Naturally. But if they do nothing they could become the most unstable country in the region; it could even degenerate into civil war.

JimHackerMP wrote:Naturally. But if they do nothing they could become the most unstable country in the region; it could even degenerate into civil war.

yes, more reform and spread the money around ...

ray

I think we have to acknowledge that this is a messed up place (from our perspective) but that the alternatives (e.g. Iraq, Syria, ISIS, etc.) are worse. Sure, any reforms would be positive. But real politic has me favoring stability in SA.

The reasons that a stable KSA is required have lessened. At least from an American point of view.
Since the US is now a net exporter of oil, it isn't affected as much by oil price fluctuations. (Higher oil prices benefit the US in some ways, lower in other ways.) And since there is an oil glut at the moment, other than a recovery in the price of oil ....what would an eruption in KSA do?

The credibility oft the US with the young in the Middle East is in large part the support for undemocratic regimes that have limited freedom (including economic freedom) for most of their populace, and extracted wealth for the benefit of the rulers... (That and support for Israel).
If the US (and other western nations) had been less directly involved in propping up these regimes western democracies might be seen as a more likely alternative to the extreme that Islamic extremists offer. I suppose that is water under the bridge now, though i think its never to late to start living one's espoused principles.

In KSA the only significant difference between the current regime and ISIL would be supplanting a royal family and a couple of well connected tribes as the elite for a theocratic elite... And maybe a slightly, rougher interpretation of Sharia.The KSA funded many of the Madrasses in Pakistan and elsewhere that served to radicalize many of the poor, unemployed and poorly educated... The damage that radicalization has caused is a very good reason to wish for change of almost any kind in the KSA.

rickyp wrote:ray

I think we have to acknowledge that this is a messed up place (from our perspective) but that the alternatives (e.g. Iraq, Syria, ISIS, etc.) are worse. Sure, any reforms would be positive. But real politic has me favoring stability in SA.

The reasons that a stable KSA is required have lessened. At least from an American point of view.
Since the US is now a net exporter of oil, it isn't affected as much by oil price fluctuations. (Higher oil prices benefit the US in some ways, lower in other ways.) And since there is an oil glut at the moment, other than a recovery in the price of oil ....what would an eruption in KSA do?

The credibility oft the US with the young in the Middle East is in large part the support for undemocratic regimes that have limited freedom (including economic freedom) for most of their populace, and extracted wealth for the benefit of the rulers... (That and support for Israel).
If the US (and other western nations) had been less directly involved in propping up these regimes western democracies might be seen as a more likely alternative to the extreme that Islamic extremists offer. I suppose that is water under the bridge now, though i think its never to late to start living one's espoused principles.

In KSA the only significant difference between the current regime and ISIL would be supplanting a royal family and a couple of well connected tribes as the elite for a theocratic elite... And maybe a slightly, rougher interpretation of Sharia.The KSA funded many of the Madrasses in Pakistan and elsewhere that served to radicalize many of the poor, unemployed and poorly educated... The damage that radicalization has caused is a very good reason to wish for change of almost any kind in the KSA.

Yes, yes, you are so moral.

Would you like KSA to become more like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, ISIS, Afghanistan, or Yemen?

You know, I wish I could find the link but it was a long time ago (like five years or more perhaps). Therefore you must forgive the anecdotal nature of this statement.

A certain Saudi prince was saying to the western media how, if American-pressured reforms in his country went too far, the results could be disastrous. He said that "no one wants to end up like Gorbachev".

Pity I wasn't there. I would have replied "Your Highness, your choice may end up being between Gorbachev and Louis XVI. Take your pick."

Anyway, Ricky, there is a certain amount of necessity for realpolitik I think you're ignoring. If you'll excuse another anecdote, an Australian I befriended before our debacle in Iraq told me he was hopeful that, "Now the United States no longer has to defend Liberty and Justice; it can defend Liberty and Justice."

However, and I mean no offense because I am attempting to counter your statement below, much of which I strongly disagree with; there is a certain naivety to the following:

The credibility oft the US with the young in the Middle East is in large part the support for undemocratic regimes that have limited freedom (including economic freedom) for most of their populace, and extracted wealth for the benefit of the rulers... (That and support for Israel).
If the US (and other western nations) had been less directly involved in propping up these regimes western democracies might be seen as a more likely alternative to the extreme that Islamic extremists offer. I suppose that is water under the bridge now, though i think its never to late to start living one's espoused principles.

The lack of credibility of the United States in this part of the world, and in many, is not due to the hypocrisy of supporting these regimes, but in supporting SOME of these regimes, and not others. Before you [by you I mean "anybody"] said "But wait, the invasion of Iraq was George W. Bush, not Barack Obama!" I reply: if you die in an airstrike or drone strike in Iraq, does your family care which American President pushed the button?

I want to explain more but it would be a long and boring post. We're confusing, and unpredictable. Americans---State Department officials and policymakers included---think in terms of discrete little four to eight year periods of presidential administrations. We think of the next fiscal quarter, the next midterm election...well the rest of the world does not. Clinton, Bush II, Obama...they do not care which president it was. "America" did it . And because new presidential administrations have a tendency to do a 180 of their predecessor's foreign policy we look like hypocrites. They do not like us for supporting Israel, but methinks that some of that has to do with the Arab governments needing a rallying-cry for their people (as part of their propaganda: do hate the Americans and Israelis, please just don't hate your own leadership!) I admit the alliance with Israel causes some headaches, but the worst part of American foreign policy is its INCONSISTENCY. We flip-flop and look like hypocrites. And the rest of the world--whose leaders and whose peoples think in terms of much longer than 4 to 8 year periods--couldn't give a rat's ass about which president pushed the button or did this or that.

Ricky, I am sorry but you missed the point entirely. Our foreign policy is hated because it is totally unpredictable. People, rulers and ruled alike, tend to despise things they have great difficulty understanding. Yes, our support of some of these regimes pisses people off who live there. But most of that is the fact that we'll bomb one country, and sign a trade agreement with another. We will bitch about Iran's human rights policies, when Saudi citizens quite possibly have it just as bad (or worse) and they are our allies.

Now, we cannot always prop up the "goodies" and screw the "baddies". That would be awesome if our presidents could be FDR/Churchill all the time. You know what I have noticed? Nobody hated the USSR in the Middle East. I never saw the hammer and sickle burned in a protest; only the Stars and Stripes. There's a reason for that, and you need to do more than simply scratch the surface of U.S. foreign policy to find it.

It's rather strange really. If a country ruthlessly pursues its national interest and material goals, it's practically....understood. My solution? I've heard conservatives in the States clamoring for "another Reagan" for foreign policy reasons. But I disagree: Whoever the next President of the United States is, he's got to set a general goal---doesn't have to be overly specific---just a set of general guidelines that even his predecessors would be bound to. The biggest reason we are hated is because we do not keep our agreements and match our words with deeds.

hacker

The lack of credibility of the United States in this part of the world, and in many, is not due to the hypocrisy of supporting these regimes, but in supporting SOME of these regimes, and not others

First let me reinforce my point that the lack of credibility i'm talking about is the ordinary citizens.
Then let me ask what regimes you think should have been supported and those not supported?

hacker

Yes, yes, you are so moral

.

Well, i don't know about me.... but i think that the problem with Real Politick is that it forces nations to behaviors that defy their moral positions. (For the US the right to self determination, democracy, equal rights etc.) ...
At one time KSA had the US over a barrel on oil. And realistically it was hard to take a moral position against the dictators in the region. But since the ramifications are limited today ...maybe a more moral position should be adopted?

hacker

Would you like KSA to become more like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, ISIS, Afghanistan, or Yemen?

How did decades long support for Saddam against Iran work out? How did Real Politick involvement in Pakistan and Afghanistan work out? (Hint, the Taliban and their Al Queda allies originated from it...)
I think its hard to control things. Period.
If one decides one's values are more important than trying to control all political events in every region of the world for commercial or strategic reasons ... then its going to be easier to maintain consistency... And perhaps outcomes will eventually be better....

Some will excuse American inconsistencies between espoused values and behaviors on the Cold War and the confrontation of Communism. But historically the first divergence may have been the Spanish American War and the establishment of an American empire. (I might have said the war of 1812, but that was a failed enterprise and lead to more isolationism...)

Here's some stuff from a leftist blogger.... sounds a lot like you, but with a different view of the final product...

America´s “friends” reads like a who´s who in the hall of shame of dictators and unsavory autocrats: Samoza, Trujillo, Batista, Duvalier, Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran), Botha, Marcos, Mobutu, Pinochet, Cedras, Hosni Mubarek.
The contradictions and hypocrisy in U.S. policy in the Middle East are mindboggling. America can be friends with an authoritarian regime in Egypt but wage war against Iraq to kindle democracy in the region. The Palestinians are encouraged to foster democratic institutions, but when Hamas wins a decisive majority in free and fair elections in Gaza, the U.S. refuses to respect the outcome, choosing instead to shun Hamas as a “terrorist” organization. The U.S. can tolerate the Royal Families of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, hardly showcases of democracy, but recoil at the prospect of Hezbollah leading the government in Lebanon. Beyond the obscene amount of taxpayer dollars that are going to support relationships and alliances that fly in the face of the nation´s professed values, the U.S. is paying an even greater toll in terms of fueling anti-American sentiments in the region and the world. It is quite apparent to the protesters in Egypt and the Arab/Muslim world that the U.S. has been subsidizing Mubarak and his repressive-regime for decades. There is also legitimate outrage that the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has not been resolved because the U.S. is not viewed as a neutral facilitator but a self-professed ally and defender of Israel first and foremost. And, it does not take a rocket scientist to discern that the U.S. addiction to oil dictates that it set-aside its “values” and ally with whoever has the goods in the interest of protecting America´s vital interests.

The contradictions and hypocrisy, however, reverberate far beyond the Middle East. It is the height of hypocrisy that the U.S. could have a 30-year alliance with the Mubarak regime and maintain an embargo against Cuba because it lacks “democratic institutions.” While one might concede that Cuba is more authoritarian than democratic, at least it is a regime which has consistently attempted to use the power of the state to promote social and economic policies to benefit the people. China arguably fits in the same category, but the U.S. has no problem not only engaging China but permitting the People´s Republic to hold a huge amount of U.S. debt. Venezuela and Bolivia are also on America´s list of maligned nations primarily because their populist leaders are dedicated to minimizing the penetration and exploitation of their resources by U.S. corporate interests. According to the “Coolidge dictum,” Mubarak is a good guy but Chavez and Morales are enemies.

http://ibw21.org/vantage-point/contradi ... ddle-east/

Um, Ricky...do you realize you just quoted Ray Jay, and not moi?

And even so you seem to have missed my point completely. To tell you the truth, my whole schpiel above was not meant as an attack on everything you said, necessarily; it was really more an attack on my own country's foreign policy, and its short-sightedness.

Just out of curiosity, would you agree with me, if I said my country's foreign policy in the Middle East, or even the entire world in general, is short-sighted?

As far as this leftist blogger, I believe him to be---from what you have quoted at least---pretty much spot-on. I cannot be 100% certain of the corporate motives he seems to use as the "excuses" for this or that policy, but I wouldn't put it past my government.

I hope you haven't assumed that, hitherto, I am a jingoist; especially after I just lit into my country's foreign policy like that.

If one decides one's values are more important than trying to control all political events in every region of the world for commercial or strategic reasons ...

Um...isn't realpolitik detaching a nation's statecraft from moral imperatives?

JimHackerMP wrote:Um, Ricky...do you realize you just quoted Ray Jay, and not moi?

And even so you seem to have missed my point completely. To tell you the truth, my whole schpiel above was not meant as an attack on everything you said, necessarily; it was really more an attack on my own country's foreign policy, and its short-sightedness.

Spiel

bbauska wrote:

JimHackerMP wrote:Um, Ricky...do you realize you just quoted Ray Jay, and not moi?

And even so you seem to have missed my point completely. To tell you the truth, my whole schpiel above was not meant as an attack on everything you said, necessarily; it was really more an attack on my own country's foreign policy, and its short-sightedness.

Spiel

Yiddish vs. German

One of Ricky's many less endearing qualities is to misquote people by confusing who said what. No doubt all of the woes of the 200+ million Arabs in the world is the result of the Great Satan's support of the Zionist swindle.

(this was offered past midnight and meant to be part satirical part funny)

hacker

Just out of curiosity, would you agree with me, if I said my country's foreign policy in the Middle East, or even the entire world in general, is short-sighted?

Entirely.
Especially if you agree that foundational values should not be abandoned for the sake of expediency.
Rather that ways need to be found that limit compromises on foundation values.
I thought that i had already said that the blogger was similar to your views... I thought you'd be interested to know that your views intersect with that part of the political spectrum

ray

No doubt all of the woes of the 200+ million Arabs in the world is the result of the Great Satan's support of the Zionist swindle.

You know, its very true that the majority of the Arabs will actually agree, or at lest sympathize with this statement.
And if the US is trying to influence the politics of those nations, you should acknowledge that it is difficult if not impossible to do so when it is seen as complicit in what Arabs see as a vast injustice and continuing crime .
Protecting and supporting one democracy in the region, at the expense of the aspirations for self determination and liberty for 200 million is really the root cause of the US's incredibility.
The new found American energy independence (at least oil independence) could allow the US to regain some measure of credibility for its espoused policies on self determination and the promotion of democracy. But the uneven policy in Israel/Palestine is still a road block to acceptance.

Ricky, I get it. We should follow our morals and support Democracy, except when the Democracy is Israel; in that case we should be expedient, abandon our morals (and Israel) and pander to misinformed Saudi Arabians.

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:

JimHackerMP wrote:Um, Ricky...do you realize you just quoted Ray Jay, and not moi?

And even so you seem to have missed my point completely. To tell you the truth, my whole schpiel above was not meant as an attack on everything you said, necessarily; it was really more an attack on my own country's foreign policy, and its short-sightedness.

Spiel

Yiddish vs. German

(this was offered past midnight and meant to be part satirical part funny)

I stand corrected

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky, I get it. We should follow our morals and support Democracy, except when the Democracy is Israel; in that case we should be expedient, abandon our morals (and Israel) and pander to misinformed Saudi Arabians.

Careful! You could have identified a double standard...

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky, I get it. We should follow our morals and support Democracy, except when the Democracy is Israel; in that case we should be expedient, abandon our morals (and Israel) and pander to misinformed Saudi Arabians.

Careful! You could have identified a double standard...

The notion that the Arab world in general is hurting because of Israel is absurd. The situation may be different, particularly in Lebanon. Perhaps it would be better; personally, I think it would be worse. There is just no evidence that Israel is the cause of problems that we see in Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, or Iran. Why should we believe that Syria, Egypt, or Jordan would be better off? Are the countries that are not on Israel's periphery thriving?

At some point we have to stop thinking that all of the world's ills are because of what the west, and in particular, America, are up to. The Arabs are adults and after 60 years or so of liberation from the West they must own their own institutions.