a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Saturday, April 24, 2004 Department of Contrary OpinionsRegular readers know how little we like the Saudi family here at Radio Free Mike, and highlights from the Woodward book give us a lot to despise. But here's a discussion with Walter Russell Mead, who argues that Bush's policy toward Iraq and terrorism has improved things in Saudi Arabia, and maybe avoided the disaster of a coup in Riyadh by Osama.Before September 11, writes Mead, I think we were looking at a possible death spiral in Saudi Arabia, with the chance of a pro-Al Qaeda faction in the royal family or from elsewhere taking over. Removing US troops from the Kingdom has already had a big impact in changing the balance of forces in Saudi Arabia. If Osama had succeeded in his original goal of overthrowing the government there and setting up a government of his own, we would be facing much greater threats and much uglier choices than we now have. Of course, keeping the Saudis in place is not real reform. It's just a bulwark against Wahhabists. And Mead has nothing to say about the family friendship between the Bushes and the al-Saud. But here's what bothers me. The standard Radio Free Mike line these days is that Saudi Arabia should have been "dealt with" before Iraq, because Saddam wasn't sponsoring Al Qaeda, while certain Saudis were. So what, exactly, do I mean by "dealt with"? A threat of war? Something like: Tame your terrorists, or we change your government? (or at least secure those oil fields, which lie in the east, away from Mecca and Medina)? Unimaginable. Iraq's been easy by comparison. Still, the the Wahhabist virus, undermining a corrupt and faltering royal regime, hasn't gone away. We invaded Iraq hoping the House of Saud stays intact. But it can't, not forever, and not if we're dedicated to democracy in the Middle East. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 1:22 AM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
