Discovered an interesting article regarding the problem of a drastic increase of unmarried Saudi women within the Kingdom. This ties in with my overall premise that socio-economic strife can be reasonably predicted as the Saudis face the challenge of 50% of their population being under 18 years of age, growing up in a relatively stagnant economy with little economic hope, or unwillingness to perform the menial jobs filled by the 5 million ex-patriates which reside in the kingdom:
Alarming Rise in the Number of Unmarried Girls
Abdullah Bajubeer
It seems that our dear country is going to become one of the pioneers in producing unmarried women. Indeed we now have one million such women and the number is going to increase to four million in the next five years. This is the statement made by Dr. Abdullah Al-Fawzan, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at King Saud University, and published in local newspapers.
The reason, according to him, is our culture, which sets the ages between 18 and 24 as the desirable time for marriage. Once a young woman is 25, she joins the list of unmarried women, whereas in the rest of the world, a woman is considered marriageable until the end of her life.
Dr. Al-Fawzan focuses on age as the main reason for the number of unmarried women. After a quarter of a century writing on the subject, I must say that there are other reasons equally important for the number of unmarried girls. One is the absence of social gatherings between families — these exist in other cultures and allow boys and girls to meet and get to know each other. At such gatherings, parents are of course present and aware of what their offspring are doing.
In any case, these meetings often pave the way to engagement and marriage. Here too, there are high walls that surround a girl and prevent her from going out, talking to or meeting young men on different occasions. She becomes a hostage to house and wall, waiting for a groom. And I do not know how a prospective groom could overcome all these obstacles just so he could see his bride-to-be and get to know her.
Then of course there is the problem of dowries and the cost of marrying, which a young man is unable to bear at so early a stage in his life. The reasons go on but the result is the same. Obviously, we will continue to have large numbers of unmarried girls as long as there is resistance to change.
* * *
One study of emotional life in the US showed that 50 percent of single women are between the ages of 40 and 69. Of that number, the majority are divorcees. The study also showed that a large number of single American women are not embarrassed about relationships with men much younger than them. This particular phenomenon has spread because of Hollywood stars being involved with young men half their age. The young men are thus encouraged to become involved with women who are more fit to play the role of “mother” rather than “girlfriend” or “lover”.
Studies revealed that young men’s enthusiastic interest in older women is due to the fact that many women have important jobs, plenty of money as well as power and influence. And this has driven many young men to go after richer, older women.
Psychologists explain that older women do not need to worry about possible pregnancy or any responsibility resulting from the relationship. She is in the relationship solely for purposes of pleasure. Some doctors say that most women who have relationships with younger men do so after they have brought up their own children and are seeking emotional enjoyment with the extra attraction of rejuvenating themselves.
What is seen in modern American life is that older women chasing younger men have become usual. And American society has accepted the fact, feeling that each person is free in his or her personal life. Now, will other societies accept this or will it be confined to America?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9§ion=0&article=37399&d=2&m=1&y=2004
Another article I found via a websearch goes into greater depth on the issue and discusses how the average dowery a Saudi male is expected to pay equates to about $53,000. This is quite a sum for your average unemployed (or underemployed) Saudi male:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1019653/posts
COMMENT:
I opine that the demographic within the Muslim world, but in particular the Mid-East, is a major influence upon the recent rise of Islamic militancy. It's little wonder that, when 40% of the muslim world is under 18 years of age, that restless youth with no viable hope of having their economic aspirations and dreams fulfilled, would turn to those who claim to have the answer.
One only has to imagine how the political picture would compare in the US were 50% of our population under 18 and dealing with 30% functional unemployment (and far higher in countries other than Saudi Arabia). These young people would be very impressionable and susceptible to reactionary/radical and militant ideas, whether political or religious.
I believe this is a crucial part of fighting the "War on Terror", and seems to be one of the driving strategies of the Neo-Conservative movement. However, some are theorizing that he Neocons within the Bush administration are falling from grace and the "realists" movement coming back into vogue..
The US will make a major strategic error if we fail to assist in resolving the economic and social problems within the region, something along the lines of a Mid-East Marshall plan. We'll lack any measure of influence (the kind that money can buy), and we'll still eventually bear the brunt of criticism and resentment as the militant clerics continue to assert that their economic plight is due to a US/Zionist conspiracy.
It is sure that democratic reforms would take many years to take root in the Mid-East, but every journey begins with the first step. And ever since the fall of the Ottomans, and subsequent carving up into artificial states, of its empire, there has been little effort to demand such democratic reforms.
This is certainly a situation that must change if we're to avoid 400 million muslims (based upon total 1 Billion population) facing a bleak economic future and looking for someone to blame.
The Central Scrutinizer
Friday, January 02, 2004
Thursday, January 01, 2004
Recently the Egyptian Foreign Minister was attacked by a Palestinian mob outside the Al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem.. Apparently they asserted that his talks that day to salvage the "road map to peace" discussions were a betrayal to their cause. Furthermore, they appeared to be predominantly Islamic militants who raised a call for a resumption of the bloody Jihadist war waged in that country..
Strong language to use against nation that has been one of the primary political patrons of Arafat..
However, the Egyptians are a proud people, and they don't particularly like having their politicians roughed up by a bunch of ungrateful Palestinians. And it doesn't hurt when the state information service, and most newspapers, take their lead from the Mubarak regime.
There's some fascinating stuff on this link related to Egyptian resentment over this attack.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD63604
The Central Scrutinizer
Strong language to use against nation that has been one of the primary political patrons of Arafat..
However, the Egyptians are a proud people, and they don't particularly like having their politicians roughed up by a bunch of ungrateful Palestinians. And it doesn't hurt when the state information service, and most newspapers, take their lead from the Mubarak regime.
There's some fascinating stuff on this link related to Egyptian resentment over this attack.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD63604
The Central Scrutinizer
Seizure Helped Speed Libyan Cooperation on Weapons
Secret Shipment Contained Component Parts Used in Nuclear Production
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 4, 2003; Page A18
U.S. and British intelligence services in late September discovered that a freighter bound for Libya was hauling thousands of parts for centrifuges, a key component for producing nuclear weapons, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday. Officials said the interception of the cargo, worth tens of millions of dollars, was a factor in squeezing Libya to give up its deadliest weapons programs.
The shipment was headed from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, an interim transshipment point, aboard a German ship. With help from the German government and the German shipping company, the United States was able to get the freighter, BBC China, diverted to a southern Italian port shortly after it passed through the Suez Canal.
Officials boarded the ship in Italy in early October and seized the cargo, which was not listed on the ship's manifest, U.S. officials said. The craft was less than two days from docking in Libya.
The Bush administration believes the intelligence coup accelerated Libya's cooperation with the United States and Britain. Although secret talks on Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs had begun some six months earlier, the government of Moammar Gaddafi had not yet given a date for U.S. and British intelligence to visit Libyan weapons-development sites. After the interdiction, U.S. and British inspectors were in Libya within two weeks, U.S. officials said.
Other U.S. officials, however, said they were concerned at the time that the seizure might undermine the attempt to win Libya's cooperation. "Quite the contrary. It could have derailed the effort," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The operation, details of which were reported today in the Wall Street Journal, was the first interdiction under the new Proliferation Security Initiative, an agreement among 11 countries to stop and search planes and ships suspected of carrying banned weapons or missile technology. Seizure of the cargo proves the initiative's importance as a new tool in tracking and curtailing the spread of weapons technology, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
"It's clearly a success for the proliferation initiative but it's also an allied success, especially for the Germans and Italians," a senior administration official said. The official described both the German government and the shipping company as "extremely cooperative."
The secret shipment also offered important insight into Libya's arms programs. Although U.S. intelligence was aware of Libya's chemical weapons program, Washington was surprised by Tripoli's ongoing interest in developing nuclear arms. The shipment, several large crates, also indicated Gaddafi had an active nuclear program, U.S. officials said.
The Bush administration is still reluctant to provide details of the operation or the source of the centrifuge parts. U.S. officials insisted the shipment did not come from Pakistan, which has been linked to sales of nuclear technology to other countries.
"The technology we're talking about was stolen years ago from Urenco, a European consortium. It was used in Pakistan to enrich uranium but it was also used elsewhere. There's a black market in this material," said the senior U.S. official.
A European official said, however, that a private Pakistani arms specialist is being investigated to see if he was involved in any aspect of the deal.
After the intelligence discovery, the United States tracked the German freighter, U.S. officials said. Most of the operation was conducted by U.S. intelligence in cooperation with other countries, but with no U.S. military involvement. Once the ship docked in the Italian port of Taranto, one of two Italian military ports, U.S. officials boarded the freighter.
U.S. officials are not sure why Gaddafi was reaching out to the international community and pledging privately to disarm at the same time his government was acquiring a large shipment of weapons-development equipment. U.S. officials speculate that Libya was hedging its bets.
Centrifuges of the kind found on the German ship can be used to develop weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons. On Sunday, U.N. investigators in Libya were shown dozens of centrifuges and other equipment, although no evidence was found that the country had enriched uranium. Mohammed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Monday the equipment indicated that Libya was at an "early stage" of its weapons program.
Washington Post staff writers Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44389-2003Dec31.html
COMMENTARY:
I find it just amazing how some people seem to insist that economic and political sanctions are actually effective against some of these dictatorial megalomaniacs...
Qaddafi obviously was presented a clear choice by the US/UK representatives.
"We know what you're up to..
We have seized sufficient evidence to justify taking military action against you.
So now you have a choice.."
And as the article mentioned, they were not sure that this seizure wasn't going to derail the talks which had been ongoing for some 6 months already..
Can anyone truly claim that Muhammar didn't take a look at what happened to Saddam and factor that into his decision??
The US doesn't want to be in the position of having to use force in every case of proliferation. But we also don't want these rogue regimes to be able to predict exactly when the threshold of tolerance has been crossed. Don't let them be able to predict your response. Keep them off balance and unwilling to take major risks that might threaten their power.
The Central Scrutinizer
Secret Shipment Contained Component Parts Used in Nuclear Production
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 4, 2003; Page A18
U.S. and British intelligence services in late September discovered that a freighter bound for Libya was hauling thousands of parts for centrifuges, a key component for producing nuclear weapons, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday. Officials said the interception of the cargo, worth tens of millions of dollars, was a factor in squeezing Libya to give up its deadliest weapons programs.
The shipment was headed from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, an interim transshipment point, aboard a German ship. With help from the German government and the German shipping company, the United States was able to get the freighter, BBC China, diverted to a southern Italian port shortly after it passed through the Suez Canal.
Officials boarded the ship in Italy in early October and seized the cargo, which was not listed on the ship's manifest, U.S. officials said. The craft was less than two days from docking in Libya.
The Bush administration believes the intelligence coup accelerated Libya's cooperation with the United States and Britain. Although secret talks on Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs had begun some six months earlier, the government of Moammar Gaddafi had not yet given a date for U.S. and British intelligence to visit Libyan weapons-development sites. After the interdiction, U.S. and British inspectors were in Libya within two weeks, U.S. officials said.
Other U.S. officials, however, said they were concerned at the time that the seizure might undermine the attempt to win Libya's cooperation. "Quite the contrary. It could have derailed the effort," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The operation, details of which were reported today in the Wall Street Journal, was the first interdiction under the new Proliferation Security Initiative, an agreement among 11 countries to stop and search planes and ships suspected of carrying banned weapons or missile technology. Seizure of the cargo proves the initiative's importance as a new tool in tracking and curtailing the spread of weapons technology, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
"It's clearly a success for the proliferation initiative but it's also an allied success, especially for the Germans and Italians," a senior administration official said. The official described both the German government and the shipping company as "extremely cooperative."
The secret shipment also offered important insight into Libya's arms programs. Although U.S. intelligence was aware of Libya's chemical weapons program, Washington was surprised by Tripoli's ongoing interest in developing nuclear arms. The shipment, several large crates, also indicated Gaddafi had an active nuclear program, U.S. officials said.
The Bush administration is still reluctant to provide details of the operation or the source of the centrifuge parts. U.S. officials insisted the shipment did not come from Pakistan, which has been linked to sales of nuclear technology to other countries.
"The technology we're talking about was stolen years ago from Urenco, a European consortium. It was used in Pakistan to enrich uranium but it was also used elsewhere. There's a black market in this material," said the senior U.S. official.
A European official said, however, that a private Pakistani arms specialist is being investigated to see if he was involved in any aspect of the deal.
After the intelligence discovery, the United States tracked the German freighter, U.S. officials said. Most of the operation was conducted by U.S. intelligence in cooperation with other countries, but with no U.S. military involvement. Once the ship docked in the Italian port of Taranto, one of two Italian military ports, U.S. officials boarded the freighter.
U.S. officials are not sure why Gaddafi was reaching out to the international community and pledging privately to disarm at the same time his government was acquiring a large shipment of weapons-development equipment. U.S. officials speculate that Libya was hedging its bets.
Centrifuges of the kind found on the German ship can be used to develop weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons. On Sunday, U.N. investigators in Libya were shown dozens of centrifuges and other equipment, although no evidence was found that the country had enriched uranium. Mohammed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Monday the equipment indicated that Libya was at an "early stage" of its weapons program.
Washington Post staff writers Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44389-2003Dec31.html
COMMENTARY:
I find it just amazing how some people seem to insist that economic and political sanctions are actually effective against some of these dictatorial megalomaniacs...
Qaddafi obviously was presented a clear choice by the US/UK representatives.
"We know what you're up to..
We have seized sufficient evidence to justify taking military action against you.
So now you have a choice.."
And as the article mentioned, they were not sure that this seizure wasn't going to derail the talks which had been ongoing for some 6 months already..
Can anyone truly claim that Muhammar didn't take a look at what happened to Saddam and factor that into his decision??
The US doesn't want to be in the position of having to use force in every case of proliferation. But we also don't want these rogue regimes to be able to predict exactly when the threshold of tolerance has been crossed. Don't let them be able to predict your response. Keep them off balance and unwilling to take major risks that might threaten their power.
The Central Scrutinizer
Sunday, December 28, 2003
Coincident with my previous post, here's a link to the Middle East Media Researsh Institute, a valuable resource for getting the "jist" of the latest and greatest in current Arab thought:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2403
Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003
By: Steven Stalinsky
Introduction
The following report consists of Palestinian sermons from 2000-2003. Each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The sermons are broadcast live every Friday at noon from mosques under control of the PA and are shown on PA television. Part I of this report includes the common themes of the sermons, such as: calls for the destruction of the U.S., the perceived American Crusader war against Islam, honoring Shahids and the rewards of the martyrs, educating children to martyrdom, and antisemitism, including calls for the killing of Jews. Part II includes Palestinian leaders being questioned by Western journalists about the content of the sermons, and is followed by Part III, the transcripts of the Friday sermons.
Part I: Common Themes
Calls for the Destruction of the U.S.
"Allah wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans" is a common theme heard in PA sermons, as with Sheikh Ahmad Abd-Al-Razek's sermon on October 4, 2002. [1] Frequent calls for the destruction of the main allies of the U.S. - Britain and Israel - are also heard. As Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi stated, "Allah willing, this unjust state will be erased - Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States, will be erased; this unjust state, Britain, will be erased." [2]
Themes of Arab hatred of the U.S. within sermons often have Islamic historical undertones. For example, the leading Palestinian religious figure, Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, stated in a sermon on PA radio, "Allah, destroy the U.S., its helpers and its agents. Allah, destroy Britain, its helpers and its agents. Allah, prepare those who will unite the Muslims and march in the steps of Saladin. Allah, we ask you for forgiveness before death, and mercy and forgiveness after death. Allah, grant victory to Islam and the Muslims…" [3] The U.S. and its allies are also commonly referred to as Christian and Jewish Crusaders who must be fought. For example, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, speaking at a mosque named after UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, stated, "Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or the Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them… Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the Crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them…" [4]
2003: The Year the American Crusader War Against Islam Began
In the year 2003, a common theme which emerged in PA sermons is that the U.S has begun a Crusader war against the Arabs. Sheikh Muhammad Abu Al-Hunud stated in a sermon on March 28, 2003, "If, God forbid, something happens to Iraq, the aggression and the Crusade will turn tomorrow against the Koran… God forbid, his second assault is on the Koran, [he wants] to change verses and to mess with Allah's book, to Americanize the region, Americanize the religion, Americanize the Koran, Americanize Muhammad's message… To my brothers in Iraq, to the President of Iraq, to the Iraqi leadership, to the Iraqi people… Strike, my brother; may your right arm, oh proud Iraq, be strong… strike Allah's enemies with it. Strike with it the enemies of humanity… from the pulpits of Al-Azhar and other mosques around the world, that any Muslim who does not stand by Iraq and support it against the American-British-Crusaders cruel attack… Allah, grant victory to the Iraqi army… Allah, defeat America and its allies… Allah, purify the Islamic soil from the American and British treason and defilement… Allah, make their possessions a booty for the Muslims, Allah, annihilate them and their weapons, Allah, make their children orphans and their women widows…" [5]
Con't...
Commentary.
One has to really ask themselves exactly what form of govermental and social system
any Palestinian state eventually takes. Aside from the dubious rational for encouraging or rewarding nationalist movements amongst people who lack any of the traditional definitions of a distinct nationality (unique religion, language, culture, or even cuisine), we must ask ourselves whether we're going to permit ourselves to be complicit in the creation of a militant Islamic state.
Personally speaking, I could care less if a Palestinian State is created. Anyone who rationally analyzes the scenario recognizes that it will not be a viable economy or society. Furthermore, it will be far less tolerant of non-Palestinians than the Israelis are of their Arab citizenry (which constitutes 1/5 of their population).
But it appears that a Palestinian state is necessary to diffuse regional tension and militant rhetoric that sustains much of the Islamic militancy, as well as undermining US credibility in the region. Thus, the Bush administration will likely be facing increasing pressure to obtain some kind of peace treaty between the parties, even if it's "coerced", or purchased through bribes between the two parties (ala Camp David).
But it's clear that Israel is going to pursue their wall.. And currently I'm of the opinion that maybe it's the right thing to do... Walls can always be torn down when the animosity and distrust calm down..
But to get to that point, the kinds of militant diatribes we see evidenced in the above link will have to be confronted and defeated.
The Central Scrutinizer
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2403
Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003
By: Steven Stalinsky
Introduction
The following report consists of Palestinian sermons from 2000-2003. Each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The sermons are broadcast live every Friday at noon from mosques under control of the PA and are shown on PA television. Part I of this report includes the common themes of the sermons, such as: calls for the destruction of the U.S., the perceived American Crusader war against Islam, honoring Shahids and the rewards of the martyrs, educating children to martyrdom, and antisemitism, including calls for the killing of Jews. Part II includes Palestinian leaders being questioned by Western journalists about the content of the sermons, and is followed by Part III, the transcripts of the Friday sermons.
Part I: Common Themes
Calls for the Destruction of the U.S.
"Allah wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans" is a common theme heard in PA sermons, as with Sheikh Ahmad Abd-Al-Razek's sermon on October 4, 2002. [1] Frequent calls for the destruction of the main allies of the U.S. - Britain and Israel - are also heard. As Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi stated, "Allah willing, this unjust state will be erased - Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States, will be erased; this unjust state, Britain, will be erased." [2]
Themes of Arab hatred of the U.S. within sermons often have Islamic historical undertones. For example, the leading Palestinian religious figure, Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, stated in a sermon on PA radio, "Allah, destroy the U.S., its helpers and its agents. Allah, destroy Britain, its helpers and its agents. Allah, prepare those who will unite the Muslims and march in the steps of Saladin. Allah, we ask you for forgiveness before death, and mercy and forgiveness after death. Allah, grant victory to Islam and the Muslims…" [3] The U.S. and its allies are also commonly referred to as Christian and Jewish Crusaders who must be fought. For example, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, speaking at a mosque named after UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, stated, "Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or the Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them… Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the Crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them…" [4]
2003: The Year the American Crusader War Against Islam Began
In the year 2003, a common theme which emerged in PA sermons is that the U.S has begun a Crusader war against the Arabs. Sheikh Muhammad Abu Al-Hunud stated in a sermon on March 28, 2003, "If, God forbid, something happens to Iraq, the aggression and the Crusade will turn tomorrow against the Koran… God forbid, his second assault is on the Koran, [he wants] to change verses and to mess with Allah's book, to Americanize the region, Americanize the religion, Americanize the Koran, Americanize Muhammad's message… To my brothers in Iraq, to the President of Iraq, to the Iraqi leadership, to the Iraqi people… Strike, my brother; may your right arm, oh proud Iraq, be strong… strike Allah's enemies with it. Strike with it the enemies of humanity… from the pulpits of Al-Azhar and other mosques around the world, that any Muslim who does not stand by Iraq and support it against the American-British-Crusaders cruel attack… Allah, grant victory to the Iraqi army… Allah, defeat America and its allies… Allah, purify the Islamic soil from the American and British treason and defilement… Allah, make their possessions a booty for the Muslims, Allah, annihilate them and their weapons, Allah, make their children orphans and their women widows…" [5]
Con't...
Commentary.
One has to really ask themselves exactly what form of govermental and social system
any Palestinian state eventually takes. Aside from the dubious rational for encouraging or rewarding nationalist movements amongst people who lack any of the traditional definitions of a distinct nationality (unique religion, language, culture, or even cuisine), we must ask ourselves whether we're going to permit ourselves to be complicit in the creation of a militant Islamic state.
Personally speaking, I could care less if a Palestinian State is created. Anyone who rationally analyzes the scenario recognizes that it will not be a viable economy or society. Furthermore, it will be far less tolerant of non-Palestinians than the Israelis are of their Arab citizenry (which constitutes 1/5 of their population).
But it appears that a Palestinian state is necessary to diffuse regional tension and militant rhetoric that sustains much of the Islamic militancy, as well as undermining US credibility in the region. Thus, the Bush administration will likely be facing increasing pressure to obtain some kind of peace treaty between the parties, even if it's "coerced", or purchased through bribes between the two parties (ala Camp David).
But it's clear that Israel is going to pursue their wall.. And currently I'm of the opinion that maybe it's the right thing to do... Walls can always be torn down when the animosity and distrust calm down..
But to get to that point, the kinds of militant diatribes we see evidenced in the above link will have to be confronted and defeated.
The Central Scrutinizer
Once in awhile I find a gem of an article which discusses power politics and how it interacts within a government power structure. The following is a fine example of that, analyzing the tenuous balance of power which currently exists in Saudi Arabia and the potential repercussions it may have on US strategy in the region.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83105/michael-scott-doran/the-saudi-paradox.html?mode=print
I continue to opine, as the article indicates, that militant Wahabbism is the "head of the snake" which must eventually be confronted in order for the "war on terror" to be won.
It's quite possible that Saudi Arabia might plunge into civil war within the next couple of years, with regional implications for the balance of power between nations. One can hardly expect Iran, or the Iraqi Shiites to stand by idly in the face of Wahabbist repression of the Shiite population in Saudi Arabia.
Thus, it is even more critical, IMO, for the US and Iraqi authorities (whoever they eventually turn out to be) to rebuild Iraq and get its oil infrastructure operational if the West is to avoid a potential disruption in global oil supply as a result of a disruption of Saudi oil.
It is my contention that this is probably one of the primary reasons the US went to war in Iraq. The handwriting on the wall was finally read when 15 Saudis were involved in 9/11, IMO, and policies were proposed for how to deal with it, as well as the steps to facilitate the strategy. It would be incredibly foolish to attempt to confront Saudi Arabia with their complicity over 9/11 without having an alternative source of oil online.. That source is clearly Iraq.
It just benefitted us that we have a casus belli in place via the continued non-compliance of the Baathist regime with regard to over 17 binding UNSC resolutions.
I've made the analogy of overthrowing Saddam to that of invading Vichy France during WWII.. The US was not at war with Vichy France at the time. Nor was Vichy occupied by Nazis troops. But US war strategy dictated that we needed to defeat Rommel's Afrika Korps, as well as using the area as a jumping off point for defeating Italy.
Technically, in terms of international law, the US invaded a neutral country in order to carry out its longer term war strategy.
I believe the same is the case with Iraq.. Except I hardly considered the Baathist regime to be "neutral".
The Central Scrutinizer
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83105/michael-scott-doran/the-saudi-paradox.html?mode=print
I continue to opine, as the article indicates, that militant Wahabbism is the "head of the snake" which must eventually be confronted in order for the "war on terror" to be won.
It's quite possible that Saudi Arabia might plunge into civil war within the next couple of years, with regional implications for the balance of power between nations. One can hardly expect Iran, or the Iraqi Shiites to stand by idly in the face of Wahabbist repression of the Shiite population in Saudi Arabia.
Thus, it is even more critical, IMO, for the US and Iraqi authorities (whoever they eventually turn out to be) to rebuild Iraq and get its oil infrastructure operational if the West is to avoid a potential disruption in global oil supply as a result of a disruption of Saudi oil.
It is my contention that this is probably one of the primary reasons the US went to war in Iraq. The handwriting on the wall was finally read when 15 Saudis were involved in 9/11, IMO, and policies were proposed for how to deal with it, as well as the steps to facilitate the strategy. It would be incredibly foolish to attempt to confront Saudi Arabia with their complicity over 9/11 without having an alternative source of oil online.. That source is clearly Iraq.
It just benefitted us that we have a casus belli in place via the continued non-compliance of the Baathist regime with regard to over 17 binding UNSC resolutions.
I've made the analogy of overthrowing Saddam to that of invading Vichy France during WWII.. The US was not at war with Vichy France at the time. Nor was Vichy occupied by Nazis troops. But US war strategy dictated that we needed to defeat Rommel's Afrika Korps, as well as using the area as a jumping off point for defeating Italy.
Technically, in terms of international law, the US invaded a neutral country in order to carry out its longer term war strategy.
I believe the same is the case with Iraq.. Except I hardly considered the Baathist regime to be "neutral".
The Central Scrutinizer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)