May 31, 2005

Berman's Bases: Blast Proof Barracks Bad?

Ari Berman, busily cheerleading abdication and retreat from Iraq, adds:

Rather than prepare an exit strategy, the US military is instead planning to consolidate its forces in four massive American bases in Iraq. The move is not part of a plan to establish a permanent US military presence, officials assured the Washington Post. But the structures have distinctly permanent characteristics, replete with blast-proof barracks. The funding came as part of the $82 billion supplemental approved a few weeks back. Congress, to be sure, raised nary a peep.

"Replete with blast-proof barracks?" "Congress...raised nary a peep." Excuse me while I stifle a giggle. Would Berman be happier if we didn't make the barracks blast-proof? You know, just for appearances sake. That way perhaps, Berman and Co. wouldn't tediously go on with these dark intimations about permanent garrisons being erected through Mesopotamia. And I'm sure our soldiers in theater would be only too happy to oblige with anything that might help the bases look a bit less permanent, lest any good folk at the Nation be offended. After all, it's not like blast-proof barracks might be a good idea these days in Iraq...

But it's not all this out and out pitiable at the Nation this week. Katrina vanden Heuvel has some helpful links to Iranian blogs.


Posted by Gregory at May 31, 2005 06:13 AM | TrackBack (4)
Comments

You might want to check those blinders. You completely fail to see the point of Ari's article, but then you do not with Phil Carter's (and that is a point in your favor).

Posted by: Fry Cook at May 31, 2005 07:28 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Fight and win -- and stay until it is won.
Or run away! (Perhaps we could confuse them if we run away some more.)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at May 31, 2005 09:36 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

You might want to check those blinders. You completely fail to see the point of Ari's article

We have to feel sorry for Greg. Intellectually, he's come to realize that the Bush regime is a complete and absolute failure --- and that his knee-jerk support for Bush over the last two-and-a-half years reveals how gullible he was. That's a very hard thing to handle, and every once in a while he winds up writing stuff that is simply stupid (like this, his support for Bolton, etc) because he needs to feel like there was some basis for him to have accepted Bush's lies.

But go back and read his archives, and you will see how far he's come.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 31, 2005 10:34 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

What Ari and the anti-Bush gang fail (or refuse) to realize is that there is a difference between "permanent" construction (bricks and mortar) and temporary bases (tents). To call a base permanent is to admit nothing more than that it is made of bricks and mortar.

With the except of Gitmo, is there a single American base anywhere in the world that would not be abandoned upon request of the host government? Permanent construction does not equal political permanence.

Personally, also, I am fascinated by the tension between the "Bush is an incompetent boob who hasn't put enough troops into Iraq" meme and the "Chimpler McBushiburton is planning to annex Iraq with permanent bases" meme, which are often uttered by one and the same people.

Posted by: R C Dean at May 31, 2005 12:50 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

But Dean, you forgot to mention the obvious Parallel Universe that our friends at the Bush Is Hitler Club live in. It sort of goes like this.

If "A": George Bush is Hitler.

And "B": George Bush is Ronald McDonald

Then "C": Ronald McDonald MUST BE Hitler!

QED! Do you want fries with that?

Posted by: Section9 at May 31, 2005 01:26 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Tom Grey:

"Bravely rode Sir Berman ..."
*************

p.lukasiak:
You are obviously projecting your own feelings of foolishness at your blind opposition to this administration's policies. Your predicament would be hilariously ironic if the attitudes of you and yours didn't have such serious, negative consequences on our nation.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at May 31, 2005 05:04 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Maybe our troops ought to sleep in biodegradable tents so that Western commentators Iraqi citizens won't think too badly of them?

Posted by: John Robinson at May 31, 2005 05:04 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink


Things must be getting desperate for this website if the person who runs it must resort to pointing fingers at others to hide his own stupidity.

So yes, let's burn a thousand copies of the Nation! That will really help solve the problems in Iraq!

Posted by: seaney at May 31, 2005 05:13 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Personally, also, I am fascinated by the tension between the "Bush is an incompetent boob who hasn't put enough troops into Iraq" meme and the "Chimpler McBushiburton is planning to annex Iraq with permanent bases" meme, which are often uttered by one and the same people.

there is no tension between the two statements. The variety of stupid decisions that can be made is practically infinite -- and Bushco seems to be trying to run through as many of the potential dumb decisions in as short a time as possible.

Bush was an idiot to think he could just waltz into Iraq, and the entire populace would start singing America the Beautiful. He's equally an idiot to be spending tens of billions of dollars to build a bunch of permanent bases for US troops in Iraq.

Keep in mind that these bases have been in the pipeline from the very beginning of the invasion planning --- that the decision to build all these bases is not being made because Bushco screwed up its Iraq adventure so badly that its going to take at least a decade to return Iraq to stability --- if we are lucky. The Bush regime's goal was to make Iraq a de facto US colony with permanently garrisoned troops--- and the permanent bases became even more critical when prior to the invasion, Saudi Arabia announced it was throwing the US out of the "semi-permanent" bases we had there.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 31, 2005 05:25 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

We withdrew from the Saudi bases, we werent thrown out. Thats one of the side benefits of the changed strategic position with Saddam gone.

It certainly makes no sense to signigicantly draw down US troops now, with the Iraqi army just now engaged in its first large scale operations, and still dependent on US backup.

I see no reason why a bricks and mortar base means permanence. Heck, the Iraqi army will need bases, and we can turn the bases over to them when we are ready to leave.

I also dont see how the presence of US bases makes Iraq a colony. Are Italy, Germany, Japan, South Korea, US colonies?

Posted by: liberalhawk at May 31, 2005 06:23 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"Things must be getting desperate for this website if the person who runs it must resort to pointing fingers at others to hide his own stupidity.

So yes, let's burn a thousand copies of the Nation! That will really help solve the problems in Iraq!"

its common for blogs to argue with other blogs and media sources. I cant think of one that doesnt.

The problems of Iraq will be solved by the Iraqi people with the support of American forces. Which are still needed. Which was Gregs point, I think.

Posted by: liberalhawk at May 31, 2005 06:25 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"We withdrew from the Saudi bases, we werent thrown out. Thats one of the side benefits of the changed strategic position with Saddam gone."

Yeah, and the Marines never retreated during the Korean War, they just advanced in a different direction. You don't think the Saudis suggested heavily that we leave? Those digs in Riyahd and KFIA were pretty sweet, and the movement probably cost millions. I don't think we got to choose the withdrawal conditions.

Posted by: J. at May 31, 2005 08:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

REVELATION:

So now we must "Keep in mind that these bases have been in the pipeline from the very beginning of the invasion planning."

Whaaa? I thought that there wasn't any planning for the post-war period?

Luka, you and your travellers had best get your stories straight - 2006 looms large.

Posted by: Tommy G at June 1, 2005 12:04 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Luk / liberalhawk / J. :

The issue of SAUDI -- not Iraqi -- bases is key to the whole motivation of the completely pointless US invasion of Iraq.

In case any of you have forgotten, the removal of US bases from Saudi was a KEY demand of Osama -- one whiich he CLEARLY succeeded in achieving, something known to EVERYONE in the Arab / Muslim world, DESPITE the fact that this somehow seems to have been missed / forgotten by most people in the US, ESPECIALLY supporters of the adventure in Iraq.

In this context, the whole invasion of Iraq can be legitimately understood as a DIVERSION concocted for AMERICAN public opinion -- the only group foolish enough to believe ANY of the serial rationales for the invasion -- so that they would FAIL to realize that Bush had pussied out COMPLETELY to Osama in leaving the Saudi bases.

To be sure, it was the -- no, they're not corrupt -- Saudi elite that asked the US to leave ... but a) that just proves how much Osama scares THEM; and b) Bush COULD have simply told THEM to fuck off -- that he would be damned if he were going to run away at Osama's behest.

In fact, tho, that's EXACTLY what Bush did -- run away from Saudi Arabia, where, J. is TOTALLY correct, the US had the BEST base set-up in the Muslim world. And this quavering in front of Osama is EXACTLY what Bush does EVERY time.

And WHY ??? Because a decisive rejection of political Islam on the VALUES -- rather than operational -- level is more or less impossible WITHOUT a straightforward embrace of secularism -- and THAT is something Bush is completely AFRAID TO DO because it would upset Karl Rove's favorite element of the corporate / Christian right coalition, the Christian right.

So instead of telling the Saudis to fuck off -- that he's not going to run from Osama -- Bush MEEKLY accepts the diktat of political Islam and leaves Saudi Arabia at the same moment he invades Iraq -- a move to make AMERICANS think he's tough, when, in fact, he's a craven coward.

Hopefully, people will start realizing that the POINTLESS invasion of Iraq is nothing more than a diversion to make AMERICANS only -- because Europe and the Arab / Muslim world realize what's going on -- think that Bush is "tough" in dealing with "terrorism", when, in reality, he runs away from political Islam at every opportunity.

Posted by: Grok Your World.com at June 1, 2005 08:02 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Re: saudi bases

Saudi bases were a problem, and embarrassment for the US military since Operation Desert Shield - am I the only one old enough to remember the whining about the special conditions for women soldiers, the agonizing (by folks other than OBL) about US troops in the land of Mecca and Medina, the complaints about the US being implicated in Saudis rights record?

Do I think the Saudis were unhappy with our presence - sure - theyve been unhappy with it since 1991. Thats not NEW. We've been none too happy with it either. The fall of Saddam made it more feasible to leave. Which is to the MUTUAL benefit of the US and KSA.

Is it something OBL asked for? Sure. OBL has also asked for a Palestinian state - should we oppose that cause it would be giving in to terrorists? Doing things that make strategic and moral sense for us is not giving in. If it undercuts one of OBLs appeals, thats a bonus.

Besides, OBLs real goals are NOT getting the US out of KSA, achieving a Pal state, or giving Kashmir to Pakistan. Any more than Hitler was really concerned with discrimination against Sudeten Germans. His goal is an Islamist Caliphate ruling the entire muslim world (maximally defined)

Posted by: liberalhawk at June 1, 2005 02:47 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"So instead of telling the Saudis to fuck off "

youre seriously suggesting that the US should insist on keeping bases in a country where the govt says to leave (which is what you claim happened)? Isnt that imperialist aggression? Ya think wed have UNSC support for that?

We're fighting against the Qutbist strain of Wahabism, NOT all political Islam. We were not attacked by the moderate Islamists of Turkey, or by the Dawa party of Iraq - making enemies of them would be folly, they are valuable allies against Qutbism.

Should we be at war not just with Qutbism, but with Wahabism? Do we want KSA to go up in flames? Do we want the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt to go over to violence? I think these would be very dangerous risks, and probably not worth taking. You can disagree, of course, but to suggest that anyone who disagrees can do so only out of US domestic political concerns is absurd. I am neither a Christian, nor a Republican, and I would be reluctant to follow the policies you appear to suggest.

Posted by: liberalhawk at June 1, 2005 02:53 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

REVELATION:

So now we must "Keep in mind that these bases have been in the pipeline from the very beginning of the invasion planning."

Whaaa? I thought that there wasn't any planning for the post-war period?

These two statements aren't inconsistent. It's certainly possible to plan for permanent bases while otherwise failing to plan for occupying post-war Iraq.

Posted by: Guy at June 1, 2005 04:25 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Grok....

I think its wrong to state/imply that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by a need for replacement military bases in the middle east. Most of the PNAC types that dominate the Bush regime wanted to invade Iraq even before Bush was selected in 2000 ---- to Bushies, its a question of Global Manifest Destiny.

But its also fair to suspect that getting the US out of Saudi Arabia was a precondition for greater Saudi co-operation in the "war on terror." Support of the Wahhabist by the Saudi royals was a political (not a religious) decision designed to buy off the fundamentalist Muslims who were concerned with the US presence. And had the royal family cracked down on radical fundamentalists while allowing the US military presence, the potential for "civil war" in Saudi Arabia was considerable.


These two statements aren't inconsistent. It's certainly possible to plan for permanent bases while otherwise failing to plan for occupying post-war Iraq.

precisely. The "post-war planning" was the equivalent of making plans to throw house parties after buying some land and building materials --- but never bothering to do the necessary property and land use surveys and getting a blueprint for building the house itself. So instead of the palatial mansion that was perfect for house parties, the owners of the property are living in a Winnebago.....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at June 2, 2005 11:37 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"These two statements aren't inconsistent. It's certainly possible to plan [for permanent bases] while otherwise failing to plan [for occupying post-war Iraq]."

Oh-Kaaaaaaaaay -

So now it's possible to plan for something permanent while not planning for the environment in which it will maintain said permanence....


You know what? Nevermind. You go girls - looking forward to the next election cycle.

Posted by: Tommy G at June 3, 2005 02:14 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Wait a minute, we're not at war with Wahhabism; boy that's news to me; Qutbism is only really the
20th century Egyptian variant, common to Dr.
Zawahiri, Sheikh Rahman, Seif al Adel, & Osama
through his tutor; Syed's brother. The history of
the KSA shows why the strategy of avoiding Western influence doesn't work. the Saud's, over the Hashemites and the Rashidi's were the most pious of the clans; the Utaibi; run a close second, that's why the Riyadh siege leader, came from them. the Al Ghamdi clan, from whence the fmr.
Ambass. to Sudan, and their shahid inclined brood
spring are another example, as are the Quahtani;
which have provided at least one attempted hijackers and several suicide bombers

Posted by: narciso at June 3, 2005 02:16 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"These two statements aren't inconsistent. It's certainly possible to plan [for permanent bases] while otherwise failing to plan [for occupying post-war Iraq]."

Oh-Kaaaaaaaaay -

So now it's possible to plan for something permanent while not planning for the environment in which it will maintain said permanence....

Yup, it's called "poor planning".

Posted by: Guy at June 3, 2005 04:45 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

liberalhawk / luk / narcisco :

Please excuse my late response ... things have been very busy on a number of fronts lately ...

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/

Will respond to the points made momentarily ...

Thanks.

Posted by: Grok Your World.com at June 3, 2005 07:11 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

liberalhawk 1:

"Saudi bases were a problem, and embarrassment for the US military since Operation Desert Shield"

I don't really think we would have continued to build up those bases in the years since 91 if they were really a "problem" or "embarrassment" -- to the contrary, they were crucial for BOTH the US AND Saudi Arabia in the post 91 years ...

"the complaints about the US being implicated in Saudis rights record?"

You don't think we're STILL implicated in the Saudis rights record ???

"Do I think the Saudis were unhappy with our presence - sure - theyve been unhappy with it since 1991."

Which Saudis ??? The royal family ??? Not at all. The Islamists -- for sure ... which only supports the point ...

"The fall of Saddam made it more feasible to leave. Which is to the MUTUAL benefit of the US and KSA."

In what POSSIBLE way can it be to their mutual benefit ??? This assertion is not really an argument ...

"Is it something OBL asked for? Sure. OBL has also asked for a Palestinian state - should we oppose that cause it would be giving in to terrorists? Doing things that make strategic and moral sense for us is not giving in. If it undercuts one of OBLs appeals, thats a bonus."

But you see, LH, THAT'S the problem. 1) It only INCREASES OBL's appeal in the Arab / Muslim world -- because he was able to push the US out of KSA when no one else was able to do so.

In the same way, that part of the reason Hezbollah is considered a "national" force in Lebanon -- even by Sunni -- is because they were seen as the only people who were able to get the Israelis to leave Southern Lebanon.

Does this mean they shouldn't have left ??? Of course not -- because they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

But it DOES show what a dangerous game they were playing, because -- whether they intended to or not -- their departure ended up giving Hezbollah a LOT more legitimacy than they would have otherwise had.

Same with pulling out of the Saudi bases for the US -- it gave Osama HUGE "street cred" in the ummah Islamiyyah ...

2) Which also indicates your surprising misunderstanding of political Islam -- do you really think that if they get something that they want, they all of a sudden say to themselves, "Well, maybe the US -- or their apostate lackeys, the Saudi royal family -- isn't so bad ... and so maybe we can ease up a bit."

Not quite. Was Hitler satisfied with the Sudetenland ??? Not at all -- it only increased his appetite for more ... and if there is any legitimate historical analogy for SUNNI political Islam, it is certainly Nazism.

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/05/sovietism_is_no.html

Similarly, by meeting one of Osama's demands, it not only increased his appeal in the Arab / Muslim world by indicating that he could beat back the US -- it also increased his belief that he should continue his campaign against the US because IT'S WORKING.

"Besides, OBLs real goals are NOT getting the US out of KSA, achieving a Pal state, or giving Kashmir to Pakistan. Any more than Hitler was really concerned with discrimination against Sudeten Germans. His goal is an Islamist Caliphate ruling the entire muslim world (maximally defined)"

For sure -- and ANY victory along the way is only going to increase HIS view -- and that of his (likely) followers that "history is going our way", and so they should go on.

Remember, dude, Osama is NOT like the Democrats -- pathetic wimps who gratefully eat up any crumbs Bush gives them -- they are the like the Republicans themselves, who take any victory as their due, while only whetting their appetite for more.

Have no illusions -- the US departure from the Saudi bases was a MAJOR victory for Osama.

Posted by: Grok Your World.com at June 3, 2005 07:37 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

liberalhawk 2:

"youre seriously suggesting that the US should insist on keeping bases in a country where the govt says to leave (which is what you claim happened)? Isnt that imperialist aggression? Ya think wed have UNSC support for that?"

As you well know, none of this was done in public. it was all done "behind closed doors," as is practically everything in US / Saudi relations.

Bush could and should have told the royal family that a US retreat from bases in Saudi would only whet Osama's appetite for more concessions ... after all, what would stop Osama et. al. from NEXT demanding -- and expecting -- the overthrow of the royal family ???

Remember that the departure of the US from Saudi took place at the end of April 2003 -- about the same time as Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco -- when Americans were thinking about what a great victory had been achieved in Iraq.

And then what happened LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER ??? The May 12 attacks in Riyadh.

Connect the dots. While US troops are in KSA, no terrorist incidents. Within two weeks of their departure, the first successful terrorist attack.

"We're fighting against the Qutbist strain of Wahabism, NOT all political Islam.

1) But it is political Islam that provides the discourse that legitimates not just 9/11 but also ALL violence against infidels and their apostate lackeys -- which is why we SHOULD be struggling against all forms of political Islam.

2) And besides, LH -- WE WEREN'T ATTACKED BY SADDAM'S IRAQ ... and yet we invaded them -- for constantly revolving reasons that kept changing.

"We were not attacked by the moderate Islamists of Turkey, or by the Dawa party of Iraq -

Re the Turkish Islamists, please see our:

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/05/israel_visit_by.html

Re the Dawa, don't confuse SUNNI political Islam with SHIITE political Islam ... they are VERY different, and, in many ways, quite antagonistic ... remember, the government of Iran STRONGLY condemned 9/11.

"making enemies of them would be folly, they are valuable allies against Qutbism."

Perhaps -- but maybe you could explain precisely HOW they can be valuable allies ??? I'm not sure you can.

"Should we be at war

I have never said "war" -- I have always said "struggle" ... and there is a big difference ...

"not just with Qutbism, but with Wahabism?

From a values point of view, I think we absolutely should be involved in a struggle with Wahabism ...

And that you would even raise that makes me wonder in what way you consider yourself "liberal" ...

"Do we want KSA to go up in flames?

That may happen anyway, my friend ... and if you are interested in "democracy in the Middle East", how can you justify overthrowing Saddam, but not the Saudis ???

"Do we want the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt to go over to violence?

A) They used to be QUITE violent -- why Nasser killed so many of them during the 50s; and B) as in Saudi, that may happen anyway ...

"I think these would be very dangerous risks, and probably not worth taking.

And yet you seem to support the invasion of Iraq ??? Why was THAT a risk "worth taking" -- especially when Saddam's Iraq, like Syria, was one of the MOST anti-political Islam places in the Arab world.

You guys always seem to run away from any confrontation with the REAL negative forces in the Arab / Muslim world ... and I cannot imagine why ...

"You can disagree, of course, but to suggest that anyone who disagrees can do so only out of US domestic political concerns is absurd. I am neither a Christian, nor a Republican, and I would be reluctant to follow the policies you appear to suggest.

Not at all -- I'm talking about why BUSH is doing the things he has done and continues to do ...

There are a whole universe of other motivations that may or may not apply to you ... I don't know very much about you, but I DO wonder in what ways you consider yourself a) a liberal; and b) a hawk ???

All this said, you DO seem to be a VERY thoughtful individual -- and I hope you'll have a chance to check out my blog as well, because I'd like to get your feedback over there.

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/

Posted by: liberalhawk at June 1, 2005 02:53 PM

Posted by: Grok Your World.com at June 3, 2005 08:01 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

luk:

Thanks for your considered analysis.

"I think its wrong to state/imply that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by a need for replacement military bases in the middle east.

I agree -- I didn't say that. What I DID say was that Iraq was undertaken basically to divert American popular attention from its cowardly retreat from Saudi Arabia in particular, AND its total failure to deal with political Islam in general.

"Most of the PNAC types that dominate the Bush regime wanted to invade Iraq even before Bush was selected in 2000 ---- to Bushies, its a question of Global Manifest Destiny.

Surprisingly, luk, I don't think the initiative to invade Iraq came from the PNAC types, even tho they CERTAINLY jumped all over it when Bush decided to go for it.

In my view, Iraq came directly from Bush for two combined reasons: a) the diversion, as mentioned, and b) the desire to prove to the Christian right that he was NOT his father, whom THEY saw as a coward for "not finishing the job" during the Gulf War.

"But its also fair to suspect that getting the US out of Saudi Arabia was a precondition for greater Saudi co-operation in the "war on terror."

Glad you use quotes. I have NEVER used the term "war on terror" for two reaons: 1) It means NOTHING, in and of itself -- as Richard Clarke pointed out, "terror" is a MEANS; and the term "war" is just Bush trying to mis-direct attention from his gutlessness in failing to confront political Islam.

Beyond that, where, exactly, is the evidence of ANY Saudi co-operation in ... well, whatever it is that Bush is doing ??? They have done nothing and will continue to do nothing, either re the non-existent "war" in general or to "help" the US in Iraq.

"Support of the Wahhabist by the Saudi royals was a political (not a religious) decision designed to buy off the fundamentalist Muslims who were concerned with the US presence.

The relationship between the Wahhabi religious establishment and the abdul-Aziz regime goes back MUCH farther than 1991. In some ways, it goes back to the founding of the modern Saudi state in the 1930s -- and in others, in some ways more signfiicant -- it goes back to the 1780s when Abdul Wahhab himself was preaching.

So I agree that it was a political decision -- which is PRECISELY why I define the main issue as POLITICAL Islam ...

"And had the royal family cracked down on radical fundamentalists while allowing the US military presence, the potential for "civil war" in Saudi Arabia was considerable.

But, dude, isn't that JUST what they HAD to do in the aftermath of the numerous terrorist attacks in KSA, starting on May 12, 2003, and then continuing up to today ???

So what, I ask again, has the US gained from leaving the Saudi bases ???

Everything that it was supposed to avoid has happened anyway -- so, I ask again, what was gained ???

Posted by: Grok Your World.com at June 3, 2005 08:14 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

narciso:

Excellent points.

"Wait a minute, we're not at war with Wahhabism; boy that's news to me;

You and I may be ... but Bush & Co. clearly are NOT -- and that is PRECISELY my problem with them. Their whole "response" to 9/11 is just a HUGE sham.

"Qutbism is only really the 20th century Egyptian variant, common to Dr.Zawahiri, Sheikh Rahman, Seif al Adel, & Osama through his tutor; Syed's brother.

PRE-cisely -- the distinctions liberalhawk is making are not really there.

"The history of the KSA shows why the strategy of avoiding Western influence doesn't work.

EX-actly -- and, as your examples point out, the only people who seem to be fooled by this stance are AMERICANS ... NOT people in the Arab / Muslim world.

"the Saud's, over the Hashemites and the Rashidi's were the most pious of the clans; the Utaibi; run a close second, that's why the Riyadh siege leader, came from them. the Al Ghamdi clan, from whence the fmr. Ambass. to Sudan, and their shahid inclined brood spring are another example, as are the Quahtani; which have provided at least one attempted hijackers and several suicide bombers"

Well-said.

Please check out my blog -- I'll be VERY interested in getting your feedback on what we've got over there.

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/

And re Iraq & 9/11

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/02/iraq_will_never.html

Posted by: Grok Your World.com at June 3, 2005 08:22 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by