StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies
Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 6, 2002; Page A01

A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States.

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

The briefing did not represent the views of the board or official government policy, and in fact runs counter to the present stance of the U.S. government that Saudi Arabia is a major ally in the region. Yet it also represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration -- especially on the staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon''s civilian leadership -- and among neoconservative writers and thinkers closely allied with administration policymakers.

One administration official said opinion about Saudi Arabia is changing rapidly within the U.S. government. "People used to rationalize Saudi behavior," he said. "You don''t hear that anymore. There''s no doubt that people are recognizing reality and recognizing that Saudi Arabia is a problem."

The decision to bring the anti-Saudi analysis before the Defense Policy Board also appears tied to the growing debate over whether to launch a U.S. military attack to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The chairman of the board is former Pentagon official Richard N. Perle, one of the most prominent advocates in Washington of just such an invasion. The briefing argued that removing Hussein would spur change in Saudi Arabia -- which, it maintained, is the larger problem because of its role in financing and supporting radical Islamic movements.

Perle did not return calls to comment. A Rand spokesman said Murawiec, a former adviser to the French Ministry of Defense who now analyzes international security affairs for Rand, would not be available to comment.

"Neither the presentations nor the Defense Policy Board members'' comments reflect the official views of the Department of Defense," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said in a written statement issued last night. "Saudi Arabia is a long-standing friend and ally of the United States. The Saudis cooperate fully in the global war on terrorism and have the Department''s and the Administration''s deep appreciation."

Murawiec said in his briefing that the United States should demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around the world, stop all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli statements in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services."

If the Saudis refused to comply, the briefing continued, Saudi oil fields and overseas financial assets should be "targeted," although exactly how was not specified.

The report concludes by linking regime change in Iraq to altering Saudi behavior. This view, popular among some neoconservative thinkers, is that once a U.S. invasion has removed Hussein from power, a friendly successor regime would become a major exporter of oil to the West. That oil would diminish U.S. dependence on Saudi energy exports, and so -- in this view -- permit the U.S. government finally to confront the House of Saud for supporting terrorism.

"The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad," said the administration official, who is hawkish on Iraq. "Once you have a democratic regime in Iraq, like the ones we helped establish in Germany and Japan after World War II, there are a lot of possibilities."

Of the two dozen people who attended the Defense Policy Board meeting, only one, former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger, spoke up to object to the anti-Saudi conclusions of the briefing, according to sources who were there. Some members of the board clearly agreed with Kissinger''s dismissal of the briefing and others did not.

One source summarized Kissinger''s remarks as, "The Saudis are pro-American, they have to operate in a difficult region, and ultimately we can manage them."

Kissinger declined to comment on the meeting. He said his consulting business does not advise the Saudi government and has no clients that do large amounts of business in Saudi Arabia.

"I don''t consider Saudi Arabia to be a strategic adversary of the United States," Kissinger said. "They are doing some things I don''t approve of, but I don''t consider them a strategic adversary."

See remainder of article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 2Aug5.html

Amazing enough, I actually agree on this one. Saudi Arabia is arguably an enemy of the United States, by virtue of playing both sides against the middle.

However, the US won't do anything about it. They have a long history of cozying up in bed with anyone, no matter how corrupt or cruel, if they think it serves their geo-political purposes. And right now, they need Saudi oil and Saudi influence too much to let principle stand in the way. It's as simple as that.

However, the US won't do anything about it. They have a long history of cozying up in bed with anyone , no matter how corrupt or cruel, if they think it serves their geo-political purposes. And right now, they need Saudi oil and Saudi influence too much to let principle stand in the way. It's as simple as that.

However turn it around and say what if the US DID attack SA and then claim it as a protectorate of the US(And get quite alot of Oil under our Control)

Who could realy stop us? I mean what would the UN do? Shake thier collective finger at us and fine us a Billion Dollers?

Just playing DA here what would happen?

What's with the 2 accounts anyway, Mike?

Is Kanos for those "official announcements" while the Darth Wong persona
is for yer personal views?

MKSheppard wrote:What's with the 2 accounts anyway, Mike?

Is Kanos for those "official announcements" while the Darth Wong persona
is for yer personal views?

Darth Wong is for the bone-crushing Imperial Smackdown. Kanos is the pseudo-benevolent administrator.

On the topic: I definitely think that the Saudis are, at best, a drag on our actions in the ME. At worst they are active supporters of terrorism. But we can't just act to control them without a damn good reason, even if we've conquered Iraq and established a pro-US semi-puppet regime (make no mistake, that's what they intend to do). If we take on Iraq and then Saudi Arabia, its going to look like the US is trying to sieze control of the world's oil reserves. International support for that is going to be slim to nil, and I wonder even if Britain will go along with it.

BTW, that statement in the middle of that article about making the Saudis stop making anti-US and anti-Israel statements is pure bullshit. The US has no right to tell other nations what they can and can't say. This is just about as stupid as the "terms" we gave Iraq a month ago.

Once again I feel hesitant in posting in this thread, but I will try any way...

Originally posted by Mr Bean
However turn it around and say what if the US DID attack SA and then claim it as a protectorate of the US(And get quite alot of Oil under our Control)

This isn't an attack on you Mr Bean, you are not the only one to go with this train of thought, however your quote provides a convinient conduit for my point which is this...

...The Saudi government is already a great supporter of the US, it's in fact a corrupt and oppresive regime that is only held in power by US backing! The majority of terrorist activity is undertaken by rich Saudi's, who wish to see the US influence in the ME lesson. Now what I am trying to say is that the US already has a military presence in SA, and to attack it would in affect be similar to US forces attacking NATO countries, honestly do some research...

My solution to the problem is quite simple and obvious, start lessening our dependance on oil, once that happens, the US wouldn't give two shits about the ME, and one assumes would leave the area alone. However the likelyhood of this happening when Bushie's campain financers were mostly OIL and ATUOMOTIVE companies, is slim.

To be honset Crown I don't see any possible way your comments could be considered an attack on me
And honsetly I TRIED!

The Saudi government is already a great supporter of the US, it's in fact a corrupt and oppresive regime that is only held in power by US backing!

Just one comment
The SA is not held in power by the US except Miltaray(IE Isreal or Iraq would woop them in an open war) no rather the power of SA is derived as it is in Iran from the Clergy
The Running Moncarchy of SA gives them lots of freedom so the Cleregy says support your Local monarcy and the goverment keeps a nice firm grip on power

I say let's just leave, pack it up and go home. We'll get our oil from Alaska, Russia, and South America. We'll start building nuclear and other non fossil fuel based plants for electricity. And we'll start investing in electric hybrid and fuel cell cars. We'll stay and defend Kuwaitt as long as they want us there, and don't back stab us. If Iraq invades Saudi, we'll just laugh our asses off as the royal family loses their country and their wealth. To hell with them.

USAF Ace wrote:I say let's just leave, pack it up and go home. We'll get our oil from Alaska, Russia, and South America. We'll start building nuclear and other non fossil fuel based plants for electricity.

Tell that to the enviro-fascists, who have been on a 30-year mission to annihilate nuclear power in North America. They cite the waste (ignoring the fact that coal plants dump their waste into your breathing air, to the tune of millions of tons per year) and the danger of a leak (again, ignoring the fact that a "leak" is standard operating procedure for a coal plant) as reasons, but the real reason is and has always been ignorance and fear of that which they do not understand.

And we'll start investing in electric hybrid and fuel cell cars.

Which will create more electricity demand, thus requiring more power plants which the enviro-fascists won't let us have either.

We'll stay and defend Kuwaitt as long as they want us there, and don't back stab us. If Iraq invades Saudi, we'll just laugh our asses off as the royal family loses their country and their wealth. To hell with them.

Heh heh ... my Middle East stance has always been to just get the hell out and leave them to sort it out themselves. But of course, that doesn't mesh with the American right-wing "we must help God's chosen people return to their Holy Land" bullshit, so it's out of the question.

It all boils down to Israel, folks. They need powerful Arab allies because they need Arab oil but they've made so many Arab enemies by backing and arming Israel. One bad idea leads to another.

They do fund just about all the ism in the world, so I say we put an embargo on their oil, and they'll turn into Iraq II. As said, we can get oil elsewhere, and build nuclear plants. Screw the environmentalist wackos, Nuclear plants haven't killed anyone in the US so far, while each year, thousands of people get asthma and other lung diseases from fossil fuel plants each year.

Enviro-fascists are funny. They love solar power but ignore that the etching process that makes solar cells are wretched for the environment. I like Icelands solution. Geothermal power used to break apart water then burning the resulant oxygen and hydrogen for fuel. Of course, it sucks if you aren't standing on an area that you can utilize geothermic power, but it's a really cool idea.

On topic, The US and Saudi Arabia are never going to stop being bedfellows. We've got each other by the economic scrotums and won't let go, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia, of all nations, deserves to have their butts whipped.

Darth Wong wrote: Tell that to the enviro-fascists, who have been on a 30-year mission to annihilate nuclear power in North America. They cite the waste (ignoring the fact that coal plants dump their waste into your breathing air, to the tune of millions of tons per year) and the danger of a leak (again, ignoring the fact that a "leak" is standard operating procedure for a coal plant) as reasons, but the real reason is and has always been ignorance and fear of that which they do not understand.

I think that may be subsiding, although I have absolutely no evidence or even reason for that assertation.

Darth Wong wrote:Tell that to the enviro-fascists, who have been on a 30-year mission to annihilate nuclear power in North America...

...the real reason is and has always been ignorance and fear of that which they do not understand.

That's sad. As comparison, France, the biggest pussies in the world, openly imbrace nuclear power. Now, if not even they are afraid of it, but we are, what does that make us? (Please don't answer that question)

The reason we can't rain destruction on the Saudis, even though they have it coming, is because the American people are a bunch of pussies who would scream like infants when gas prices went up. The percentage of our oil that we get from Saudi Arabia isn't so great that we can't do without them. It's just great enough that doing without them would inconvenience fat stupid SUV driving soccer moms who happen to also vote.

In the past 10 Years SA has done more to harm the United States then Iraq. They should be first against the wall.

I'm actually a militant Republican who is opposed to attacking Saudi Arabia. If we did, then EVERY Arab/Muslim country would turn against us. Besides, I've lived in Saudi Arabia and it wasn't that bad. Everyone there is rich. Sure, they have problems meshing their culture with the West, but almost all countries do.

I also don't think that they support terrorism as much as everyone says. Their system of government is spectacularly complex (ie. Monarchy with literally thousands of princes, several branches of government with overlapping powers, several different militaries with overlapping powers, etc.) The real problem in Saudi Arabia is that separating those who support terrorism from those who do not is almost impossible. There are definitely radical Saudis, but there are also very moderate ones, and even ones who strongly support the United States (that's the group that controls the most important branches of the government, right now). The real thing to do is to establish some kind of system by which Saudi funds can be intercepted before they reach terrorist hands, and then we could arrest those who attempted to pass those funds on to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In this manner, we could prevent the Saudis from aiding terrorists, but simultaneously prevent the Muslim world from turning completely anti-western.

BTW, this would also be much less expensive than a campaign in the desert. That is a TERRIBLE place to fight a war, and really one where a war would serve no purpose. The United States and its military could be much more effective in other parts of the Muslim world, like Syria and Jordan and as peace keepers in the West Bank and Gaza and Lebanon (lived there, too. It's much worse).

I'm actually a militant Republican who is opposed to attacking Saudi Arabia. If we did, then EVERY Arab/Muslim country would turn against us

Acutal Ossus I'll ask you this question what Middle Eastern Country is with us right now?
Lets See
Heres a handy map


Name which if any of those Countrys is acutal with us and has a Miltary...

SA is no better than Afghanistan only they have a lot of oil. And we are Addicted to oil so our love hate relationship will continue.

And I think we should build more Nuke and other non-polluting energies. Oil and Coal are too dirty for my tastes.

You know, this might seem strange, hearing this from me, But I think an attack on the Sauds is a bad idea. when I look at the sauds, I see a bigger problem than I want to deal with. They are so screwed up in the head, they seem to think that they are actually civilized, that they are powerful, that they are indespensable, and that thier oil is a weapon that could strike a damming blow to our heart.

They are wrong on each account. They are weak, stupid, and rich with delusions of adequaecy, defintely a greater danger to themselves then to us. Sure they could fund terrorist mosques, and suicde bombers, buts lets face it, they are really funding the measure of thier own demise. If we let them continue on thier self destructive courxe, it will devolve into civil war relavtively quickly. The ywill destroy themselves and all what they hold to be holy. All we need to do its back the losing side indirectly to make the affair as protracted, brutual and bloody as possible. Thats more than enough thanks for 9/11. the more desperete the fight, the lower the price of gas they will sell to us. Besides after we attack iraw, we will have a powerful base there, and the sauds will be useless.

Oman, Qatar, Yemen and Bahrain are all US allies and all of them are reasonably powerful, militarily (especially Oman). Uzbekistan is also an American ally (to the point where it joined us in voting in the UN to continue the embargo against Cuba), and it is also important politically.

BTW, even countries that do not have militaries are important as staging areas and because of their airbases. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and the UAE are especially important in this regard, as is Kuwait.