(no subject)

[jfb]

Why isn't this the top story in every news outlet? "Saudi Arabia's leaders have made far-reaching decisions to prepare for an era of military disengagement from the United States, to enact what Saudi officials call the first significant democratic reforms at home, and to rein in the conservative clergy that has shared power in the kingdom."

For review, a few salient facts: The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is one of the primary motivating issues for bin Laden and al Qaeda, and may be either a cause of unrest or a stabilizing force depending on who you ask. The various tensions between the ruling family, the clergy, the public, the middle, upper, and lower classes, secularization and modernization vs fundamentalism--these are key factors in Middle Eastern politics and, you know, terrorism. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the site of Islam's holiest sites, and the leading source of imported oil for the U.S.

So, you know, democratic reforms, military disengagement, and an attempt to rein in the clergy? That's big news. Well, at the moment it's just big hearsay (their government and ours both deny it... sort of), but it's hearsay worth mentioning.

Comments

[wrog]

I guess my reaction is something along the lines of, "I'll believe it when I see it." As the article pointed out, they attempted something like this (i.e., tossing out an American presence so as to gain enough political capital to be able to carry through various reforms) once before back in 1963 and it basically went nowhere.

Also the notion of putting it off until the Iraq situation is "solved" is a huge weasel hole; I'm pretty sure that even if the planned invasion goes off without a hitch, the Iraq situation won't be stable for a very long time.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see those points. Maybe I'm just tired of day after day of the headlines "Iraq still says it's cooperating", "U.N. still says Iraq is cooperating... enough", "U.S. still says Iraq isn't coopearting", and now the daily speculation about Columbia. Even if this is doomed or fake, at least it's something new (1963 aside).

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I think Americans in general still don't want to think that this could have anything to do with secularism vs. religion, nor that anything besides Iraq is relevant. Maybe I have a point, but it's late and it's hard to be cogent.

One other thought I had as I heard a US ambassador talking about why we need to go to war in Iraq is that maybe the administration is actually too close to the problem, enmeshed in the details of resolutions -- all the forest for the trees stuff -- to see that Bush is so single mindedly seeking war. (Although I'd still buy that his primary goal is a personal retribution against Saddam.)