The Saudi monarchy is very much against the Muslim clergy and their incitement.
That's crap chinu.. What they say and what they do are two different things. And while you might be aware of certain Saudis who oppose Islamic militancy, it has been the militants who have gained control over how Saudi funded Islamic institutions are established around the globe.
And that's why they have participated in funding Ihkwan (Moslem Brotherhood) organizations throughout the region, which have proven to be the nexxus for the current militant Islamic theology pervading the Islamic world?
It does not take a US to push the Saudi royalty in a corner against their clerics/Wahabs.
Apparently it does. Because Khobar towers didn't seem to convince them of this necessity. 9/11 didn't seem to wake them up either, given the lack of cooperation the US received, despite 15 of the attacker being Saudi. The complicity in Saudi funding of Al-Qaeda and Taliban training camps and infrastructure didn't seem to rouse them either... And the several assassinations of foreigners and Saudis by militants didn't meke them pay attention either.
It took US troops occupying Iraq, with the implicit "threat" of diminishing SA's power in the global oil markets, as well as the potential for a potential overthrow/invasion of the Saudi Arabia itself to get them to FINALLY take such "no-brainer" actions as prohibiting hate mongering, inflammatory language in the public Saudi media.
With the common enemy (Uday and Kusai) out of the way, the Muslim fundamentalists (Shiite's in particular) will turn their attention towards the US and "US occupation" of Iraq.
They will try... They've been trying.. But Al-Sistani is the key to the Shiite question, IMO, and I don't think he's prepared to fully politicize the Shiite community when it's obvious that they would then have the responsibility for rebuilding a shattered country, and thus, the blame when they fail.
And the fact that Iran's fundamentalist regime is on the brink, and FULLY incapable of producing the kinds of economic results desired by its young population, what leads you to believe that the young people of Iraq will fall prey to such hollow promises in Iraq? The rhetoric is one thing, but I believe that Iraqis are also pragmatists as well. And they want to catch up with the rest of the world with regard to their lifestyles.
And no theocrat will be able to grasp how to provide that, let alone understand how global economic market forces will be crucial in accomplishing it.
And then this will turn out to be another Vietnam.
Geezus... Why don't you analyze why the communists won in Vietnam first, before you just fling that kind of quasi-logic around...
The communist victory in Vietnam happened because we refused to acknowledge that N. Vietnam had violated the neutrality of both Laos and Cambodia with their logistics network and sanctuaries. We let them have a place to retreat to.. A place to regroup and refit. A safe supply line that eventually included an fuel pipeline.
And it happened because they had a greater will to win than did the US, or the corrupt leaders of S. Vietnam (who knew they could readily flee with their ill-gotten gains). But N. Vietnam was just as corrupt, but in a more organized manner that only a totalitarian regime can impose upon a population.
Instead he should have relentlessly pursued Osama and his men to wherever he fled, across the border to Pakistan or India or across the ocean to Indonesia or Phillipines.
Cut off the money and you cut off Osama's life-support system. Bin Laden can hide, but I believe he'll be able to mount the kind of operation he had in Afghanistan.
But neither am I ready to see Pakistan fall into civil war, potentially bringing that country and India to blows (with a Chinese intervention).
We'll see how that plays out of the next several years. But Saudi Arabia is the head of the snake when it comes to Islamic Fundamentalism. That must be stopped and its "flavor" of Islam moderated and modernized.
news.ft.com
Hawk |
