What's the Deal with Clark's Proposal to Ally with Saudis against Terror?

[BurtWorm]

As mentioned by Frum and Perle in the op-ed in the NY Times today.: "Among the other leading contenders, Gen. Wesley Clark has actually proposed creating a joint Saudi-American military unit — in other words, treating the Saudis as the kind of allies that the other Democrats correctly note they are not." I know their take on Dean's proposals are way off base. But did Wesley Clark actually propose joint Saudi-US military incursions against al Qaeda? If true, is that a good idea, considering the shakiness/shadiness of the Saudi regime?

[democratreformed]

1. I will try to find a link for you b/c I haven't addressed this issue

for quite some time. But, as I recall, his plan is to propose the joint effort in order to draw the Saudis out. They will either cooperate or show that they harbour terrorists as much as the next country.

[BurtWorm]

2. I'd like to see that substantiated.

But I'd also like to see Democrats using clearer Bush-free vision in the terror problem. Is it really a military problem? Can we draw a bead on whether that's a wise use of resources or a waste?

[democratreformed]

3. Here's an old post I made on Democrats.com

Some info found here : Link follows :

"Saudi commandos? Mark Kleiman gets Clark's point"

Excerpt:
"So Clark's "plan" for getting Al Qaeda revolves in part on getting increased cooperation from the Saudis. That's like creating an organization devoted to women's rights and asking Arnold Schwarzenegger to be the first president. Hasn't Clark learned from the past? No matter what happens--thousands of Americans killed in 9/11, bombs all over the Saudi Kingdom--the Saudi royal family still won't face up to the role its organizations and charities have played, and still play, in fomenting violence and extremism. The United States needs to rely less, not more, on SAUDI ARABIA, in all respects of our relationship.
Which respected blogger Mark Kleiman appreciates was not the point of Clark's proposal to involve Saudi commandos in our efforts to extradite Osama Bin Laden from the no man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Clark's suggestion is skewed more to giving our Saudi "friends" the opportunity to do what's right than toward an alternative military solution.
Kleiman writes: Diplomatically, the idea strikes me as rather brilliant. It's a no-lose proposition. Either the Saudis come with us, thus committing themselves against al-Qaeda, or they don't, thus making the hollowness of their asserted cooperation against terrorism clear."

I tried the link I posted there and it didn't work so I will try to find a new one.

[democratreformed]

5. New link found:

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/11/will_the_saudis_help_us_get_osama.php

[BurtWorm]

9. Kleiman's take is criticized by a colleague, Phil Carter

(to whom Kleiman links)

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_11_09_philcarter_archive.html#106882808194815463

My UCLA mentor/colleague Mark Kleiman has some thoughts on the comments by retired-Gen. Wesley Clark that he would like to attach Saudi commandos to U.S. special operations units looking for Osama Bin Laden. Mark things it's a no-lose proposition, insofar as we would gain diplomatically and maybe even catch the guy.

Operationally, I'm not so sure. There is the risk of sharing too much of our special operations capabilities -- things the Saudis, Egyptians, and Pakistanis have no idea about. This is a lot like the reticence showed by spooks about revealing "sources and methods". We don't want to show countries (who aren't our really close allies like Britain or Australia) what we can do with units like the Army's Special Forces or the Navy's SEALs. A lot's been made about the "blowback" from American support for the Afghan rebels during the war with the former Soviet Union. Well, if we taught the Saudis to do special ops and then the Saudis had a regime change of their own (not an improbable thing), we'd see a whole lot of blowback.

Then there's the matter of Saudi special forces themselves. I'm no expert on the subject, but I've never heard of Saudi commandos extolled along with the great commando forces of the world, like the British Special Air Service or the Israeli commandos who took down the airliner at Entebbe. Surely, the Saudi military has some intelligence and language/cultural capabilities that we would love to add to our special operations community. But I'm not sure the Saudis could really add anything in operational terms to our own American special operations forces.

....


PS: I wish the subject would be steered away from military solutions, which may be partly necessary, but which can't address the whole problem.

[democratreformed]

13. Yes, I saw that as well

I understand and agree that emphasis on solutions other than military would be better. I certainly don't know the answers. But, I do feel that an agenda on terrorism that would put less focus on military involvement would wear better with me.

[BurtWorm]

14. I hope the candidates are working extra hard on this issue

not because I think it is as grave an issue as its hyped to be but because, paradoxically, I think its too grave to be treated the way it is being treated. That is, it's not terrorism itself we should be at war with but the causes of it.

[democratreformed]

15. I agree on that as well

Last night I was thinking this: Maybe we should be asking ourselves why our very close neighbors - Canada and Mexico - don't have to worry about these attacks. Of course, I absolutely do not buy the line that terrorist attack us b/c they hate our freedom. That line sounded stupid to me from the beginning. I have read some of the theories but not enough to engage in intelligent conversation of the topic. All I know is that I believe we really do need to approach it from a "root causes" standpoint.

To me, it is kind of like the so-called "war on drugs". Education aimed at letting the population know the dangers of drugs is great, but does nothing to alleviate the sense of helplessness and loss of faith in a future that, I believe, contributes to many drug problems. And, in my area, the drug problem has reached crisis proportions, IMO. But, that's another subject...

[BurtWorm]

19. You're asking the right questions about the terror "problem"

in my opinion. The Dems should be asking them out loud, too.

[democratreformed]

21. Do you think anyone knows the answer?

Or is trying to find it?

[BurtWorm]

23. I honestly don't know.

In my opinion, the answer is lies in unraveling the legacy of imperialism in the Muslim world. It's really a very difficult problem. I would think we would be careful about alligning ourselves with monarchs and dictators, if our ultimate goal--or wish--is for more democracy in the region.

[Maddy McCall]

4. He wants to close Iraqi borders

to prevent an influx of people who would support insurgency in Iraq. He believes doing so will bring the occupation of Iraq to an end quicker than leaving borders open.

It is like Churchill said in WWII--sometimes you have to hold hands with the enemy (Russia) until you cross the bridge.

Clark's priority is finishing the occupation of Iraq and then developing an internationalist approach to maintaining equilibrium in the Middle East.

[HFishbine]

6. Damn premature

We need to hear the final findings of the 9/11 commission and read those redacted pages that are supposedly about Saudi Arabia before this kind of thing is proposed.

[Maddy McCall]

7. I agree--excellent point...

Will the next president, whomever it may be, have access to the unsanitized report?

[TacticalPeek]

8. Seems reasonable to me.

To destroy al Queda et al. requires help from Muslims/Arabs/Persians etc.

It also requires the multi-thrust attack on financing, recruiting, logistics, command and control, etc which necessitates a broad and strong alliance.

Alliances are stronger when each ally has some skin in the game. The Saudis and Paks had a major role in creating the enemy, and could provide the greatest assistance in destroying it. C'est la guerre.

[BurtWorm]

11. But the question is how do you work with untrustworthy allies?

I don't think this is quite the easy sell you're making it out to be. I also think the game won't be won playing by Bush's rules, which this plan seems to play by: i.e., treating terrorism as a strictly miltary problem, using US forces as global police. In effect, in my opinion, this is actually nothing but a political strategy, designed to keep the terms of the debate in Republican territory.

I'm open, however, to explanations of why Americans need to take this proposal seriously. Is Clark's point that Osama can be gotten? Are we so desperate to get Osama that we'll work with the unloved Saudis to get him?

[TacticalPeek]

24. No need to caricature Clark.

snip

"International cooperation will also allow us to share the burden in Iraq, reinvigorate efforts to
locate and destroy Al Qaeda leadership, and secure Afghanistan's borders. In the long run, these
efforts will help secularize Afghanistan and create democratic institutions there.

Working together, we can get at some of the roots of terrorism: the extreme Wahhabist ideology
and funding from Saudi Arabia; and the impoverished, class-ridden, corrupt society of Pakistan
and its madrassas. Winning the war against terrorism also requires far-reaching reforms in the
Middle East, including more pragmatic education, broader economic development, and wider
political participation. It also means working toward a just and comprehensive settlement between
Israel and the Palestinians.

There are a number of other steps that will be required for a broad based strategy to defeat Al
Qaeda, including homeland security, better use of international institutions, and more focused use
of our military resources. I will address these topics in the coming weeks.

As president, I will employ every weapon in the US arsenal to beat back the forces of terrorism.
But the weapons of our country must not be limited to our awesome military capabilities. They
must involve the web of international relationships we have built over generations. Those
friendships are the reason that for most of its history, America has been the most admired nation in
the world. We must do everything in our power to maintain that."

http://clark04.com/speeches/010/


3. Repair relationships with our allies and friends.

With his unilateral march into Iraq, President Bush has scorned many of our key allies,
preventing the necessary cooperation to destroy Al Qaeda.

Repairing these rifts would allow new possibilities for the United States to call on our
allies to help us with this task.

Improved cooperation will lead to:

improved efforts to cut off funding for the Al Qaeda network;
increased burden-sharing in Iraq;
invigorated efforts to locate and destroy the leadership of Al Qaeda;
increased security of Afghanistan's borders;
strengthened democratic institutions in the Middle East; & stronger efforts to
secularize Afghanistan and help create democratic institution's there.

http://clark04.com/issues/alqaeda/

[BurtWorm]

26. You read a caricature into a critique where there was no caricature.

I think I see why you did, because of that word "Republican." But I don't have a problem with Clark's party affiliations past and present, unlike a lot of other Democrats. I'm granting that Clark is a Democrat. That said, I don't think Democrats should fight this battle on Republican turf, and Clark is far from being the only one who's trying to. I would like to see Democrats stop enabling the Republicans to treat terorrism as a strictly military problem. I would be thrilled if Clark, especially, shifted the focus to addressing the causes of terrorism against the US, and for that, the military is useless.

[TacticalPeek]

27. Nope. Its that "strictly military problem" accusation.

I think Clark understands the appropriate use and the misuse of our military better than any of the candidates, including especially Shrub. He does not see the fight with terrorists as a "strictly military problem" at all. He does not fight the battle on Republican turf, and you reasonably should be thrilled that he does specifically address the root causes, as in #24 above:

"the roots of terrorism: the extreme Wahhabist ideology and funding from Saudi Arabia; and the impoverished, class-ridden, corrupt society of Pakistan and its madrassas."

His idea is reasoned and logical, and seems like the best possible course:

"With Saudi help, we may finally get Pakistani authorities and Islamic leaders in the territories where
bin Laden is believed to be hiding, to cooperate, and be part of the solution to this menace.
Because of the religious ties between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the tribes on the
Afghan-Pakistani border, the Saudis might be able to bring to bear a new capability. At the
minimum we should try."

I'm somewhat puzzled. It seems to me that Clark substantially agrees with you. But since you seem to be against engaging with Saudi Arabia and enlisting them more solidly against al Queda, what would be better policies and actions toward Saudi Arabia?

[BurtWorm]

28. I think we ought to tread very carefully with respect to the Saudi regime.

We should not ally ourselves with them too closely unless they demonstrate an ability to change their own regime, to make it more democratic, so that we're not suddenly dealing with a revolution on which we're on the wrong side.

But I do see your points about Clark's addressing the larger, non-military picture of the terrorist problem. I think any Democrat has to bring that aspect of the problem more to the fore if they want to force the issue back to our ground, where, for humanity's sake, it belongs.

[TacticalPeek]

29. Agreed. We don't want to be holding the Shah's hand again

when the trapdoor falls, which is why he mentions reforming SA.

And in further agreement, one of the aspects the dems should bring to the fore is our slack 'money laundering' laws/bank regs, which the R Congress seems to like (along with offshore shenanigans), versus the need to break the financial back of al Queda, etc.

I guess too many fat cats like to hide their money too. "Christmas in Berne is so nice, even in dollars."

[BurtWorm]

30. Just to be clear: I asked this question seriously, not with intent to harm

Clark, but because I didn't like the sound of his proposal. I still am not crazy about it, but I feel more assured that he is not focused solely on military solutions for what may better be treated as a criminal matter. I hope he and the other candidates will work at owning this issue, because the Democratic approach--if it is multi-disciplinary and multilateral and if it is focused on the roots of terrorism and on preventing it by working to prevent the conditions that create it--is a vastly more rational approach than the Bushists'.

[Kahuna]

10. Excellent proposal. The Saudis will have to really join

the war on terrorism instead of just giving it lip service. That goes for Musharref too.

[BurtWorm]

12. What about the people of Saudi Arabia?

How will they react to this plan? Is Clark prepared for the event of a revolution in media res?

[corporatewhore]

16. Well why not he supports SOA so whats wrong w/continued support of saudis

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. The "Saudis" he's talking about is the Saudi royals/rulers I assume?

That's unfortunate, since they are very corrupt and hated by their people. Nevertheless, the power brokers like them because they keep SA "stable". I don't think this is one of Clark's most thought out statements, just some "I'll get Osama" posturing. The LAST thing we need is closer ties to the corrupt Saudi royals and the Binladens.

[Jerseycoa]

18. The Saudis are supposed to BE our allies

Instead they are the Bush family's allies. Clark is calling them on that and on responsibility for funding terrorism and 9/11. He's calling them out and he's right.

[BurtWorm]

22. The Saudis are standing on their last legs.

They're cruising for a revolution to depose them. Do we seriously want to deal with a regime that could collapse if the wind blows the wrong way?

[Bread and Circus]

20. Here's the Deal seeing as house you asked....

Clark wants to force the Saudis to put up their own flesh
and blood to fight terrorism. They will be less likely to fund
it after that.

It's a subtle way to draw a line in the sand and see where the
Saudi's stand.

I agree with it.

[BurtWorm]

25. Isn't Clark conceding the war-on-terror ground to the Bushists?

What ultimate vision lies behind this very small piece of the terrorism picture? What does getting Osama this way get us, really? Is it worth allying ourselves with the hated Saud family--even if only to "call them out on it"--really worth it, if it puts us on the side of dicatorship against the people? (And just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Osama is "of the people." But it's certainly clear that a royal family ain't!)