorism" as well.....????

Under the Senate Bill...no...but the KSA is....?????

Here it is:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...nate-bill/2040 …
There is the full bill and a summary on this page.