Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|7.21.04 @ 7:10AM|#
"...but he misses the point that...Saudi Arabia was anyway going to be a fount of extreme Islamism, and that the United States was going to continue defending the half-century quid pro quo that preserved the Saudi monarchy: American security for the kingdom in exchange for Saudi help in supplying oil, stabilizing international oil markets, and buying high-cost American technology."
Let me preface the following question with a complete disavowal of my expertise in regards to Saudi security concerns. Having done that, I understand that fifty years ago, Saudi Arabia had real good cause to be concerned about national defense, and I also understand that the Saudis had plenty to fear from Iran and Iraq in the eighties, certainly enough to merit some sort of security arrangement with the United States. But, other than internal dissent, right now, is there another significant threat to Saudi security?
I can see what the United States is getting out of the quid prop quo with Saudi Arabia, but, unless the United States has promised to help quell an uprising, I don't see what the Saudis are getting out of the bargain anymore. If there is another security threat, please, somebody point it out. Because if we already have guaranteed the security of the Saudi Monarchy against a revolt, and I don't yet have a definitive opinion on whether that�s a good thing or not, I think there should be a public debate about what that guarantee means for America.
I don�t like the idea of committing U.S. troops to secure the Saudi Monarchy, but I don't like the idea of Islamists taking control of the Saudi Oil fields either. I have a bias; it seems to me that groups like Al Qaeda command the level of support they do, at least in part, because historically, we have stood in the way of popular movements to topple authoritarian regimes in the Muslim World, notably Iran, Egypt and Isr...let's just say elsewhere. It�s hard to imagine the average American watching U.S. troops die to defend the Saudi Monarchy, but if such an effort were sold as being all about terrorism, who knows?
|7.22.04 @ 1:26AM|#
Young makes the point that successfully democratizing Iraq could put pressure on the House of Saud to democratize internally. The theory being, the US and Arab liberals could point to Iraq and say, "Why not in Riyadh?" True enough.
On the other hand, an attempt to democratize Iraq that failed (by, for example, allowing Saddam's hit man to seize power and start killing people; or by creating successionist movements that cause the central government to either fail, or wage a Chechen-style war) would entrench the Saudi's grip on power, by giving them an example to point to and say, "See what happens? You can't just barge in with your newfangled idealism and blah blah blah..."
Neocons' willingness to simply assume success has plagued this project from the get go.
|7.22.04 @ 1:40AM|#
Young's efforts to disprove the claim that the Bushes have made the situation worse also fall flat. His response to the charges is to point out that there are structural problems to which the bad outcomes can be attributed. Well yes, there certainly are. But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the Presidents Bush's connections to the oil industry and the House of Saud exacerbated those problems (by running interference when attempts were made to push for Arabian democracy, such as by tying military aid to reform), or blocked attempts to address those problems (by working against conservation and alternative energy projects).
The author claims A.
Young demonstrates B.
Young then concludes, Not A, B, even though B sheds no light at all on the question of A's validity.
|7.22.04 @ 12:58PM|#
because historically, we have stood in the way of popular movements to topple authoritarian regimes in the Muslim World, notably Iran, Egypt and Isr...let's just say elsewhere.
Yes! Our government has and is. So, instead of having our government make the same type of interventionist mistake in Saudi, that we have paid so dearly for, lets get the government off the back of our energy producers so that they can respond to market demand, who ever controls the Saudi oil fields.