Saudi mouthpiece: If U.S. pulls out, we’re moving in

posted at 9:27 pm on November 29, 2006 by Allahpundit

He calls himself an “adviser to the Saudi government,” but take a gander at this piece he somehow got published in NRO nine months after 9/11. May I quote?

The Saudi government does not fund terrorism. Why? Because it would be the first target of such terrorism. It would be like the NAACP giving money to the Ku Klux Klan.

Yeah, that’s exactly what it would be like.

So he’s a Saudi mouthpiece. And here’s what the Saudi mouthpiece has to say:

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.

Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices.

He’s talking proxy war, in other words, possibly involving an as-yet-uncreated Sunni version of Hezbollah. And while the prospect of Wahhabists and radical Shiites slamming away at each other is simply delightful, the prospect of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being caught in the middle is not.

I like the predatory pricing idea, though.

So what happens to the Saudis if the U.S. doesn’t pull out? They’re moving in anyway, albeit in a less bellicose form:

The memo also lists steps the United States can take to strengthen Mr. Maliki’s position. They include efforts to persuade Saudi Arabia to use its influence with the Sunnis in Iraq and encourage them to turn away from the insurgency and to seek a political accommodation.

Addressing Mr. Bush, the memo said one option was for the president to “direct your cabinet to begin an intensive press on Saudi Arabia to play a leadership role on Iraq, connecting this role with other areas in which Saudi Arabia wants to see U.S. action.”

That’s from the Times’s story on the memo written by Stephen Hadley complaining about Maliki’s failure to go after the militias, incidentally. The memo was circulated among Bush’s inner circle and the upper crust of the National Security Council and was given to the Times by “an administration official,” which makes it likely almost to the point of certainty that it was leaked with Bush’s knowledge. It’s his way of turning up public pressure on Maliki to do something about al-Sadr. Which will the prime topic of discussion at tomorrow’s meeting, especially now that the fat man has (temporarily) severed his ties with the government.

Finally, to follow up on yesterday’s post, Peter Pace was asked about the possible pullout from Anbar at his presser today. His response was plain and pointed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well, goodie. You and the Jihadis…

seejanemom on November 29, 2006 at 9:32 PM

Pakistan owned (indeed, still owns) the Taliban, now the Saudis want their own Taliban in Iraq.

Lehuster on November 29, 2006 at 9:36 PM

Fasten your seatbelts fellow citizens. Since the Nov. elections of the dhimmi-crats, we are rolling down hill with no brakes…

Zorro on November 29, 2006 at 9:41 PM

I like the predatory pricing idea too. The question is why aren’t they doing it already? The answer…it probably won’t work as well as he says it will. Plus, U.S. pulls out and Sunii vs. Shiite proxy war on Iraqi soil? Guess what that does to oil prices.

So either he’s lying about what the Saudis would do post exit or the Saudis are retarded strategists. The only time it could work is if they did it right now. After we leave it would only drive the price back down from $100 a barrel to $75 a barrel. He’s lying. This is probably just the Saudi’s way of letting the market know they’re about to get more involved.

The Apologist on November 29, 2006 at 9:45 PM

Maybe W can negotiate a plan whereas we pull out and let the Wabbies and the Sunnis go after it [each other.] The key to the whole plan would incorporate our side supplying air power for both sides. Say… 70 sorties a night for each side. Plus 15 Cruise Missiles… per side each night. Wouldn’t take long and we’d run out of targets.

Griz on November 29, 2006 at 9:48 PM

Where did you get this story from, Allah? I don’t see citation or links pointing to the story in the headline.

Lehosh on November 29, 2006 at 9:59 PM

Can’t we just create two great big countries and call ‘em Sunnistan and Shiastan? Let ‘em duke it out and they’ll be so busy killin’ each other they’ll forget about tryin’ to kill us. And which ever side is left barely standing at the end gets to claim the Caliphate … and then we just push over what’s left of it. It’s a win win for everybody .. ‘cept the losers … and the winners. Well ok, it’s a win win for US, and that’s what really matters.

Tony737 on November 29, 2006 at 10:00 PM

What do you expect? Do you think the sunnis and the Kingdom would allow Iran to be the major player in the area? It’s in their self interest to ensure Iran, and their al- Sadr proxies to do not take over.

MCPO Airdale on November 29, 2006 at 10:00 PM

Fight terrorists with terrorists? What a world.

Predatory pricing. Me likey.

lorien1973 on November 29, 2006 at 10:06 PM

Allah! Dirka Dirka Jihaaad.

Zorro—you are so right….we’re going ninety miles an hour down a dead end street…

seejanemom on November 29, 2006 at 10:06 PM

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. ….But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices.

Where did you get this story from, Allah? I don’t see citation or links pointing to the story in the headline.

Lehosh on November 29, 2006 at 9:59 PM

Yeah, I’ve looked and I don’t see it either. Which is too bad, as that looks like the most interesting article.

EFG on November 29, 2006 at 10:06 PM

He linked it. Here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html

Dudley Smith on November 29, 2006 at 10:56 PM

It might just be the scotch talking, but I like the idea of the kingdom of Saud getting involved.

We’ll see how I feel about it in the morning after I get some sleep.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 29, 2006 at 11:07 PM

Actually this really is an interesting new wrinkle. I never thought the Saudis would actually go as far as to take action in their own defensive self interests.

Veeeeeeery interesting…

techno_barbarian on November 29, 2006 at 11:10 PM

Saudi involvement may not be such a bad idea. Their intelligence and security services have been largely effective in foiling AQ attacks on their soil. Perhaps they could teach the Iraqis some of their methods. Saudi involvement in Iraq could counter-balance Iranian influence until such time that Iran is dealt with by either the US or Israel.

Is it time to replace the policy of “pre-emption” with a set of Cold War-style proxy battles…? Why not? We see Russia aligning with Iran. Is it possible we might align with a Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia?

The possibilities are endless…

CliffHanger on November 29, 2006 at 11:11 PM

There is a lot to discuss in this post, Allah. But Gen. Pace had a GREAT answer.

Troy Rasmussen on November 29, 2006 at 11:14 PM

Hmmmm… just finished reading the whole article. Didn’t know about the Saudi agreement with W not to meddle in Iraq.

And I don’t like that “couldn’t guarantee that the sunni forces from Saudi wouldn’t attack US forces”, one bit. And I don’t like the fact that folks like ITM would be caught in the middle of it.

Nothing’s ever easy, is it?

techno_barbarian on November 29, 2006 at 11:19 PM

I don’t see the Saud’s plan as a bad thing. I didn’t see Bush 41′s special relationship with them as being, necessarily, a bad thing either. Of course the Saudi royal family is in power because of the U.S. Do they offer the best form of government for their people? No, definitely not. But in that part of the world, they aren’t the worst thing going either. Somehow, I wonder if dad didn’t pull some strings here, but really, I don’t care. The Dems are going to pull the troops out of Iraq one way or another. It doesn’t surprise me the Saudi royal family had a ‘plan B’ up their sleeve. They have their own interests to protect, and Iran, beckoning at their doorstep. I’m with the consensus of posters here: let them go at it.

thedecider on November 30, 2006 at 12:21 AM

Fighting wars by proxy is all the rage these days, we should probably try it. I still favor giving the whole place to the Kurds and turning them loose.

Buzzy on November 30, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Buzzy, the Kurds won’t rule or fight to take over all of Iraq. But what they may end up fighting over is Kirkuk.

There is a volitile mixture of Kurds, oil, and Arabs who were transplanted there by Saddam to help keep control of the oil fields there.

If Iraq breaks up, the Kurds and the Iraqis are going to start fighting over control of the city of Kirkuk.

EFG on November 30, 2006 at 1:24 AM

Very interesting article. Echoing other sentiments-go for it!

Catie96706 on November 30, 2006 at 1:29 AM

I was helping my daughter pick out a topic for a history class presentation, and we looked at the fall of Saigon. I told it might be fun to show the little leftists in her class what it’s going to look like when the Dhimmicrats pull us out of Baghdad.

She could send them home in tears.

(What a fun Dad I am tonight. We talked about the Depression, Dresden, Hiroshima, the Red Scare, Korea, Jack and Bobby, Martin and Malcolm, the fall of Saigon, the Panthers and the Weather Underground. ELF, I should have gone with the scotch).

Jaibones on November 30, 2006 at 1:31 AM

Hmmm, I always have crackpot get-rich-quick schemes, but this one might damn well work, and serve a greater cause. What if hundreds and thousands of people set-up pro-Saudi foundations and just bled the beast. The beast would at least become confused about who to fund and who not. Just a thought. I, for one, would have no problem playing the two-faced liar to this beast.

laelaps on November 30, 2006 at 2:27 AM

So I guess I’m the only one who got all hot an bothered by the thought of that sweet sweet crude being $20 a barrel again? I mean come on people. If that doesn’t get you excited nothing will. Evidently y’all don’t drive an Excursion so I’ll bring it a bit closer to home.

Think hot co-ed oil wrestling, like pudding wrestling, only dirtier.

Now the Saudi’s having their own militia might not be all that bad either. If I recall correctly aren’t quite a few of the princes uber-perverts? As in flying in strippers / playmates, listening to America’s top 40 and bringing in only the finest “Columbian Gold”. Now if the spreading of the Sex, Drugs and Rock ‘n Roll lifestyle won’t bring peace to the middle east I don’t know what will.

phineas g. on November 30, 2006 at 8:40 AM

Saudis will defend Sunnis against the Shiite majority. ELF, I thought the Kurds (as any sort of independent entity) were considered a danger to Turkey?

I am wondering when the wise men in DC are going to think it might be a good idea to get serious about alternative energy/energy independence. Naaah, what’s the rush?

honora on November 30, 2006 at 9:09 AM

Last to EFG, not ELF. I can’t keep this straight….

honora on November 30, 2006 at 9:09 AM

Shining City Warrior wrote about this a couple of weeks ago…the winning strategy is 1.) Let the Sunni neighbors get the idea that nutjob/crazy Iran will get control of Iraq’s oil fields and Saudi/Kuwait/etc will step in, and 2) drill ANWR while simultaneously taking up Brazil’s offer to partner with them for USA to become energy independent within 10 years…WE WIN when terrorist’s economies are so starved so they can no longer afford to sponsor terrorism…it’s all laid out here: http://shiningcitywarrior.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraq-solution-1.html

JustTruth101 on November 30, 2006 at 9:37 AM

Why do people seem to think that the only thing holding Maliki back from “dealing with” the militias is lack of will? The fundamental fact is the Iraqi security forces are not wholly loyal to the central government, so exactly how is Maliki supposed to reign in the militias? This whole affair seems to be setting Maliki and the Iraq government up to take the blame for failure in Iraq.

NPP on November 30, 2006 at 10:28 AM

The Saudis have to get involved at some point. Looking at a map of Shia vs. Sunni, the Saudis, being Sunnis, won’t let Iran (shia) be the dominant power in the area. The number of sunnis dwarf the number of shias in the world. Then you have the Persian aspect too. Not a lot of love there.

Awilson on November 30, 2006 at 10:36 AM

I am wondering when the wise men in DC are going to think it might be a good idea to get serious about alternative energy/energy independence.

And leave foreign policy to the private sector, where it belongs.

B Moe on November 30, 2006 at 11:08 AM

ELF[G], I thought the Kurds (as any sort of independent entity) were considered a danger to Turkey?

Well, that depends on what you mean by they are considered a danger to Turkey. But yes, the Turks hate the idea of an independent Kurdistan in the area of Iraq.

EFG on November 30, 2006 at 12:39 PM