PDA

View Full Version : Saudia Arabia & Iraq


ORAC
29th Nov 2006, 12:57
Wasington Post: Stepping Into Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html) - Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves
By Nawaf Obaid

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration. One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.

Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn't attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene............

There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia's advice. Vice President Cheney's visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically. In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.

To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

The writer, an adviser to the Saudi government, is managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect official Saudi policy.

Mr Blake
29th Nov 2006, 13:14
Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war.

Sounds like if that's the case the prophets of doom could have their wishes. A religious war in the region could seriously get out of control.

On a more positive note is the involvement of the Saudis in Iraq. I've always thought it a more sensible option to involve them as a peacekeeping force rather than the US. They understand the sensitivities and needs of the people a bit better, than our burger-munching friends, and hopefully attract more respect.

What will be difficult is keeping the Saudis from forcing their will on other religious groups in the region.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
29th Nov 2006, 13:22
Well, what can one say? Is George W going to listen to someone for once. It may help not having Rumsfeld involved, of course.

Mr Blake's point is interesting, though. Will the Saudi stated aim stop at that?

Wiley
29th Nov 2006, 13:50
The KSA army in a shooting war against battle-hardened Iraqi insurgents? Now that will be interesting. (I'd be guessing we'll see a repeat of the Chinese Army's performance in their little excursion against the North Vietnamese in the '80's.)

What might be even more interesting will be how loudly the Iraqi insurgents will scream when the (you can bet infinitely more effective and politically incorrect) retaliation for their attacks is in the hands of fellow Muslims - who you can be sure won't be worrying about what will be filmed or reported by CNN or Al Jazzeria journalists (who won't be 'embedded with their troops or allowed anywhere ner them).

L J R
29th Nov 2006, 21:24
I agree,.... Let em all sort this stuff out amongst themselves, and we will have a brand new glass car park courtesy of the Iranians, and then we can all go home!.

soddim
29th Nov 2006, 21:36
We would do well to find a substitute for oil before we ignore instabilities in the middle east.

So sad that Georgie boy was allowed to destabilise Iraq - now he should continue to bite the bullet and make sure he is not going to cause more trouble by pulling out prematurely.

Saudi provides a very effective blocking force to Iran and it is in nobody's interest to see war between the shiite and sunni muslims involving Saudi.

GreenKnight121
30th Nov 2006, 07:52
Lets see... Saudi Arabia occuppies the south-west to "protect the Sunnis", Iran occupies the south-east to "protect the Shiites", and Turkey occupies the north-east to "prevent the formation of an independent Kurdish Nation"... do the Syrians get the north-west?

:rolleyes:

It sounds like Jordan would get involved as a partner for the Saudis, what about Kuwait? Do they occupy Basra and the border marshlands to make all trade on the Tigris/Euphrates pay them passage tolls to "reimburse for damages from 1990-1991"?

:ugh:

nigegilb
30th Nov 2006, 13:55
Back in September it is reported that Saudi had a meeting with Israel to discuss Iran. The article is in the latest Spectator and implies that Israel is getting very concerned about Iran. A snippet below.

"Earlier in the year, Saudi Arabia conspicuously failed to support Hezbollah during the conflict in the Lebanon, in an attempt to give Israel time to knock out Iran’s proxy force. All of which conjures up the truly bizarre possibility of Israeli bombers — which would have difficulty making it from Israel to Iran and back — secretly taking off from Saudi Arabia to bomb Iran. If this were to happen, it would be further proof that in the Middle East your enemy’s enemy is always your friend."

The advice to GWB that taking out Saddam would remove 1 problem but create 5 more would appear to be sincerely given. Pity GWB did not listen and Tony Blair did n...........Oh bother, this is a strategic screw up of the highest order. The Saudis have got the right idea, build a very big wall, mine it and install automatic machine guns!