Levin wants U.S. out of Saudi Arabia By Pamela Hess UPI Pentagon Correspondent WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants the United States to close the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia and shift its air operation to another base in the region, possibly Bahrain. "The situation at the Saudi base seems very unclear. We may need to move that base," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., at a breakfast meeting with reporters. "I have an unease about our presence in Saudi Arabia. I think we may be able to find a place where we are much more welcomed openly." Last fall, according to news reports, the Saudi government denied the United States permission to use Prince Sultan Air Base to command the air war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon denied that was the case and said it was satisfied with the cooperation from that government. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has adopted an unwavering policy of not describing other countries' support for the U.S. war on terrorism because of the political difficulty it can cause for the governments. Suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden has made the expulsion of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia a central theme in his exhortations against that government. Levin said behind the scenes, the Saudi government is no more welcoming than it behaves publicly. "I do think there is a real problem when we are told by a country, presumably an ally, doesn't want us to be seen," he said. "They act as though somehow or other they are doing us a favor." The U.S. military has permanently manned bases in Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War, when it was invited into the country by King Fahd to protect it from the advancing Iraqi army. Since 1991, the U.S. military has been enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq out of Saudi Arabia. U.S. service personnel were based in downtown Dharan until 1996, when a truck bomb was detonated near a dormitory known as Khobar Towers, killing 19 and wounded nearly 500 others. For security reasons, the military soon decamped to Prince Sultan Air Base, a desert airstrip about 50 miles from Riyadh. About 4,600 service members serve in Saudi Arabia at any one time, with as many as 25,000 Americans cycling through the base in a single year. Nevertheless, the Saudi government officially denies the presence of American forces in the increasingly restive country; if pressed, government officials will say only that "U.N." forces are represented in the country. The no-fly zones were tacitly approved by the U.N. Security Council. Levin cites a number of concerns he has with Saudi Arabia, beginning with the fact that as many as a dozen of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, according to the FBI. "What really troubles me the fact that so more of those fighters are Saudis. ... We're not sure they want you there," Levin said. Levin's chief concern, however, may be that the Saudi government funds the Islamic religious schools known as madrassas where some of the most radical Muslims are trained. Saudi-funded madrassas in Pakistan were a breeding ground for the Taliban. Noting that many Muslim countries have restrictive customs that affect U.S. service members, Levin said the madrassas tip the balance sheet for him against Saudi Arabia. "What makes it a little different ... is the support that comes from that country for the madrassas," he said. "I think if the Saudi government wanted (it could) prevent that from happening." The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, denied that charge. "The kingdom of Saudi Arabia prohibits the teaching of hatred and violence. Charges that Saudi Arabia funds such schools are baseless ... and lack an understanding of our culture, society and laws." "Our two nations share the goal of peace. I have great respect for Sen. Levin, but I am surprised by his statements," said Bandar. "If he has any concerns, I urge him to visit Saudi Arabia and personally assess the extent of cooperation and support we are giving the international coalition." Levin just returned from a trip to the region and said he was told by Uzbek President Islam Karimov, whose country has been home to 1,000 U.S. soldiers for several months, that the military is welcomed there. "His attitude was 'thank God you are doing what you are doing ...we're not doing you a favor, you are doing us a favor, you are doing the world a favor in going after terrorism.' You don't get that sense in Saudi Arabia. They are acting like they are doing us a favor." The Justice Department has had its own frustrations with the Saudi government. In 1995, a terrorist bombing killed four Americans working in the Saudi capital with the Saudi National Guard. The Saudi courts refused to allow the FBI to interview the bombers, who may have had ties to Osama bin Laden. The men were beheaded. The government also refused to allow the FBI to interrogate suspects and review evidence in the Khobar Towers bombing. An American grand jury in June 2001 handed down indictments against the Dhahran terrorists, about five of whom sit in Saudi jails, according to the Justice Department. The Saudi government has thus far refused to extradite the men to stand trial in the United States. Levin also mentioned as distasteful the restrictive policies U.S. military personnel must follow, particularly females. In December, the highest-ranking female fighter pilot in the Air Force, Lt. Col. Martha McSally, filed a lawsuit against the Defense Department which -- in deference to local Muslim custom -- requires women to wear long robes and head scarves when they leave the base. No such garb is required for men, and the State Department only requires that its female employees dress conservatively in the country. "Our women are not comfortable (there.) I hope that means none of us is comfortable," Levin said. "Some of the restrictions the Saudis place on us are unappealing. There may be places in the area we can have greater use with out restrictions." U.S. service members are prohibited from allowing the members of the opposite sex to visit their tents, restricted to sunbathing except in the immediate area of their tent, and they must be fully dressed when outside their tents at all times, according to U.S. Central Command. About 1,000 U.S. military members, mostly Navy, are currently serving in Bahrain. http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/15012002-032907-7931r.htm I think it's time to move the troops. Into Iraq.
Insane in the mem-Bah-rain... Question: If we move to stop the West's oil dependency on the Middle East, these guys become irrelevant, right? There's not much reason to fight (neither West/Iraq/Iran nor Saudi/Iraq) over a resource that we wouldn't need. See how much 'funding' the Saudis dole out when they're not making any cash. Not to say that I'm against taking out Saddam. I believe that working multilaterally was a good first step, but moving unilaterally is a must if the 'coalition' doesn't want to move on Iraq. Even countries like Libya and Cuba are coming around and seeking normalized relations with us these days. I say we concentrate on those that are truly rogue states, like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.
HayesStreet: I'm all for breaking our dependency on ME oil, only problem is we can't do it overnight. I've seen estimates that range from 20 to 50 years, regarding how long it would take to get off of ME oil. Hopefully we could do it in 10-15 years, but I doubt we could. But I'm all for moving in that direction as swiftly as possible... Yes, they'd become irrelevant. It would, in fact, be the worst possible thing that could happen to them, because it is their only significant source of income. It would absolutely shatter their economies. But my view on that is: they should have thought of that before. Instead of educating their populations to recite the Koran and kill infidels and Jews, they should have been educating them to survive in the 21st century economy. And we've got to do what we've got to do to survive, which includes breaking our dependency on oil... In the meantime, I'd remove Saddam and replace the Saudis with a democratic Iraq as our primary supplier. As for the other comments, I've said from the beginning that I think that the only major combat theatres we'll see will be in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Iran, Somalia, and Syria/Lebanon/Hizbollah as possible conflict areas (I left out Yemen, but I'd add that one here now). I don't think it will be necessary to run all over the globe beating the crap out of everyone; as you mentioned Cuba and Libya are changing their ways, for example. Although Pakistan raises some questions if Musharaf falls... But mainly just Afghan and Iraq. The mullahs in Iran have of recent decided not to cooperate, but I think we'd be better off fostering the latent revolution that exists there already to deal with them.
<B>Yes, they'd become irrelevant. It would, in fact, be the worst possible thing that could happen to them, because it is their only significant source of income. It would absolutely shatter their economies. But my view on that is: they should have thought of that before. </B> Depends... China and India have a combined 3 billion people entering the "first world" economies over the next 15-20 years. The US could reduce their dependence on ME oil, but that doesn't mean the ME won't have other new emerging markets to sell to.
Major: Do you really think that China and India are going to reach the "first world" that quickly? They're third world right now. And that pesky overpopulation problem they have isn't going to go away... Of course, there are other buyers in the market for ME oil. But just take a look at who the primary buyer is. We buy more oil than most of the rest of the world combined. Guess how much income the Saudis have lost over the past 4 months or so just as a result of the recession and the recent period of overpricing? Around 60%. That is due to the relatively modest drop in demand seen in the US in response to the energy crisis we suffered last year. Imagine what happens when they lose all demand from the US? Their economies would not survive. And without US purchase there would be no infrastructure investment in their industry either, which would compound the problem. Their petrochemical industry would dissolve - foreign purchases would not be nearly enough to keep them afloat. Those drilling facilities and refineries cost alot of $ to run... And there's no one to bail them out of that mess.
Yeah, I think the 50 years quotes are coming from the petro lobby. Not a suprise there. Major, As the goal of both China and India is to be considered a 'major' (no pun) or leading nation on the world scene, it would be antithetical for them to sit back and watch as the West moved beyond a dependency on the ME for petro. If we develop the technology to overcome the dependency, they would certainly want to follow suit.
HayesStreet: I'm not so sure that they'd be able to follow suit - the changeover would cost a lot of cash. My guess is that they'd opt instead to fight each other over the South China Sea (huge oil deposits there) in order to become major oil producers themselves. If the ME oil industries went belly-up, that would be their only real option... Of course, they don't have nearly as much petrochem infrastructure built up as we do, so it wouldn't be as costly (relatively) for them to change. They could semi-"leap" the development they're expected to go through, and instead develop a sort of hybrid energy apparatus. Sort of half-green/half-petro... But I don't see them becoming totally free of the oil fix.
I twould probably take at least 20 years to fully integrate a new energy infrastructure, which would probably be hydrogen/solar with hydro and wind power in applicable regions. If the infrastructure were already in place, such would already be close to cost competitive. Unfortunately, the infrastructure requires such massive investment that nobody wants to do this right now. Actually, it would probably be beneficial for these states in the long run. Exploiting one's national resources for wealth is useless unless you use the money to build economic infrastructure. It seems surprising that the Gulf states hadn't learned this lesson from the past and other cases (See: Spain). Aggregately, no... but parts of China and India are industrializing rapidly. Coastal China is a huge economic unit and quickly modernizing. In India, there's even a "silicon valley" type region. India and China are simply so massive that parts of it will likely be "modern" in a mere 10-15 years. Other parts will likely be backwards for decades to come.
haven: Only of they make it through the short run. The short run would be extremely chaotic; expect quite a bit of conflict in the area until they are able to reorient their economies. But oc course, that (economic reorientation) would require a significant investment in secular education; since they would be deprived of their traditional income resource, and they have very little else, they would have to gear up to take part in an information economy. They won't get that if all they can do is recite the Koran... But they will either do that, or they will become the new century's Afghanistan. As for China and India, you're correct. The problem is with the massive imbalance between the technical elite and the rest of the country. Both countries have modern sectors, but in both countries the massive majority of the inhabitants are illiterate farmers (China) or "untouchables" (India). Ethnically, they are each divided as well. IMO, they are just as likely to each face civil war and breakup as they are to advance towards 21st century infrastructures and economic states. Time will tell.
<B>Both countries have modern sectors, but in both countries the massive majority of the inhabitants are illiterate farmers (China) or "untouchables" (India). </B> Have you been to India anytime recently? I'm not sure you have a real accurate picture of what India is today, or at least none of the parts I've been to.
<B>Do you really think that China and India are going to reach the "first world" that quickly? They're third world right now. And that pesky overpopulation problem they have isn't going to go away... </B> Of course not. Nor are we going to be completely independent from ME Oil in 15-20 years. We'll have made progress, and they'll have made progress. And that ignores the rest of the world. I think you underestimate the buying power of 5.5 billion people outside of the US's 300 million people. <B>As the goal of both China and India is to be considered a 'major' (no pun) or leading nation on the world scene, it would be antithetical for them to sit back and watch as the West moved beyond a dependency on the ME for petro. If we develop the technology to overcome the dependency, they would certainly want to follow suit.</B> Hayes, that's much easier said than done. Even 1st world countries (such as western Europe) are far behind us in everyday technologies. For the 3rd world to catch us in leading technologies will take far longer.
Are you going to try and tell me that the vast majority of India's inhabitants are not dirt poor? I did not say that they are all poor, just that the vast majority of them are. That is a fact. It is something that will not change quickly, either. There may be as many as 200 million "technical elites" in each country (although likely less than that in reality). But that still leaves 800 million (India) and 1.1 billion (China) people who are dirt poor... I think you underestimate the buying power of the US's 300 million people. More importantly, you do not appear to be familiar with the demographics of global energy consumption. We are far and away the global leader in that category, which is more relevant to ME oil production than buying power anyway. Go play around at the World Bank's website. You'll see what I'm talking about. As for making progress in conversion to alternate energy sources, they (China, India, etc) would actually have a leg up on us in that arena. They do not have nearly the level of infrastructure invested in oil economies that we do, and therefore have less of an incentive to remain in an oil economy. Ever heard of "leapfrogging" technologies? It's similar to the leap third world countries are making in telecommunications areas; they don't have extensive telecom infrastructure set up to handle installation of phone lines everywhere, but they aren't about to start laying cables. They use cellphones instead. The principle is the same with regards to energy sources, particularly with regards to petrochemical industries that are costly and take enormous amounts of time and resources to develop...
<B>Are you going to try and tell me that the vast majority of India's inhabitants are not dirt poor? I did not say that they are all poor, just that the vast majority of them are. That is a fact. It is something that will not change quickly, either. </B> No, I'm pointing out that either you have no clue what an "untouchable" is, or you're making stuff up as you go. To be honest, I don't really care, the point is the same: you have no clue what you're talking about. As for changing quickly, take a look at growth rates of some of these upper-3rd-world countries. Did the industrial revolution in the US slowly or rapidly affect growth & use of energy here? <B>There may be as many as 200 million "technical elites" in each country (although likely less than that in reality). But that still leaves 800 million (India) and 1.1 billion (China) people who are dirt poor... </B> ... and guess what dirt-poor people buy when they get to the "regular poor" stage? That's right, cheap inefficient cars (or scooters, in India) which happen to be ... gas-inefficient. <B>I think you underestimate the buying power of the US's 300 million people. </B> No, you're looking at today. I'm looking at 20 years from now. The need for power in the coming decades will dwarf anything we've seen today, and the ME will continue to have a vibrant market with or without us. To think that suddenly they'll be dirt poor without us is ludicrous.
Then enlighten me, so I "don't have to make stuff up as I go"... Since I am apparently misinformed, and India is really not full of people who are destitute, what is the reality? Tell me? This should be interesting... This goes to the old question of what is more important: rates of growth or quantities ammassed through growth. It's an absolute vs. a relative, and depending on the situation, one or the other can be more important. In this situation, the relative growth rates (of per capita energy consumption, I assume you're indicating) are not nearly as important as the actual kwh used - in relation to the US. They've got a long, long way to go before they catch our dust in that respect. Even given high grotth rates in those areas, the absolute quantity of consumption won't approach ours for decades - maybe even more than a century. I know. That's why I personally think any treaties we sign and adhere to concerning emissions are pointless, if the goal is a global reduction of emissions. The pollution is/will be coming from the third world. But this does not preclude leapfrogging. Hell, that new scooter thingy might not catch on here, but it would probably be very popular in other areas - particularly overpopulated areas... It's just a matter of cost. That's what it's really all about, no matter where you are. When it becomes cheaper (more accurately, when people realize that it's cheaper) to go green, then demand for green technologies will rise, and the energy interests will be forced to respond. Third world areas did without phones altogether in many areas until cellphones became affordable. You seem to forget who the three major buyers of ME oil are: the US, Western Europe, and Japan. These three entities also happen to constitute the largest chunk - nearly all, in absolute #s - of the world's power consumption. That is not going to decrease, and unless third world countries such as China and India suddenly find vast new sources of wealth, they will not suddenly become the #4 or #5 parts of that large chunk. Western Europe is going green. Japan is leaning in that direction, as are we. The ME is in trouble, and if you think it isn't... Well, you're vastly underestimating the impact that European, American, and Japanese consumption has on their economies. And will continue to have 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now. Hell, we might have cold fusion by then. What do you think THAT would do to their economies?
Well my point is more along the telecommunications infrastructure analogy. If we develop the alternative energies here, those countries will be able to skip a step. It is FACT that this has happened in India and much of other underdeveloped regions. Each increment we advance is one less increment of older tech those countries would have to invest in, and then turn away from. These countries are not going to say 'OK, we WON'T use as much energy as the US/West,' but they have no incentive to ignore new more efficient and hopefully cheaper technologies that could replace (for example) fossil fuels.
Major: Go to the CIA factbook - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html Look at the economy sections of India and China. Note energy consumption levels (unemployment, poverty, literacy rates, and per capita GDP are also telling). Then look at the US and Japan, and the Western European countries. Or like I said, go play around at the World Bank site (it's '.org', not '.com')... I know that they have high growth rates in many areas, but they've got a long, long way to go.
