Proof that the Saudi Royal Supported Insurgency Statement is Political STUNT!

[berni_mccoy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_turmoil

Saudi royal family, gov't split on Iraq
CAIRO, Egypt - Saudi Arabia's royal family and government leaders are deeply divided over how to handle the growing crisis in Iraq and other looming Mideast problems like Iran, with some favoring strong aid to fellow Sunnis and others more cautious.

The split played a key role in this week's abrupt resignation of the Saudi ambassador to Washington. It also could hurt U.S. efforts to forge a new overall strategy to calm Iraq.

<snip>

The resignation of Prince Turki al-Faisal, after just 15 months as ambassador to Washington, for example, came after Saudi officials concluded he was not succeeding at building strong ties with the United States, a Saudi official said Wednesday.

<snip>
Saudi Arabia denied that Obaid was speaking on its behalf.

But The Associated Press reported last week that Saudi private citizens are sending millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq, much of it used to buy weapons, because they worry about Iranian influence in Shiite-led Iraq.

Iraqi officials have said they believe some members of the Saudi royal family are either involved in that flow of money or turning a blind eye — a charge Saudi Arabia strongly denies.

As I said in other posts today, THIS SAUDI TALK IS TOTAL B.S. AND They already are involved in funding the Sunni insurgency!

FIRST ITEM ON CONGRESS AGENDA IN JAN: BRING THE TROOPS HOME!

[mike_c]

1. this fits nicely with my thoughts on why Bush is delaying....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2911678&mesg_id=2911678

All his alternatives suck. If the Saudis have already "intervened," at least informally, then the neocons' corner is getting even smaller because events are WAY beyond their control now.

[berni_mccoy]

3. I believe that's why the Saudi's announced they *would* support a Sunni Insurgency

Because they already are and it would be beneficial to both the Saudi royals and the Bush admin if they made such a statement.

This is total FUBAR situation and we need to take our troops out of it. We should not let the U.S. military be used as pawns for the Saudi Royal family!

[mike_c]

4. the problem is that it doesn't REALLY benefit the Bush administration....

I think you're right that it possibly benefits them POLITICALLY since it reinforces the political message they've been trumpeting all along: "the U.S. must stay in Iraq," now to prevent the Saudis from being drawn in. But I think you're also right that the Saudis are already in, and their influence is growing. The problem is that the U.S. is largely allied with the Shi'a, or at least with a Shi'ite dominated government-- notwithstanding the rift with Mugtada al-Sadr, which is a big stinkin' turd in the punchbowl.

I think in the short term the Saudis would very much like to see the U.S. send another few tens of thousands of troops to Baghdad to eliminate al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia. However, that still leaves the Sunnis largely shat upon in the new Iraq and the primary instrument of grief for the occupation and the al-Maliki government. U.S. and Saudi objectives are likely to NEVER coincide with respect to the Sunnis as long as the civil war continues. There really is no long term benefit to letting the Saudis dictate foreign policy to us-- it can only end badly, even for the Bush administration.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Good point. I'm not sure what they are doing with the announcement then

other than covering up what's happening by threatening to do it?

[mike_c]

7. I don't know either-- that's one possibility....

Another is that the announcement is a "compromise" between the Saudi factions, one of whom wants to intervene directly on behalf of the Sunnis and another which does not, at least not yet. It might be that the announcement is perceived as a middle course that has the added benefit of helping to bind the U.S. to continuing to keep the Shi'a under control, and especially if that leads to confrontation with the Mahdi Army.

Remember the buzz recently about Sunni commanders saying they were readying a major offensive against the Green Zone, and were just waiting for the best time to launch it? I wonder if the Saudis might counsel them to wait until the U.S. has duked it out with al-Sadr and further fragmented al-Maliki's government?

[me b zola]

5. I have suspected the same

I think it is criminal (litterally) for our military to be used as human pawns in this sick game. Bring them home now. Now.

[MADem]

2. Well, sure!!! Of course--they weren't getting the dough out of their savings!!!

If the assertion that Turki ain't cutting it is true, you have to wonder who TOLD Obaid to publish that WAPO OP ED? Bandar, or someone higher up? And what does this do to Bandar's hope of snagging the Saudi equivalent of the Condi job? Will they make him come back for two more arduous years to hold the BushCo hand?

The thing that's going on here, I suspect, is that the money they are throwing at the problem ain't enough. They need BODIES. US ones, in body armor, who are disciplined. There are way too many shi'a coming after their sunni brothers to hold them at bay with cash alone, and volunteers are not disciplined and can wander off if they get irritated, scared or tired of the cause.

What will it take, they ask themselves? How high is the Americans' price? How much oil do they want, how cheaply?

I would not be surprised if, as time goes on, we see those "hundred thousand contractors" and untold numbers of subcontractors over there morph into "three hundred thousand contractors" aka mercenaries. But that can't happen straight away. They'll have to send the troops home piecemeal, muster them out, and rehire them at five times their pay, no grooming standard, drink the beer the food service contractors fly in regularly, smoke the hash, get better body armor, work shorter shifts....

That's the only viable solution, really. A few "military advisors" and the rest, well, mercenaries. That way, everyone wins, and the people who stay over there are in it for just the dough...the challenge is to transition to this scenario--it'll take time. Probably about two years, at least...

The Saudis are NOT going to just walk away from this matter. The stakes are too high--they don't want the Persians at their door with sharpened knives, ready to pounce while they sleep, now, do they?

"They have an obsession that Shiites and Iran will control Iraq, but they do not know how to stop that," said one Saudi. The other described what he called total confusion within the government over the best course.

On Monday, 30 prominent Saudi clerics called on Sunni Muslims around the Middle East to support Sunnis in Iraq against Shiites and praised the insurgency. The clerics warned that Shiite Muslims were taking control of Iraq in a conspiracy with "crusaders" — a reference to Westerners — to marginalize Sunnis.

Many of the clerics are known to have close connections with top royal family members and receive generous donations from them.

Saudi Arabia is also increasingly worried by events elsewhere in the region including Lebanon and Iran and there is tension with the United States over the Palestinian issue.

Despite all that, Saudi and U.S. ties have long endured and "Saudi diplomacy is very much active," said Saudi political analyst Fahad al-Harithi. It looks to the contrary, he said, only "because the smoke is billowing high in the area, and hides this reality."