Be Consistent — Invade Saudi Arabia

[Better Believe It]

Be Consistent—Invade Saudi Arabia
by Robert Scheer
March 23, 2011

It’s the black gold that drives nations mad and inevitably raises the question of whether America and the former European colonial powers give a damn about human rights as the basis for military intervention. If Libya didn’t have more oil than any other nation in Africa would the West be unleashing high-tech military mayhem to contain what is essentially a tribal-based civil war? Once again an American president summons the passions of a human rights crusade against a reprehensible ruler whose crimes, while considerable, are not significantly different from those of dictators the U.S routinely protects.

But this time, in the glaring light of the democratic currents sweeping through the Mideast, the contradictions in supporting one set of dictators while toppling others may prove impossible for the U.S. and its allies to effectively manage. The recognition, widely demanded throughout the region, that even ordinary Middle Easterners have inalienable rights is a sobering notion not easily co-opted. Why don’t those rights to self-determination extend to Shiites in the richest oil province in Saudi Arabia or for that matter to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza?

The fallback position for U.S. policymakers is the “war on terror” standard under which our dictators are needed to control super-fanatic Muslims. That’s why the U.S trained the Republican Guard led by the son of the despised ruler of Yemen as the counterterrorism liaison with Washington. On Tuesday it was the tanks of the lavishly U.S-equipped Republican Guard that stood as the final line of support surrounding the Presidential Palace as calls for departure of Yemen’s dictator increased in intensity. The U.S. was still following the lead of Saudi Arabia, long a financier of the Yemeni ruler.

The Saudi lead was made clearer in the kingdom’s support for the royal family in neighboring Bahrain as Saudi troops were sent in along with forces from the United Arab Emirates to suppress Bahraini democracy advocates claiming that freedom would enhance the power of the majority Shiite population. The fraud here is to locate Shiite Iran as the center of terrorism when it was the Sunni monarchies that were most closely identified with the problems that gave rise to al-Qaida. Not only did 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 come from Saudi Arabia but Saudi Arabia and the UAE, along with Pakistan, were the only countries to diplomatically recognize the Taliban regime that harbored al-Qaida. In Bahrain the majority Shiite population is dismissed as potentially under the sway of the rulers of Iran without strong evidence to that effect. Once again it is convenient to ignore the fact that Iran, as was the case with Saddam’s Iraq, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack that launched the U.S. war on terror.

Read the full article at:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/be_consistent_invade_saudi_arabia_20110323/

[gateley]

1. Why do people even bother writing stuff like this? It'll never happen, any more

than Dennis will be successful in his calls for impeachment and charges for Obama (although Dennis, I've no doubt, feels strongly and sincerely about his stance).

We know we're essentially lap dogs to the Saudis, we know they fund terrorists, we know they're not our "friends", but bombing them? Just not realistic and I'd venture to guess the author knows that.

If you are upset about the action in Libya, understandable, share your opinion. If you are fed up and angry with the Saudis and our acceptance of all their betrayals just so they keep pumping oil, understandable, share your opinion. But bomb Saudi Arabia? Please. :eyes: Such a headline discredits the author, IMO, rightly or wrongly.

But I love YOU, Better Believe It! :pals:

[Better Believe It]

3. I believe Robert Scheer was being sarcastic with his caption, not seriously advocating an invasion

or U.S. attack on Saudi Arabia.

It was his way of demonstrating the hypocrisy of some advocates of U.S. military intervention in Libya.

[gateley]

22. Boy, I sure missed that - you're obviously right.

:blush:

Thanks!

[DeSwiss]

18. Oh, I don't know.... maybe to highlight the hypocrisy?

To exercise his right of the 1st Amendment? To speak and honor the truth? Because it's right?

- I know all those things aren't "grown-up" and realistic nor politic. But what if nobody ever said them at all? Then where would we be?

[KansDem]

2. Should have been the case on 9/12.

With Bush and Cheney tied to the fronts of the first wave of assault vehicles...

[closeupready]

4. Not gonna happen.

nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

5. This gets me - because the world can't do everything, it should do nothing.

It's a juvenile "fairness" tantrum.

Maybe, just maybe, all of the dictators will have their day to go, in time, as the opportunity arises. Why should it have to be all at once? Why should it have to be a blanket committment to help outst all of them - especially when most people can't even support this ONE action? And the similar argument - just because the dictators weren't resisted BEFORE, then they shouldn't be resisted NOW?

Absolutely ridiculous and unproductive thinking. It's really disappointing that so many engage in it.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. +1

well said.

It IS frustrating.

[aquart]

12. Also, the Saudis are bribing their people

Not hiring mercenaries to murder them. Foolish me for seeing a distinction in that.

[Better Believe It]

14. You're right. It has nothing to do with oil and "friendly" dictators.

First, the Libyan dictatorship must be overthrown by the United States.

After that the Obama administration will get to work on Saudi Arabia and/or Bahrain.

Ya just can't overthrow all the dictators at once!

One dictator at a time.

Thanks for the sophisticated and thoughtful insight as opposed to "juvenile" and simplistic "tantrums".

[Romulox]

7. Also Sudan. And North Korea. And Somalia. And Mexico. etc. etc.

"Responsibility to protect!" my ass.

[Aerows]

13. To be fair...

...we tried in Somalia. When they dragged the body of a dead American soldier through the streets, that pretty much ended that relief mission. I think everyone pretty much left after that.

[dionysus]

8. thats a pile of fail. you can do better BBI.

[Rage for Order]

9. Silly. The people of Saudi Arabia haven't requested our help!

Don't you know that's the criteria?

[snooper2]

10. you still working on that new album?

[Distant Observer]

11. Valid point: THE DOCUMENTED REPRESSION IN LIBYA IS FAR LESS THAT MANY US-ALLIED REGIMES

[Romulox]

15. And there is no principled (nor logical) way to discern our "good" dictator allies from the bad...

:shrug:

[aquart]

16. That is, surprisingly, an awesomely invalid argument.

Unless you're up for invading, say, China.

This is a nation that got tired of its leadership and tried to change it. They began non-violently but the brutality of the government response changed their minds.

We got nervous about mass murder. Did Kosovo have oil?

Ah, but Kosovo was white. Muslim, but white. Europe still sat on its hands until it was obvious the Serbs weren't going to stop. Gaddafi isn't going to stop.

Rwanda was black. But the nations of Africa also showed NO interest in intervening. Let me know how you think an American/European intervention would have worked out.

Nobody and no nation can do everything or save everybody. Generally, when a sovereign nation decides to murder its own people, there's damn all anyone can do. The general spirit of regime change in the MidEast gave us a viable excuse. Arab support for intervention made the difference. I'll say it again. ARAB SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION MADE THE DIFFERENCE.

[brewens]

17. I thought after 9/11 we should have dealt with the Saud's.

Even if it had to be secret they should have gotten an ultimatum. One more Saudi attacks one more American and we will flatten you. This instead of going after Iraq, since most of the bombers were Saudi.
We should also told them we needed them to do whatever it took to give us Bin Ladings head. No need to hunt for him in Afghanistan if his Saudi friends can grab him for us. They would if they planned on remaining in charge and living in their palaces.

[Cleita]

21. Of course we should have. Instead our Prez invited the

Saudi royals to Crawford for handholding and kissing.

[DeSwiss]

19. K&R n/t

[Cleita]

20. Robert Scheer has always been one of my favorite

writers since the Clinton Presidency. I'm happy he has found a voice again since the LA Times sacked him for being too liberal.