The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[OutByEaster?]

Dictators are good, they can do what they like as long as they allow us continued control of resources and finance. Nutters are not so good, but as long as control of natural resources are ringfenced and they leave an economy in ruins and desperate for loans then they're perfectly acceptable. What can't be accepted under any circumstances is a functioning democracy of self determination which wants control of its own resources and the ability to make its own economic and tactical decisions - those have to be shut down immediately.

 

See Iraq.

 

See also Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Angola, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.

[blandy]

Dictators are good, they can do what they like as long as they allow us continued control of resources and finance. Nutters are not so good, but as long as control of natural resources are ringfenced and they leave an economy in ruins and desperate for loans then they're perfectly acceptable. What can't be accepted under any circumstances is a functioning democracy of self determination which wants control of its own resources and the ability to make its own economic and tactical decisions - those have to be shut down immediately.

 

See Iraq.

 

See also Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Angola, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.

That's somewhat innaccurate, OBE. I mean Costa Rica? the place with no army and the excellent environmental outlook?

Iran - that's another one. Right or wrong, the West, and the US in particular would love it of their current leadership was more democratic and open - basically the if not opposite of your point, not somewhere you can really cite as supporting it. Sure the US doesn't want them to have nukes, but they're hardly a US friendly dictatorship.

Vietnam too, as a communist state, I suppose you could call it a dictatorship, but it's bot really in anyone's bad books, is it?

 

I think it's more a case that different countries have evolved (or not evolved) various ways of rulership - whether it be left wing/communist type or more right wing types, royal family rulership or democracy. Of the various countries, some are run very badly and for the benefit of a few, others are run badly, for the benefit of many and most are run OK-ish.

 

All the kerfuffle comes about wherever in the world when the people want to overthrow the leaderships. Whether that's soveriegns, democratic gov'ts or dictators.

 

For the west and the US in particular, their attitude seems to be if a nation is "of benefit" to US interests then stuff gets overlooked, and if it's a threat, then they try and change it, for their own ends, but try to make it out as some kind of exercise in "freedom".

 

There are many many countries which are  "a functioning democracy of self determination and want control of its own resources and the ability to make its own economic and tactical decisions" with which the US and others are friendly.

 

I think your point is a bit simplistic, if truth be told. (Yeah I know, it's hard with a couple of sentences on the interent).

 

But for all the imperialism of the US and the West, there's also a genuine desire to see people not be oppressed tortured, murdered and so in. (and yes I know "we" haven't always been whiter than white in those things, too). But still...

[OutByEaster?]

I think it's easy to confuse 'goodness' with permission. most of the countries on that list have been run by dictators placed and supported by the US government since WWII - Saddam Hussein, the Shah, the Argentinian junta, all fit into that category. The current move towards an independent socialist democracy in Venezuela is probably the best current example - Obama and the US government have declared it a rogue state and a threat to the West, not because of terrorism, but because it has a massive amount of oil that it's trying to put back into the hands of the country and its people - there's already been a US sponsored coup that failed, there are now sanctions and there will be more I'm sure. You don't have to dig back to the 80's for this sort of thing in South and Central America.

 

If IS is currently smashing up parts of the middle east, it's because whatever it is doing doesn't affect the banks or natural resource companies sufficiently to make it a threat to the US. if it did, they'd stop it overnight. It may even be beneficial, and if it is they'll support it.

 

This isn't a morality thing, we've supported 'good' governments, like the one in Costa Rica (which was allowed to develop because it was largely run by the United Fruit Company, sponsored by the CIA and turned a blind eye to the running of Cocaine and Arms through its major airports) and bad governments - like Saddam Hussein's Iraq who received the second largest amount of US foreign aid (after Israel obviously) even after Saddam had gassed the Kurdish people. It's profit that counts - if thousands of people die, no one gives a shit. 

 

IS are doing a fine job of preventing the region changing significantly and as such, they aren't a threat to the dominance of the oil market by the current players, which allows control of supply, shutting out China and the Russians and a certain degree of economic stability. If they really wanted to ruin the West, they'd starting pumping oil and selling it East. You can bet they'd be dead by morning if they did.

[Awol]

 

IS has claimed a suicide bombing yesterday at a Shia mosque in Qatif, Eastern Saudi Arabia. 20 odd dead.

This following a sermon at Friday prayers in Riyadh by one of Saudi's most senior Imams, calling for the death of ALL Shia.

Some might think there is virtually no difference between the Saudi establishment and IS/AQ/Islamist terrorists everywhere. They'd be right, too.

What now for SA AWOL? How will they deal with this in your opinion?

 

Short question, huge answer.  I've tried several times to write a short punchy reply to your post but it's too big a subject. In summary they are in deep trouble, although it's very hard to put a timeline on regime survival.  The following reasoning is a bit long winded so unless you are really interested I wouldn't bother reading it!

 

 

The first thing is to try and put the bombing in context by looking at what Saudi Arabia is, the internal dynamics and the external threats - be they real or perceived. 

 

Saudi Arabia basically holds the same ideology as the Islamic State, with the important exception that the House of Saud thinks they should be running the show, not some upstart Caliph.  The ruling elite are also deeply hypocritical, living hedonistic Holywood lifestyles while preaching piety. They have maintained their power by hosing oil revenues at allies (and to a point at domestic adversaries) in order to buy acquiescence for their agenda.  In doing so they have presided over massive radicalisation of large parts of their own population (obviously not ALL Saudis but enough).  This is particularly true of young men who have for decades formed the core cadres of the various Jihadi movements, often with government complicity, funding and logistical assistance.   Problem is these people are not blind to the hypocrisy of their leaders, are genuinely pious and as a result wish to see the overthrow of the Al Saud dynasty to be replaced by a more 'pure' Islamic administration. A reasonable comparison might be pre-revolutionary Iran prior to 1979. 

 

 As a result elements of the population harbour a frightening level of support (or at least considerable sympathy) for the ideals of the Islamic State movement.  Add to this a youth bulge in the demographic, systemic corruption within the state preventing advancement for the non-connected, massive inequality and uneven distribution of the nation's huge petro-wealth and the seemingly inspiring activities of IS that speak to a deep cultural belief in the righteousness of their religion and a sense of humiliation that the Islamic world lost its position of cultural, military and economic pre-eminence to the Western world and has never recovered. 

 

Now add the current geo-political aspect of the Sunni / Shia rivalry and the relentless anti-Shia propaganda promoted by the state and delivered through the mosques every Friday for....well, ever.   Iran is painted as the ultimate bogeyman, a nation of heretics plotting to do down the 'true' religion.  Iraq, Syria, Bahrain and now Yemen have all become proxy battlegrounds for this fight and since Saudi brutally put down the Shia Arab Spring uprising in Bahrain the Saudi authorities have turned their attention to their Shia minority in eastern Saudi (adjacent to Bahrain), shifting from general suspicion and marginalisation to outright repression in these communities.  All done very quietly and kept out of international media, but nevertheless ongoing for several years. 

 

To add another layer of complexity the Shia are not a homogenous group and basically breakdown as 12'ers (Iranian/Bahraini Shia), 7'ers (Syrain Alawite Shia) and 5'ers (Yemeni Zayidi Shia or 'Houthi's').  It's probably all on wiki if you want to look deeper but the important bit is that Saudi's internal Shia minority are 12'ers and therefore religiously aligned to the Iranians.  As such they are a 'legitimate' target for the increasingly sectarian propaganda of the Saudi state, an actual target for repression by its security apparatus and targeted for killing by its proxies or those who share the state's religious views - such as IS.  

 

A bombing like this plays well with the regime's base but also shows they cannot enforce domestic security/control, demonstrates IS’s capability to continue launching attacks within the Kingdom and stokes sectarian divisions to destabilise the country. Over time this leads to social deconstruction that creates greater space in which IS can operate.  They can also claim with some legitimacy to be acting on the words of Saudi's own Imams who are actively encouraging the spirit of such attacks.  

 

The threat for Saudi is that any insurgency by their minority Shia population would present a serious danger to the country's economy given that their tribes live in the areas where most of Saudi's oilfields are sited. You could also then interpret the bombing as a gypsy's warning to the Shia to keep their heads down and not get any ideas.  Why might that be a factor? Yemen, which I'll come back to in a moment.  IS are also a threat to the regime but one that they have prioritised below the Shia 'threat', despite a very significant event several months ago when IS operatives assassinated a senior Saudi General on the Iraqi border. That IS knew he was going to be at a particular desert border post at a particular time suggests one of two things: either he was acting as liaison to IS for the Saudis and they killed him (unlikely that a guy so senior would be doing an intelligence handler's job), or he was betrayed by informants / symapthisers / supporters of IS within the Saudi State.  That is a very scary proposition for the Saudis and allegedly shit them right up.  IS made it clear last year that they fully intend to conquer Saudi, throw out the Al Sauds and liberate the Two Holy Mosques. It's one thing to gob off and not act but IS have developed a habit of putting bombers where their mouths are, a factor that is considered centrally important in Arabian Bedouin culture - IS's target audience.      

 

Meanwhile the Yemeni Shia, the "Houthis" have faced systemic and systematic discrimination in northern Yemen since their 1000 year Monarchy was overthrown in the 1960's.  Their home turf is adjacent to Saudi's SW border with Yemen, so if you were a paranoid Saudi leader they would be viewed as a potential threat, despite the fact that as 5'er Shia, the Houthis are religiously closer to Sunni Islamic tradition than the 12'er Iranians, but nevertheless due Saudi boneheadedness they are viewed as a potential threat.  The Saudis actually crossed the border and attacked them in the 1990's but got a hammering for their troubles before quickly withdrawing.  

 

Following the Yemeni revolution in 2011 the Houthis lobbied for representation in the National Reconciliation Dialogue but the whole thing was a sham managed by the old elites who in turn were directed by Riyadh and Washington.  In the end the Houthis got fed up, teamed up with the previous President of 30+ years and overran half the country. The Saudi started bombing Yemen about 50 days ago with the intention of restoring “their man” AbdRabbu Mansour Hadi who is hiding out in Riyadh. Inevitably that plan is failing (you can’t win a war with aircraft alone) and it looks like the Saudis will be defeated again by a bunch of Shia mountain men. The leadership will then be in a very vulnerable position with their own population having staked the credibility of the new King and his son the Defence Minister on victory in Yemen. Of course IS will lap it up and continue pushing the (factual) narrative that the Al Sauds are not fit to rule.

 

In summary then the Saudi leadership are deeply in the brown stuff on several fronts at once, all of which are entirely self-inflicted.  I can’t see them being around in a decade and quite possibly considerably less the way they are f***ing thing up. What comes after that is anyone's guess, but it's unlikely to be good.      

[OutByEaster?]

Thank you AWOL, that's a very interesting read. I'm glad you didn't go with the quick version.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

torygraph

 

 

 

Its defeat in Kobane - a town of which few non-Kurds had heard - was cheered by the world; its victory in Ramadi last Sunday gives it control of virtually all of Iraq’s largest province, one which reaches to the edge of Baghdad.

 

Calling itself a state, one analyst wrote, no longer looks like an exaggeration.

 

Senior US officials seem to agree. “Isil as an organization is better in every respect than its predecessor of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It’s better manned, it’s better resourced, they have better fighters, they’re more experienced,” one said at a briefing to explain the loss of Ramadi. “We’ve never seen something like this.”

 

How did Isil manage to inflict such a humiliation on the world’s most powerful country? As with many great shock-and-awe military advances over the years, it is easier to explain in hindsight than it apparently was to prevent.

 

Ever since Isil emerged in its current form in 2013, military and and political analysts have been saying that its success is due to its grasp of both tactics and strategy.

Its strategy is essentially Maoist - the comparison has not been enough made, but now that Isil has declared itself an agent of Cultural Revolution, with its destruction of history, perhaps it will be more. Like Mao’s revolutionaries, it conquers the countryside before storming the towns.

 

Even now, the fact that much of its territory is rural or even desert is seen as a weakness. But it is beginning to “pick off” major towns and cities with impunity. In fact, where society is fractured, like Syria and Iraq, the “sea of revolution” panics the citizenry, making it feel “surrounded” by unseen and incomprehensible agents of doom.

 

Edited May 24, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Tayls]

AWOL thanks for posting that in response to my question, enjoyed reading it. I've said before I really like reading what you post! Gives me a really great insight to what is happening in the Middle East at the moment as my knowledge is somewhat poor. Keep posting things!

[chrisp65]

meanwhile

 

in a galaxy far far away

 

 

a 10,000 bedroom mega mecca hotel edges towards it's 2017 opening...

 

Guardian reference

 

 

 

five floors for the sole use of the Saudi royal family

 

Just remember kids, save the planet, turn your kitchen light off when you're not out there!

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I still can't get over the fact that they built a big **** clock.

[chrisp65]

I still can't get over the fact that they built a big **** clock.

 

Mecca Time!

doo doo doo do

can't touch this

[Rugeley Villa]

obama is calling climate change a threat to the world as isis goes on the slaughter and kills 400 women and children. the guy is a pro islamist.

[mjmooney]

obama is calling climate change a threat to the world as isis goes on the slaughter and kills 400 women and children. the guy is a pro islamist.

He's right. Wars come and go, but we're wrecking our planet, possibly beyond repair. I won't experience it, but I fear for my grandchildren's future.

[YGabbana]

obama is calling climate change a threat to the world as isis goes on the slaughter and kills 400 women and children. the guy is a pro islamist.

Israel mass murderd over 2000 people many of them children, obama sat back and watched as did our own goverment

[Awol]

obama is calling climate change a threat to the world as isis goes on the slaughter and kills 400 women and children. the guy is a pro islamist.

No he's not mate, he's a guy who got elected on a ticket to GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly his Government over ruled the Iraqi constitution in 2010, ensured their man (Nouri Al Maliki) became president of Iraq, who then set about alienating the Sunni minority thus ensuring the return of what we now call IS.

So he's an idiot and a failure but not deliberately so, and with 18 months to do as President he wants to hand over to someone else and run away from the mess his administration has created.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I fail to see how saying climate change is a threat to the world means being pro-Islamist. A truly astonishing leap right there.

 

Climate change is a threat, and a grave one at that. Isis are a threat too, albeit of a different kind entirely. It is possible to care about both issues.

[AshVilla]

I'm sure the next republican that gets in at the white house will ensure boots will be on the ground

[Mantis]

I'm sure the next republican that gets in at the white house will ensure boots will be on the ground

Depends on which one. There definitely seems to be a larger isolationist element in the Republican party than there was when Bush was around.

[omariqy]

I still can't get over the fact that they built a big **** clock.

 

I went to Saudi last year to do Umrah.  I stayed in the Clock Tower.   Not until I got there did I realise how disgusting it was.  A land so beautiful being descerated by hideous buildings.  This new hotel is pretty sickening to be honest.  Umrah and specifically Hajj is why it is being built for.  Hajj is supposed to be tough and a struggle to go through. These people are making it akin to a week in Vegas.  Top 5 floors for Saudi royalty, yet they treat the immigrant workers like cattle.  Yet they preach religiousness and holiness.  These people forget the Prophet's, that they follow, last words.  An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

 

Makes me sick.

On another note, ISIS will kill a few million.  Climate change could end us all.

Edited May 24, 2015 by omariqy

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It's genuinely amazing. A giant clock. I'm pretty sure it overshadows the Grand Mosque for good measure.

 

From what I've heard the Saudis have more or less done away with historical Mecca (like, any old building tangentially related to Muhammad is gone or is not far from going) and replaced it with garish buildings and all sorts of nonsense, like you said have turned a religious site into Vegas.

 

Those actions may well be part of what undoes them with Isis presenting themselves as a 'purer' version of what the Saudis preach.

[chrisp65]

 

it's not subtle is it

 

definitely too many princes wanting a bit of Vegas 

 

it'll all end in tears