Okay, I'm a little surprised by the following. Is it just a wink-wink, nudge-nudge sort of thing? ---------------------------------------------------------- (from the Straits Times) US can't use our bases, insists Saudi minister Pentagon says the military can still strike Iraq even without Saudi help, although it will be more difficult WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia will not permit bases on its soil to be used in an attack against Iraq, its northern neighbour, and will not grant flyover rights to US military planes even if the United Nations sanctions an invasion, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal has said. The remarks by the prince on CNN were the strongest Saudi rejection to date of any assistance to a possible US attack on Iraq. Although the Pentagon says the United States is able to launch such an attack without Saudi assistance, military officials agree that doing so would constrain the strategic options open to war planners. More than 5,000 US troops are based in Saudi Arabia, and the country is bristling with US military equipment and weaponry. 'We can live without Saudi bases, but it obviously makes it tougher,' one military official said on Sunday. 'If they don't at least give us flyover rights, it's going to be a lot more complex moving supplies and people over there.' Asked if Prince Saud's comments marked a serious military setback to any US-led effort against Iraq, Ms Mary Matalin, counsellor to Vice-President Dick Cheney, said on CNN's Late Edition that other allies in the region would fill the gap if necessary. 'We have many friends and allies in the region, and we have many friends and allies around the world,' she said. 'We would never engage unless we were sure that we could get the job done well.' Saudi officials have gone back and forth for months on the issue of basing rights for US forces in the event of an invasion of Iraq, most recently saying that the US could use the bases if the attack was sanctioned by the UN - and they had left the window open on allowing US combat, reconnaissance or refuelling planes to land on Saudi soil. On Sunday, however, Prince Saud appeared to take Saudi opposition further.
Turkey's new leadership is saying no also, although there might be some kind of UN caveat there (I can't find the article offhand anymore).
Does this surprise anybody? Saudi Arabia and Turkey (witness the recent election of Islamicist party there) have strong fundamentalist factions that are simply not going to go along with a US attack of Iraq, with, or without UN approval.
isn't it screwed up that Matalin and Carville are married? It reminds me of being a 7 year old, in awe of pro-wrestling, only to have my father tell me it's all make-believe, the wrestlers are best friends.
I've looked around, B-Bob, and I'm thinking that this is for domestic consumption. That and the fact that the Saudi leadership is scared s***less of most everything fundamental, unless they control it. It must be trying for them to rule that country with 2000 or so princes and their wives, who must number in the five figures. Wouldn't want to upset the applecart. I think they'll do what we really need, as secretly as possible, but they are very unhappy with the whole idea. They like the status quo. I would like to know what they think the status quo is.
Dear Prince, As a state sponsor of terrorism, we note you are also an Enemy of the United States. Please note any attack on the United States will be an act of war. By the way, nice oil. Have a nice day. Yr pal, George.
The party has Islamic roots, yet has tried to tone down that inclination lately. <A HREF="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=226510&contrassID=">Party with Islamic roots leading in Turkish elections</A> <i>........A party with Islamic roots taking power could lead to instability and tensions in the region. Observers point out that many of the party's loyalists were members of previous more radical movement and may not be satisfied with the non-confrontational attitude adopted by their leaders. But others point out that if the party continues its moderate stance, it could serve as a bridge between the Middle East and Europe as Islamic radicalism is increasing. "It will tell people that there is a case where Islam is compatible with democracy. It will be a wonderful message out to the world and to Muslim countries," said Soner Cagaptay, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Parliament set the November election date- 18 months ahead of schedule- after Ecevit fell ill earlier this year.</i>
<A HREF="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=226510&contrassID=">Party with Islamic roots leading in Turkish elections</A> <i> ........During the campaign, the party says it would concentrate on social welfare, support Turkey's $31 billion IMF-backed recovery program and has hinted that it would support a U.S.-led operation in Iraq if it has United Nations approval.............</i>
The Turks want assurances that there will not be an independent Kurdish state carved out of post-war Iraq. Hopefully the Justice Party will remain moderate and committed to Turkey's goals of EU membership and continuing their tradition of secular democracy. It's basically a wait & see kinda thing.
Hey y'all. Thanks for the thoughts. I think the bit that actually surprised me was the following phrase: "... even if the United Nations sanctions an invasion ..." I typically see S. A. as rolling over when the "west" agrees on something. I suppose, as Elvis C. posted, the issue is just too provocative to the citizenry. Don't assume, by the way, that I'm all fired up to attack Iraq. Whatever one's opinion about US foreign policy, S. A. (and Turkey, yes), are going to be pretty important players.
