1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by tigermission1, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    As I have said in the past, if the U.S. withdraws its troops from IRaq, Iraq will become nothing more than a proxy war between Sunni Arab states and Iran.

    The Sunni states (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan) have HUGE stakes in Iraq, and they won't be passive in protecting their interests...same holds true for Iran.

    Now, the Saudis have come forward and admitted as much...


    Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

    Stepping Into Iraq

    By Nawaf Obaid

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

    11/29/06 Washington Post -- In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

    One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

    Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.

    Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn't attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

    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. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

    Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.

    What's clear is that the Iraqi government won't be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.

    There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia's advice. Vice President Cheney's visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.

    In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.

    To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

    The writer, an adviser to the Saudi government, is 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. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect official
    Saudi policy.

    © Copyright 1996-2006 The Washington Post Company
     
  2. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Saudi will intervene in Iraq if US withdraws-aide

    By Reuters

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29311689.htm

    11/19/06 -- - WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Using money, weapons or its oil power, Saudi Arabia will intervene to prevent Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from massacring Iraqi Sunni Muslims once the United States begins pulling out of Iraq, a security adviser to the Saudi government said on Wednesday.

    Nawaf Obaid, writing in The Washington Post, said the Saudi leadership was preparing to revise its Iraq policy to deal with the aftermath of a possible U.S. pullout, and is considering options including flooding the oil market to crash prices and thus limit Iran's ability to finance Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

    "To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse," Obaid said.

    The article said the opinions expressed were Obaid's own and not those of the Saudi government.

    "To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region," he said.

    U.S. President George W. Bush will meet Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan on Wednesday to discuss a surge in Sunni-Shi'ite violence in Iraq.

    Bush has said he does not support calls for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but he is expected soon to receive proposals for possible changes in U.S. policy in Iraq from a bipartisan panel.

    Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer and exporter and a close U.S. ally, fears Shi'ite Iran has been gaining influence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein's government.

    U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney held talks with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on Saturday. Details were not disclosed.

    Obaid said Cheney's visit "underlines the pre-eminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq."

    He said if the United States begins withdrawing from Iraq, "one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

    Obaid listed three options being considered by the Saudi government:

    - 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", including funding and arms.

    - establishing new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias;

    - or the Saudi king "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 ... it would be devastating to Iran ... The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funnelling hundreds of millions each year to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."
     
  3. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    124,577
    Likes Received:
    33,571
    Great, let's leave tomorrow.

    DD
     
  4. weslinder

    weslinder Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    I was just about to ask if I were insensitive for thinking the same thing.
     
  5. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,311
    Likes Received:
    13,834
    Great. This is going to get real ugly.
     
  6. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,828
    Likes Received:
    39,147
    Talk is cheap. I'll believe it when I see it.



    D&D. It's Cold Outside.
     
  7. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    3,171
    So I think the term "civil war" doesn't even do justice to this conflict anymore. At least "civil war" implies some sort of self-contained conflict within one country, while this thing could become a regional sunni v. shi'ite war.

    If Saudi Arabia intervenes, I'm sure Iran wouldn't mind kicking in some support and then all hell breaks lose.

    Wow, Iraq is screwed...
     
  8. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
  9. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    42,748
    Likes Received:
    6,123
    1 If we hadn't invaded Iraq on completely false pretenses, this wouldn't be our problem.

    2 If the Bush administration hadn't run the war like a campaign event with his wet finger continually in the wind, we would have sent a lot more troops which could have kept a lid on things.

    The question is do we stay in Iraq indefinitely until "stability" is achieved. Another question is whether "stability" is possible. More and more average citizens, politicians and pundits say NO. If that is the case, we need to draw down in an orderly fashion and hand things over. If staying longer will achieve nothing more than additional loss of American life we need to get out.

    Nobody is surprised that the Sunni Arab countries would support the Sunnis in Iraq in a vicious fight against Iran and the Shias. That is the ultimate destiny of Iraq unless the violence somehow gets quelled. It's going to be very ugly because proxy wars like this are easy for nations to maintain a prolonged period.

    IMO, anybody who thinks the Bush Administration's Iraq invasion isn't a catastrophic disaster needs their head examined.
     
  10. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    And deadeye just returned from a weekend trip to Saudi.

    hummm......
     
  11. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    so this is bush's legacy
     
  12. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    nope!

    This is...
    [​IMG]
     
  13. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    116
    It already is "real ugly".
     
  14. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    yep its been since when gw's first days as president when he started talking about invading iraq
     
  15. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    I wonder where this leaves the Kurds..
     
  16. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    42,748
    Likes Received:
    6,123
    The U.S. will protect them. They have no other allies besides us. The eventual withdrawal from Iraq will include troops in the Kurdish areas. Another reason they are needed is to curb their ambitions and prevent them from inflaming Turkey, who would like nothing more than to come in and smash them down.
     
  17. Saint Louis

    Saint Louis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    4,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Independent, which they won't mind at all.
     
  18. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    Unless US troops stay to protect the Kurds I doubt things well go well for them. None of the people in the region like the Kurds and an all out fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Iraq will end up spilling into Kurdish territory. Turkey, Iran and Syria could capitalise on an all out war by taking out the Kurds while they are at it.
     
  19. Saint Louis

    Saint Louis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    4,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see the U.S. supporting the Kurds for a very long time. Sort of a situation where Kurdistan becomes Israel-lite.
     
  20. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    yap I don't think the cabal can turn their back on all those oil reserves.. this is their mission
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now