Regional Conference!

Nawaf Obaid, adviser to the Saudi government and managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, speaking strictly for himself says that unless the USA finds a pony in Iraq soon, we'll be looking at Saudi intervention in the civil war: "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."

As GFR notes this would, in essence, entail Saudi Arabia throwing its lot in with al-Qaeda as a means of fighting Iran and various Shiite groups. Meanwhile, the United States -- if we listen to the hawkish right -- will be at war with both sides!

Comments

It's been said here before, I believe, but it's a mistake to identify the Sunni insurgents with al Qaeda. They are two different groups with different agendas. Both are in favor of not being killed by Shia death squads, but beyond that their strategic goals start to diverge.

Posted by: Doug T on November 29, 2006 03:02 PM

But wait, how can Saudi Arabia intervene in the civil war in Iraq when it's not a civil war? As a rejoinder to Bush's "Al Qaeda is behind the violence" line the other day one could almost wish the Saudis WOULD intervene, on behalf of Al Qaeda, because the ironies would be too many and too beautiful to resist. The Islamic kingdom where the 9.11 hijackers originated (because they were angry about U.S. troops in said kingdom), which then repudiated said hijackers, moving to thwart the outcome of U.S. troops having relocated out of said kingdom, on behalf of those who wanted them out of said kingdom all along, in the interest of sustaining a perpetual civil war in Iraq and a proxy war with Iran, thanks to the United States' having removed the threat of Saddam, a threat to Iran, on behalf of the Saudis. Or was that on behalf of Al Qaeda. I'm all mixed up.

Posted by: Bill on November 29, 2006 03:02 PM

will be at war with both sides!

Well, that's an interesting take on Orwell. Screw the shifting alliances, let's get our war on!

Posted by: Ugh on November 29, 2006 03:03 PM

We have always been at war with Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: otto on November 29, 2006 03:15 PM

"We have always been at war with Saudi Arabia."

I thought it was Persarabia.

Posted by: Bill on November 29, 2006 03:19 PM

The Saudis hire maids to clean their mercenaries' barracks for them. What exactly are they going to intervene in Iraq WITH?

Not Really

Posted by: Not Really on November 29, 2006 03:19 PM

The Saudis intervene on behalf of al Qaeda? Al Qaeda's main reason for existing is to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and install bin Ladin or someone else as a thecratic dictator. Saudis supporting ex-Baathists- possible. Supporting al Qaeda? I don't think so.

Posted by: JR on November 29, 2006 03:21 PM

Last night, the foreign policy expert on the NPR radio show On Point predicted that the civil war would probably end in a stalemate. However, he said he wouldn't be surprised if the Sunni side ended up winning. I had thought the Shiites had an overwhelming advantage, so his comments surprised me. I don't remember his name, but he seemed to know his stuff.

Posted by: Jim W on November 29, 2006 03:21 PM

They would intervene with money. Like they always do.

Posted by: Anon on November 29, 2006 03:22 PM

"What exactly are they going to intervene in Iraq WITH?"

"funding, arms and logistical support"

Posted by: Bill on November 29, 2006 03:22 PM

I thought the reason the Sunni militias are labelled 'al-Qaeda' is that al-Qaeda is made up of Sunni fundamentalists. Clarification, anyone?

Posted by: neil on November 29, 2006 03:28 PM

>> "What exactly are they going to intervene
>> in Iraq WITH?"

> "funding, arms and logistical support"

Well, from the history of Gulf War I the concern was that 10,000 disciplined, determined troops could capture Saudi Arabia and no one could figure out why Saddam didn't do that before the first wave of US reinforcements arrived. In the scenario where the Saudis are in a bad situation you have to assume that the US forces have been pushed back to Kuwait/Kurdistan and are in no shape to take on another war in SA.

Not Really

Posted by: Not Really on November 29, 2006 03:31 PM

Given what you say here, what do you think Cheney was telling the Saudis when he went to visit the other day, a visit whose substance has been shrouded in complete obscurity?

Posted by: Jeff on November 29, 2006 03:33 PM

I thought the reason the Sunni militias are labelled 'al-Qaeda' is that al-Qaeda is made up of Sunni fundamentalists. Clarification, anyone?

I think the reason they're labeled "al-Qaeda" is for domestic political consumption, not the accuracy of the label. In truth, there are al-Qaeda elements to be found within the ranks of the Sunni insurgents, but the vast majority are not al-Qaeda.

If Saudi Arabia began funneling arms and money to the Sunni insurgents, though, some would likely end up in the hands of the AQ types.

Most insurgents, however, are secular Baathists and/or nationalists - even if some have taken on a more fundamentalist demeanor post-invasion.

Posted by: Eric Martin on November 29, 2006 03:51 PM

Wait. That's not the beauty part.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on November 29, 2006 03:52 PM

No, they're not going to intervene on behalf of al Qaeda, although they may intervene on the same side as al Qaeda. Anyone who supports American intervention on behalf of a Shiite majority government in Iraq, while at the same time confronting Iran, ought to be able to understand this distinction . . .

Posted by: rea on November 29, 2006 03:53 PM

Matt, I don't think he's saying "unless the USA finds a pony in Iraq soon" that Saudi Arabia will intervene. His comments seem to be limited to saying that if the US pulls out prematurely, then Saudi Arabia will intervene. He seems to be saying that as long as the US remains in Iraq, Saudi Arabia will stay out.

Posted by: Tim Lee on November 29, 2006 03:55 PM

Wait. That's not the beauty part.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on November 29, 2006 03:55 PM

Franke-Ruta needs to learn to read more carefully. Her column is supposed to be about the "picking a winner" option and the wrench that Obaid allegedly throws into discussions of that option.

But Obaid says nothing about what Saudi Arabia would do if the US picks a winner. What he does talk about is what the Saudis will do - or are at least threatening to do - if the US withdraws from Iraq. The point of the Obaid piece is to add pressure for the US to stay in Iraq by threatening a disastrous Saudi intervention in the event of our departure.

Would somebody please read Franke-Ruta's column again and then explain to me what the Obaid column has to do with the point she is trying to make about picking a winner?

Posted by: Dan Kervick on November 29, 2006 04:10 PM

"...then explain to me what the Obaid column has to do with the point she is trying to make about picking a winner?"

Dan, if the "winner" chosen by Bush is SCIRI/Iran and one of the losers is Moqtada the US better head for the helicopters. I mean, dude, Iran can best create the new Persian Empire with the US out of there. Amd Mookie will not be pleased.

I think that may be the plan, and Obaid is attempting a pre-emption.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on November 29, 2006 04:28 PM

Jeffrey Davis is such a tease.

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on November 29, 2006 05:08 PM

The point of the Obaid piece is to add pressure for the US to stay in Iraq by threatening a disastrous Saudi intervention in the event of our departure.

I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia would consider the prospect of the U.S. assisting in a massive anti-Sunni pogrom to be worse than the prospect of a withdrawal.

Posted by: dj moonbat on November 29, 2006 06:06 PM

I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia would consider the prospect of the U.S. assisting in a massive anti-Sunni pogrom to be worse than the prospect of a withdrawal.

Perhaps. But there is zero chance the Saudi army would invade Iraq to take on the American army, nor did Obaid even hint at such a possibility. So I don't see how anything he says in the Post piece throws a wrench into the "pick a winner" option.

My reading of Obaid's message from the Saudi leadership is that he is telling us that so long as the US is in Iraq, the government can resist popular domestic pressure to intervene in Iraq, since hardly anyone in Saudi Arabia expects or wants their government to get into a military conflict with the Americans. But as soon as we leave, they lose that excuse and the pressure will be irresistable. At least that's his story.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on November 29, 2006 06:24 PM

But there is zero chance the Saudi army would invade Iraq to take on the American army, nor did Obaid even hint at such a possibility.

Yes, because after all, that's how they chose to intervene in Afghanistan.

Posted by: dj moonbat on November 29, 2006 06:59 PM

Saud's and Cheney hatched this up together. They get to pretend like they give a shit, and we get to pretend we have to stay to avoid a bigger civil war.

Posted by: Ed Marshall on November 29, 2006 07:13 PM

I thought three-ways were the great American dream?

Posted by: Saheli on November 29, 2006 08:43 PM

I smell a coup.

Sadr's group followed through on their threat to leave the government, at least temporarily. Maliki is out of the country. THere are leaked reports that the US has lost faith in Maliki anyway. The Badr Brigades and the Mahdi Army have been shooting at eachother. Sadr knows that his prestige is low in a stable Iraq - if he wants power, he must take it during strife.

I would not be surprised to hear of Shiite rivals to Sadr being killed in a wave of assassinations originally blamed on Sunnis. It would kill 2 birds with one stone - eliminate the rivals and be grounds for seizing power.

The biggest problem would be that there is not enough of a government left to seize. A coup depends on using the levers of the state to control the state. Iraq's got no damn levers left.

Posted by: Njorl on November 30, 2006 01:43 AM

I hadn't meant to be a tease. The gag was going to be repeated until it looked like there weren't going to be any more answers. Then, I got called away from the all 3 internets, and straight lines evaporated without Mr. Interlocutor here.

(As for "the beauty part", if you know the "You start the 'knock knock joke' gag, you know this one. That really isn't a tease in this case. It's a grievance.)

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on November 30, 2006 09:01 AM

lol, that's good.

Posted by: sex on January 31, 2008 08:25 AM

lol, thank for helps.

Posted by: porno on January 31, 2008 08:26 AM

thanks good documents

Posted by: msn nickleri on February 3, 2008 07:20 PM

thanks

Posted by: oktay usta on February 3, 2008 07:23 PM

thanks for good text

Posted by: oktay usta tarifleri on February 3, 2008 07:25 PM

Hi dear, i read this good information and find more interest informations for you. thanks.

Posted by: new game on February 6, 2008 06:48 AM

Hi dear, i read this good information and find more interest informations for you. thanks.

Posted by: new game on February 6, 2008 06:49 AM

thanks

Posted by: oyun indir on February 6, 2008 06:51 AM

thanks

Posted by: oyun indir on February 6, 2008 06:52 AM

thanks good documents

Posted by: Srudent Loans on February 10, 2008 04:35 PM

thanks good documents and text

Posted by: student loans on February 10, 2008 04:36 PM

Thanks for this! I never read Time since my parents passed away, so can you tell us if the inside of the issue was the same, or different? Must be different - did the Taliban story even appear in the Liebowitz issue?

Posted by: şahane show on February 17, 2008 02:58 PM

Bir Pirikette Sen Koy! Web Site is Down
http://www.piriketseverler.tr.gg

Posted by: PiriketSeverler on February 17, 2008 05:41 PM

thank you

Posted by: maswey on April 10, 2008 06:34 AM

thank you

Posted by: firefox nedir on April 13, 2008 04:59 AM

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

Posted by: sexshop on November 5, 2008 06:43 AM

thanks for all

Posted by: sex shop on March 29, 2009 03:57 PM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif