|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Oct 23, 2013 6:24:47 GMT -7
MailOnline
Saudi Arabia severs diplomatic ties with US over response to conflict in Syria
Saudi Arabia is an important ally to the U.S. as it provides a secure source of oil
Saudi diplomats now promise a 'major shift' in relations with the U.S. over inaction in the conflict in Syria
Secretary of State John Kerry says he is committed to keeping a good relationship with the Saudis
By Reuters Reporter
PUBLISHED: 22 October 2013
Upset at President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Syria, members of Saudi Arabia's ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.
Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief is vowing that the kingdom will make a 'major shift' in relations with the United States to protest perceived American inaction over Syria's civil war as well as recent U.S. overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan told European diplomats that the United States had failed to act effectively against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran, and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government revolt in 2011, the source said.
'Major change': Prince Bandar Bin Sultan said the kingdom will make a
'Major change': Prince Bandar Bin Sultan said the kingdom will make a "major shift" in relations with the United States
'The shift away from the U.S. is a major one,' the source close to Saudi policy said. 'Saudi doesn't want to find itself any longer in a situation where it is dependent.'
It was not immediately clear whether the reported statements by Prince Bandar, who was the Saudi ambassador to Washington for 22 years, had the full backing of King Abdullah.
The growing breach between the United States and Saudi Arabia was also on display in Washington, where another senior Saudi prince criticized Obama's Middle East policies, accusing him of 'dithering' on Syria and Israeli-Palestinian peace.
In unusually blunt public remarks, Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama's policies in Syria 'lamentable' and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.
'The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,' said Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and former director of Saudi intelligence.
Inaction: The Saudis say they are getting upset by President Obama's inaction in dealing with the conflict in Syria
Inaction: The Saudis say they are getting upset by President Obama's inaction in dealing with the conflict in Syria
The United States and Saudi Arabia have been allies since the kingdom was declared in 1932, giving Riyadh a powerful military protector and Washington secure oil supplies.
The Saudi criticism came days after the 40th anniversary of the October 1973 Arab oil embargo imposed to punish the West for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur war.
That was one of the low points in U.S.-Saudi ties, which were also badly shaken by the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Saudi Arabia gave a clear sign of its displeasure over Obama's foreign policy last week when it rejected a coveted two-year term on the U.N. Security Council in a display of anger over the failure of the international community to end the war in Syria and act on other Middle East issues.
Prince Turki indicated that Saudi Arabia will not reverse that decision, which he said was a result of the Security Council's failure to stop Assad and implement its own decision on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Picking sides: Russian President Vladimir Putin, seen here with bin Sultan, has sided with the Syrian government in the conflict
Picking sides: Russian President Vladimir Putin, seen here with bin Sultan, has sided with the Syrian government in the conflict
'There is nothing whimsical about the decision to forego membership of the Security Council. It is based on the ineffectual experience of that body,' he said in a speech to the Washington-based National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations.
In London, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he discussed Riyadh's concerns when he met Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal in Paris on Monday.
Kerry said he told the Saudi minister no deal with Iran was better than a bad deal. 'I have great confidence that the United States and Saudi Arabia will continue to be the close and important friends and allies that we have been,' Kerry told reporters.
Prince Bandar is seen as a foreign policy hawk, especially on Iran. The Sunni Muslim kingdom's rivalry with Shi'ite Iran, an ally of Syria, has amplified sectarian tensions across the Middle East.
A son of the late defense minister and crown prince, Prince Sultan, and a protégé of the late King Fahd, he fell from favor with King Abdullah after clashing on foreign policy in 2005.
But he was called in from the cold last year with a mandate to bring down Assad, diplomats in the Gulf say. Over the past year, he has led Saudi efforts to bring arms and other aid to Syrian rebels.
'Prince Bandar told diplomats that he plans to limit interaction with the U.S.,' the source close to Saudi policy said.
Secretary of State John Kerry says he's confident the U.S. will continue to have a good relationship with Saudi Arabia
Secretary of State John Kerry says he's confident the U.S. will continue to have a good relationship with Saudi Arabia
This happens after the U.S. failed to take any effective action on Syria and Palestine. Relations with the U.S. have been deteriorating for a while, as Saudi feels that the U.S. is growing closer with Iran and the U.S. also failed to support Saudi during the Bahrain uprising," the source said.
The source declined to provide more details of Bandar's talks with the diplomats, which took place in the past few days.
But he suggested that the planned change in ties between the energy superpower and the United States would have wide-ranging consequences, including on arms purchases and oil sales.
Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, ploughs much of its earnings back into U.S. assets. Most of the Saudi central bank's net foreign assets of $690 billion are thought to be denominated in dollars, much of them in U.S. Treasury bonds.
'All options are on the table now, and for sure there will be some impact,' the Saudi source said.
He said there would be no further coordination with the United States over the war in Syria, where the Saudis have armed and financed rebel groups fighting Assad.
The kingdom has informed the United States of its actions in Syria, and diplomats say it has respected U.S. requests not to supply the groups with advanced weaponry that the West fears could fall into the hands of al Qaeda-aligned groups.
Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki Al Faisal also is outraged the international community has let the war continue in Syria
Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki Al Faisal also is outraged the international community has let the war continue in Syria
Saudi anger boiled over after Washington refrained from military strikes in response to a poison gas attack in Damascus in August when Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons arsenal.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Democratic leadership, told Reuters' Washington Summit on Tuesday that the Saudi moves were intended to pressure Obama to take action in Syria.
'We know their game. They're trying to send a signal that we should all get involved militarily in Syria, and I think that would be a big mistake to get in the middle of the Syrian civil war,' Van Hollen said.
'And the Saudis should start by stopping their funding of the al Qaeda-related groups in Syria. In addition to the fact that it's a country that doesn't allow women to drive,' said Van Hollen, who is close to Obama on domestic issues in Congress but is less influential on foreign policy.
Saudi Arabia is concerned about signs of a tentative reconciliation between Washington and Tehran, something Riyadh fears may lead to a 'grand bargain' on the Iranian nuclear program that would leave Riyadh at a disadvantage.
Prince Turki expressed doubt that Obama would succeed in what he called an 'open arms approach' to Iran, which he accused of meddling in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Bahrain.
'We Saudis observe President Obama's efforts in this regard. The road ahead is arduous,' he said. 'Whether (Iranian President Hassan) Rouhani will succeed in steering Iran toward sensible policies is already contested in Iran. The forces of darkness in Qom and Tehran are well entrenched.'
The U.N. Security Council has been paralyzed over the 31-month-old Syria conflict, with permanent members Russia and China repeatedly blocking measures to condemn Assad.
Saudi Arabia backs Assad's mostly Sunni rebel foes. The Syrian leader, whose Alawite sect is derived from Shi'ite Islam, has support from Iran and the armed Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah. The Syrian leader denounces the insurgents as al Qaeda-linked groups backed by Sunni-ruled states.
In Bahrain, home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a simmering pro-democracy revolt by its Shi'ite majority has prompted calls by some in Washington for U.S. ships to be based elsewhere.
Many U.S. economic interests in Saudi Arabia involve government contracts in defense, other security sectors, health care, education, information technology and construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 23, 2013 9:27:47 GMT -7
This is unfortunant but some what expectable of the Saudies, it is their manner of snubbing to show their displeasure with the US. Or, it would so appear.
It is good the US has shown some back bone and not be the tail to be waged by the Saudies..
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Oct 23, 2013 17:21:55 GMT -7
MailOnlineSaudi Arabia severs diplomatic ties with US over response to conflict in Syria
Saudi Arabia is an important ally to the U.S. as it provides a secure source of oil Saudi diplomats now promise a 'major shift' in relations with the U.S. over inaction in the conflict in Syria Secretary of State John Kerry says he is committed to keeping a good relationship with the Saudis
You would almost think we were an Independent Nation, and that we don't go to war for every false friend that dictates we do! It is nice to see that under Obama we have an independent foreign policy. Temporarily. |
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on Oct 24, 2013 6:56:09 GMT -7
The Daily Beast
Saudi Fears and Mysteries
This week’s ominous leak that Saudi Arabia will abandon its U.S.-centric policy means either that the oil kingdom is spooked by Obama’s policies or the oil kingdom is spooking him, writes Leslie H. Gelb.by Leslie H. Gelb | October 24, 2013 5:45 AM EDT Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Intelligence Chief, told European diplomats that Saudi Arabia would make a “major shift” in policy away from the United States. This bombshell was leaked by an unnamed source. Still, it should have triggered eruptions in Washington. After all, the mighty oil rich Kingdom and investor in the American economy has been a mainstay of U.S. policy in the Mideast for over half a century. So, why the silence? Mideast Saudi Intelligence Chief  Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan seen at his palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Hassan Ammar/AP)In good part, no one was quite sure what to make of the mysterious “leak.” Maybe it was just Prince Bandar doing his thing. To be sure, softer words along similar lines had come privately from Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. But the Obama team had heard nothing so startling from the boss himself, King Abdullah. And the King’s voice is what truly matters. Besides, Prince Bandar is well known for his Republican Party leanings, his private snorts against President Obama’s “weakness,” and for his mighty hawkishness (his advocacy of the Iraq war was of Vice President Cheney-like proportions). To many a Mideast watcher, then, the supposed policy shift could be dismissed as Bandar rantings. Perhaps the silence towards Prince Bandar’s leaks reflects the mood of some policy experts who have already chalked off Saudi Arabia as an important ally. It’s true that Riyadh has done damage to American interests by supporting Islamic extremists in a number of countries. On the whole, however, Saudi funds and arms have leveraged American aims in many tight situations. This includes protecting America’s oil supply flanks from the likes of Iran. So, Riyadh cannot be written off so casually. Another explanation for the relative silence to the Prince Bandar leak is even more telling: how could Washington fear a major policy shift from Riyadh when Riyadh has no real alternatives to the U.S., no country or countries that could conceivably take America’s place? Russia and China make no sense. Their policies in the Mideast region hurt Saudis even more than America’s, and the Saudis know this full well. Nor does it make any sense for Saudi Arabia to turn to an enfeebled Europe, and the Saudis also know this all too well. Nor can Saudi Arabia expect to conjure up a new league between Arab states as a strategic alternative to America. The interests of Arab states simply differ too widely to imagine any new and workable Arab alliance. This truth is also well known in Riyadh. But it would be foolish and self-destructive for the Obama administration to simply believe that the Saudis, or other Arab states like Egypt, are stuck with America and have no alternative, no matter how self-destructive, no matter what. Neither the Saudis nor other Arab states (nor, in fact, Israel) understand Obama’s Mideast policy—and that’s the heart of the problem.Prince Bandar’s leak contained specifics worth contemplating in Washington. Mainly, he complained about Obama’s flip-flopping on Syria—particularly the President’s failure to rapidly arm Syrian rebels and conduct air strikes in retaliation for Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Prince Bandar also worried about America entering a slippery slope in negotiations with Iran. Shiite Iran is enemy No. 1 to the Sunni Saudi clan. And Saudi leaders worry neurotically that Iranian-American negotiations now underway would weaken American commitments to them. Prince Bandar also mentioned U.S. failure to back the Saudis when they sent troops into Bahrain in 2011 to support a Sunni leader against his Shiite majority people. Prince Bandar said nothing about America’s withdrawal of aid from the new military government in Egypt, but that’s a big issue in Riyadh as well. The Muslim Brotherhood government, overthrown by the Egyptian military, was a real adversary of the Saudis, and they wanted the U.S. to help, not criticize, the new Egyptian military rulers. Not least, Riyadh blames Washington for not being tough enough on Israel, especially when it comes to negotiations for a Palestinian state. Also part of Saudi unhappiness was last week’s headline about Riyadh’s declining a seat on the UN Security Council. That rejection was aimed both at the international body and at U.S. leadership. These Saudi concerns are not just Saudi concerns. They are endemic throughout most Arab countries. For years now, Arab states aligned with Washington tremble at what they see as Obama’s support for “the Arab Spring.” They fear he sees this as a good democratization process that could well lead to U.S. support for similar movements in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. They don’t see the Arab Spring as democratization; they see it as an extremist Muslim challenge to their rule. Arab leaders don’t think Obama understands that. Syria has also brought many Arab leaders’ alarms to new heights. They see Syria as a crossroads battle between Shiite-backed Iran and their fellow Sunni rebels. They believe that the Sunni defeat at this point in Syria would directly endanger Sunni rulers throughout Arabia. Remember, the largest oil province in Saudi Arabia has a huge Shiite majority. Neither the Saudis nor other Arab states (nor, in fact, Israel) understand Obama’s Mideast policy—and that’s the heart of the problem. That’s what is truly spooking them. Obama and his minions have been all over the lot. Arab leaders were, frankly, shocked that Obama had far more contact with Mohamed Morsi, the recently-overthrown Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, than Obama had with any other Arab leaders. They were happy when Washington ousted Colonel Gaddafi of Libya, and then unnerved when Washington simply walked away from the resulting chaos and extremism. And they certainly have not been reassured by what Washington has been telling them about its talks with Iran. For Secretary of State Kerry and others to simply say that the U.S. won’t make any agreement with Iran that endangers America’s allies in the region sounds to them like blowing hot air. Arab leaders have no idea where Obama administration leaders think they are going in relations with Tehran. The absence of an Obama strategy in the Mideast, and indeed in other parts of the world, is truly nothing new. This U.S. President has not had a clear and compelling strategy on most international issues and regions, in the opinion of most foreign leaders. The White House can and does deny this, but it will continue to be so at its own peril and the peril of the United States. Obama has got to provide a compelling overview for what he is trying to do throughout this explosive region of the world. Prince Bandar’s leak—and the hundreds of conversations along similar lines—reflect two facts: Arab leaders are spooked by U.S. indecision and lack of clarity, and they are trying to spook America into getting its act together. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 24, 2013 14:40:50 GMT -7
J.J.
Perhaps so, perhaps no, but one point is most certain in the field of foreign relations. This Mr. Obama is a wild card of uncertain reaction and response. One side of the Roman coin, he is predictable, whilst on the reverse side, his responses are highly unexpected. Rather he is a genious or taking foolish chances is a turkey shoot.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Oct 26, 2013 3:13:20 GMT -7
MailOnline
Saudi Arabia severs diplomatic ties with US over response to conflict in SyriasAn update in status: Angry Over Syrian War, Saudis Fault U.S. PolicyBy BEN HUBBARD and ROBERT F. WORTH Published: October 25, 2013 RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia has abandoned its traditional policy of discretion in recent weeks, signaling deep anger at the Obama administration’s Middle East policies and threatening to break with its most powerful ally and pursue a more robust and independent role in supporting the rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. But privately, Saudi officials concede that their efforts to forge an alternative strategy in Syria have run up against the same issue the Americans face: how to bolster the military might of a disorganized armed opposition without also empowering the jihadists who increasingly dominate its ranks. The full article, in two parts, is at www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/world/middleeast/saudis-faulting-american-policy-on-middle-east.html?hp |
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on May 20, 2015 6:02:34 GMT -7
The Blame Game
Scott Ritter
Author, 'Dangerous Ground'
Posted: 05/19/2015 9:33 pm EDT
Last week, Ivy Ziedrich, a University of Nevada undergrad, confronted potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush about his impolitic remarks blaming President Obama for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Ms. Ziedrich instead placed the blame squarely on Jeb's brother, former President George W. Bush. While not incorrect, the reality, however, is that responsibility for the creation of ISIS does not rest with George W. Bush's alone. Given the dismal state of America's overall Middle East policy, there seems to be a need among politicians and citizens alike to apportion blame for this perceived failure. In light of the recent fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to ISIS, moreover, the specific issue of America's decades-long misadventure in Iraq has once again reared its ugly head for the American electorate to ponder, and the blame game has been initiated with all the vigor one can expect from a spectacle Theodore White has likened to the greatest source of human excitement short of war -- the American Presidential campaign. While the various candidates struggle to explain how they would have voted on the decision to invade Iraq -- always prefacing their answer, hypothetical or otherwise, with the soul-cleansing precondition of "knowing what we know now" -- the fact remains that there is little genuine understanding among the American chattering class about how or why America became involved in Iraq to begin with, creating a situation where by both Ivy Ziedrich and Jeb Bush are wrong to place blame for the creation of ISIS on either George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
There is a huge playing field on which the ISIS blame game can be played, encompassing the totality of the history of Anglo-American involvement in the Middle East. The French and British can be blamed for carving up the Middle East territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the First World War, further fragmenting an already fragmented Arab world and helping create the conditions that led to the formation of the insular and backward Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, something that would not have happened had the Arab revolt been allowed to run its course. America, too, comes in for its fair share of the blame for helping sustain the Saudi Kingdom as a viable entity. In the closing months of the Second World War, President Franklin Roosevelt met with Saudi King Abdul Aziz aboard the USS Quincy in Egypt's Great Bitter Lake in 1945, sealing a strategic relationship that built on America's need for oil and Saudi Arabia's need for a superpower protector.
The alliance between the Saudi royal family and the brand of virulent extreme Islam embraced by ISIS -- known as Wahhabism -- dates back more than 270 years, when Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab combined secular rule with true faith to create a domain where, according to the Saudi rulers, "true" sharia law prevails to this day. It is in this self-proclaimed Islamic paradise that, a century ago, the predecessors of ISIS took form as Wahhabist zealots known as Al-Ikhwan, or the "Brotherhood." With the support of the Saudi rulers, the Ikhwan conducted a "purification" campaign to purge the Arabian peninsula of anyone who did not adhere to the tenets of Wahhabism. In addition to the tens of thousands who perished in the inter-tribal fighting involved in the ascendency of the Ikhwan (men, women and children -- the Ikhwan took particular pleasure in slicing open the bellies of pregnant women), more than 40,000 people were beheaded by the Ikhwan in the decade following its rise to power, and upwards of 350,000 amputations were likewise conducted in the name of Islamic justice. Even the atrocities of ISIS pale in comparison to these figures.
Having used the fanaticism of the Ikhwan to consolidate domestic political power, the Saudi royal family turned on them in 1927, eradicating the Ikhwan movement with the help of British arms. Militant Wahhabism, however, wasn't terminated, but rather driven underground, where it continued to fester in the backwaters of Saudi tribal society. ISIS is simply the modern progeny of the Ikhwan, the by-product of a policy undertaken by Saudi Arabia since 1973 to export radical Wahhabism abroad in an effort to reduce tensions with the Wahhabist "Scholars of Islamist Law", or Ulema, and the Saudi government over the playboy antics of the Saudi ruling class. This exportation took on an additional urgency following the 1979 takeover of the Grand Mosque in Mecca -- the holiest place in all of Islam -- by fanatical adherents of an off-shoot sect of Wahhabism who believed that the Islamic redeemer, or Mahdi, had been dispatched to earth by God.
The linkage between those who seized the Grand Mosque in 1979 and the forces of Al Qaeda and ISIS today is not lost on the Saudis, hence the strenuous efforts undertaken to provide off-shore outlets for those Saudi citizens who feel the need to become a mujahid, or "inner struggler", in the name of Wahhabism -- either by joining a group actively engaged in violent jihad abroad or, more commonly, facilitating violent jihad through financial support. ISIS is one such outlet; while there is no doubt that its sources of income are many and varied, the so-called "charitable contributions" provided by Saudi and other Gulf Coast Arabs allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to groups and individuals that later melded into ISIS, thereby enabling their early sustainment and growth. These "charitable contributions" continue to this day and play an important role in funding the ongoing operations of ISIS.
Rather than blame Barack Obama or George W. Bush for the creation of ISIS, Americans should place the blame right where it belongs -- on the Saudi royal family. But then blame likewise must be apportioned to every American president who has acted to sustain America's oil-based relationship with the Saudis originally struck by Franklin Roosevelt -- Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Every president named was made aware of the unsavory nature of the Saud-Wahhabi alliance, and every president chose to ignore it. This wasn't because each president willfully turned a blind eye to the realities of the Saudi regime, but rather because American presidents are inherently political creatures who respond to the needs and desires of their electorate, in this case an American population addicted to a lifestyle largely sustained by guaranteed access to Middle Eastern oil. It was American largess, in the form of dollars exchanged for oil, which enriched the Saudi regime and enabled it to lavish millions in the cause of exporting radical Wahhabism. So, in a way, all Americans are responsible for the creation of ISIS -- myself included.
The creation of ISIS predates the decision of Barack Obama to withdraw American combat troops from Iraq. It predates the decision of George W. Bush to invade Iraq. It predates the decision of Bill Clinton to make removal of Saddam Hussein official U.S. government policy, the decision of George H. W. Bush to confront Saddam over the invasion of Kuwait, and the decision of Ronald Reagan to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against Iran and Iraq's own Kurdish population -- one could go on and on, reversing through each presidential predecessor, to uncover errors in policy that contributed to the future errors of policy of his successor. The one thing that all presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have had in common with regard to Middle Eastern policy is that none have had genuine freedom of action, but rather were constrained by policies and decisions inherited from those who came before them. It is too simple to assess a given time frame in isolation and draw sweeping conclusions -- America invaded Iraq, removed Saddam and ISIS was born, or America withdrew from Iraq, chaos ensued and ISIS was born. Obama was influenced by Bush 43, who was influenced by Clinton, who was influenced by Bush 41, and so on and so forth.
What all these policies do have in common is the arrogant underpinnings of American exceptionalism -- the notion that American might makes right, and what is good for America is by extension good for the rest of the world. America's emergence after the Second World War as the world's foremost military and economic power helped create and sustain the notion of a new "White Man's Burden" marked by the unique role that could be played by post-war America in revitalizing global socio-political-economic relations following the collapse of those European empires that survived the First World War. But this new American mission was undertaken in a vacuum created by the tragedy of global conflict, and therefore unsustainable as the world order sought to right itself, with or without American assistance. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, rather than signaling the beginning of an era of American dominance, instead brought an end to the post-war conditions that enabled America to dominate. The world struggled -- and continues to struggle -- to emerge from under the weight of the Soviet-American global contest of wills that defined the decades between 1945 and 1991.
Iraq is but one of the more visible manifestations of this post-Cold War reality. American force of arms could remove a dictator, but was -- and is -- incapable of transforming a society against the will of the indigenous population. When America toppled Saddam, it unleashed regional forces -- Iranian, Arab, Kurd, Sunni, and Shia -- that were not understood then, and are not understood now. America continues to mistake tactical victories - the fall of Baghdad, the capture of Fallujah, the death of Zarqawi, the "surge" -- for strategic vision. Not one of America's tactical successes in Iraq has withstood the test of time, and yet America continues to look to them as a template for future action that, in doing so, cements failure as the only possible outcome. The ultimate irony of the blame game is that it locks those who purport to seek a solution to the problem of ISIS into evaluating and assessing the symptoms associated with ISIS rather than the disease that spawned ISIS. Since America's involvement in Iraq is itself such a symptom, any search for a solution that predicates success on continued American involvement is itself doomed to fail. Failure to accurately identify the root cause of a problem leads to solutions that solve nothing.
It is high time American policy makers understood that, when it comes to the issues of Iraq, Syria, and ISIS, America is the problem, not the solution. As a country we need to stop buying into a Saudi-backed narrative that lays the blame for the ongoing unrest in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere at the feet of Iran, and instead recognize that those responsible for the ongoing regional conflagration reside in Riyadh. If we stop trying to unilaterally solve the myriad of problems that rage in the Middle East, then perhaps the Saudi government will stop instigating them. If not, then they alone will reap the consequences. The days of Saudi monopoly over the global oil economy are long past. A resurgent American domestic oil production capacity, combined with the looming possibility of Iranian oil reentering the global economy in a meaningful way, liberates American decision makers from the trap of Saudi-driven policy. With or without the fall of Ramadi, ISIS is not America's problem to solve. Sometimes the only way to win is to walk away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on May 22, 2015 22:42:20 GMT -7
I am glad that finally there is some discussion about a sense or rather a lack of it - into sending American troops to Iraq. It is strange that this discussion is so limited and it is happening so late.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on May 23, 2015 14:52:14 GMT -7
No matter the rhetoric, this is still an Arab problem and issue. For theirs is the cause, and there fore, the Arabs must contend with this issue of the IS for answers and solutions.
For the above is to the Saudis them selves, for too many years they have bought off any opposition that may be a disruption to their lives and preservation of their family owned country.
The sty in the eye is Syria, for the hinge of the gulf region is Syria. With Syria, then Iran, to Iran is Lebanon to then Egypt, with Egypt is Palestine. For one is the cross connection to the other. The Saudis know this, but not so sure the Americans understand. For one is connected to the other by mutual agreements and assistants.
For Iran has a very good industrial base and with this, very self sufficient in producing what is consumed in their own relative home market. With this, to fulfill to produce on license Russian designed arms and associated equipment. For some time, Iran as exported {shipped across the border} to its partner Syria what was needed for military weapons and associated equipment. Then Most recently, to provide to Syria the dies and manufacturing industrial machines to produce for its needs, the similar weapons. For Egypt from Iran, this instead, crated weapons and associated equipment.
Egypt has for some many years to the regret of Israel, supplied on the sly to the Palestine, various consumer supplies such as food/clothing/consumer items such as cooking impliments/cooking oil and supplies of cooking fuel. And, with the occasions the Israelies caught off water mains into the Gaza, supplies of drinking water. This, through the various known tunnels between Egypt and Palestine. This is very well known as an open secret and with this, the Israelies know, but what can they do, when it is upon Egyption soil.
It is this maze the Saudies know and understand, it is one of various reasons of concern to Saudi consternation and their manner of paying some one else to do their dirty work. For then, the blaim will come across some one elses back if the action goes wrong, money speaks and the Saudis know and understand this as part and partial of their past and present history.
It is not difficult or complex, simply a matter of the fabric of the Gulf States. To step upon one strand, is to cause and effect the next and so on.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by JustJohn or JJ on May 23, 2015 21:00:07 GMT -7
No matter the rhetoric, this is still an Arab problem and issue. For theirs is the cause, and there fore, the Arabs must contend with this issue of the IS for answers and solutions. For the above is to the Saudis them selves, for too many years they have bought off any opposition that may be a disruption to their lives and preservation of their family owned country. The sty in the eye is Syria, for the hinge of the gulf region is Syria. With Syria, then Iran, to Iran is Lebanon to then Egypt, with Egypt is Palestine. For one is the cross connection to the other. The Saudis know this, but not so sure the Americans understand. For one is connected to the other by mutual agreements and assistants. For Iran has a very good industrial base and with this, very self sufficient in producing what is consumed in their own relative home market. With this, to fulfill to produce on license Russian designed arms and associated equipment. For some time, Iran as exported {shipped across the border} to its partner Syria what was needed for military weapons and associated equipment. Then Most recently, to provide to Syria the dies and manufacturing industrial machines to produce for its needs, the similar weapons. For Egypt from Iran, this instead, crated weapons and associated equipment. Egypt has for some many years to the regret of Israel, supplied on the sly to the Palestine, various consumer supplies such as food/clothing/consumer items such as cooking impliments/cooking oil and supplies of cooking fuel. And, with the occasions the Israelies caught off water mains into the Gaza, supplies of drinking water. This, through the various known tunnels between Egypt and Palestine. This is very well known as an open secret and with this, the Israelies know, but what can they do, when it is upon Egyption soil. It is this maze the Saudies know and understand, it is one of various reasons of concern to Saudi consternation and their manner of paying some one else to do their dirty work. For then, the blaim will come across some one elses back if the action goes wrong, money speaks and the Saudis know and understand this as part and partial of their past and present history. It is not difficult or complex, simply a matter of the fabric of the Gulf States. To step upon one strand, is to cause and effect the next and so on. Karl Well said Karl, very well said !!! |
|
|
|
Post by karl on May 24, 2015 6:24:09 GMT -7
J.J.
What I failed to include with the Saudis, is their future is the present. For this previous Friday {22 may 15} an IS human bomber blew him self up in a Mosque in Qatif. His actions resulted in killing 21 of the people whilst at prayer.
It would so appear the Kingdom is at equal risk as the remainder of the Gulf Region.
Karl
|
|
