Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Former CIA officer Robert Baer on the US colony of Saudi Arabia


I've recently come across a book by former CIA officer Robert Baer, Sleeping With The Devil:
How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude
.
The Saudi government probably spends more per capita than any other country in the world on arms. (It acknowledges only that it spends 13 percent of its gross domestic product, but half of its revenue is earmarked for the military.) That’s basically without having to provide for its own external defense; U.S. carrier groups and F-15 combat air patrols over the Gulf take care of that. (And the U.S. still manages to spend less than 4 percent of GDP on the military.) Also, Saudi Arabia has never fought in any Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 until today. In fact, the Al Sa’ud’s military hasn’t fought a war since the 1930s. To understand the significance of its spending on arms, look at the French for comparison. Although France has a modern, combat-ready mobile army that fights in a handful of African bush wars and participates in peace missions all over the world, it spends only 2.57 percent of GDP on its military.
Baer presents the Saudi monarchy as the corrupt alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood, which, to Baer includes Al-Qaeda and which would control the country if its leaders were elected.
This fantasy of a democracy is corrupting foolishness. We all know what version of “democracy” the State Department has in mind for Saudi Arabia. (Think Kuwait.) It’s insulting to try to make us believe it’s the real thing, just as it’s degrading for all those executive-branch officials and spokespersons who get trotted out to pay lip service to the myth. Say that the truth is something else for long enough, and you’ll forget what the truth really is.
In fact, Baer's position is that before allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take control of the oil resources available, the US should be prepared to directly take control of the oil wells in Saudi Arabia by force.
Even if we confine a takeover to Saudi Arabia, we couldn’t count on it going smoothly. Whether the House of Sa’ud were still in power or had been supplanted by some sort of Wahhabi putsch, we would still have to contend with all those weapons Washington sold the Saudis, and all those fighter pilots and infantry officers trained by American military personnel and private contractors to use the planes and other weapons. Happily, the U.S. has an adequate base of operations in Qatar. Additionally, U.S.-trained Saudi forces would realize the futility of resisting, in part because they know that however many planes and missile launchers they have, the U.S. has the next generation in far greater numbers. Also, corruption in the kingdom is so thorough that spare parts for its planes and tanks would quickly be truly spare and sparse.

Sure, terrorism would likely increase, locally and globally. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, you name it - none is going down without a fight. Even if the Saudis aren’t widely loved in the Middle East, the enemy of my enemy is still my friend. Vilified for the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. would take an even worse beating in international public-opinion polls. We would have to run roughshod over international organizations and our own long-standing principles, although the newly promulgated “doctrine of preemptive warfare” would certainly provide cover. But would all that be worse than standing idly by as the House of Sa’ud collapsed and the world’s largest known oil reserves fell into the hands of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired fundamentalists dedicated to jihad against Israel and the West? I don’t think so. Some things are more calamitous than others, and if the Bush-Cheney administration knows anything well, it ought to be how to rebuild and run an oil field.
Basically what one would expect a former CIA officer to write. A cog in the US' imperial apparatus, but never getting any deep appreciation of what that means. On the other hand, details are available in this kind of work that are difficult to find publicly discussed.

4 comments:

Arnold Evans said...

Dermot, have you read Baer's book? He vehemently disagrees with your thesis that Saudi Arabia is an independent country and also your thesis that it is anywhere near as hostile to Israel as it would be if its people voted on its policies. Also, he disputes your claim that SA actually fought in any war against Israel.

If the US agreed with you, it's policies would be a lot more supportive of democracy. Instead US policymakers agree with Baer.

If you were being honest, instead of trying to convince me, you would do more good to convince US policymakers. But it seems like you don't yourself believe what you write about Saudi Arabia, and this is just a necessary lie for you to defend US policy.

Dermot Moloney said...

I read see no evil a number of years ago, ill give this other book a go.

However i am some what skeptical to take your word of it the book states after you showed yourself to have great difficulty reading even simple newspaper articles. 

"He vehemently disagrees with your thesis that Saudi Arabia is an independent country"

From "see no evil" he seemed to have a different attitude, from this book sa engaged in many actions that are against us interests and that it uses its oil influence to affect us policy decision making. Odd actions for a country supposedly completely under us control?

" your thesis that it is anywhere near as hostile to Israel as it would be if its people voted on its policies."

Pretty sloppy defense arnold, this book was written around 02-03, my evidence to support my "thesis" as you call it is much more recent, it is from 2011, its much more up to date and robert didnt have access to this when he was writing the book.

The recent polling evidence does support my views, not the views of out dated information written for the time period that it was written.

"Also, he disputes your claim that SA actually fought in any war against Israel."

This doesnt make baer look so good for this is factually wrong on his part, sa was part of the arab coalitions in certain previous wars. The fact that you are debating such an issue even now is silly.

"If you were being honest, instead of trying to convince me, you would do more good to convince US policymakers."

Arnold youre rehashing arguments i countered a while ago, the evidence i presented is likely known to the administration analysts for it came from the brookings institute which is quite well known.  

"But it seems like you don't yourself believe what you write about Saudi Arabia2

I do believe for that is what the evidence shows. 

Camelback1 said...

I think that it is aobut protecting the free oil reserves for the freedom of the world and must go to any lengths to achieve that Goal, Obama administration has done a lousy job in this respect. they have let everthing go, and were still in Debt along with loss of control of certain regions of very needed valuably trade and ecrt,,,

Lidia said...

I beg to know WHO put USA in the role of global cop "to protect the free oil reserves for the freedom of the world" ? A person who kill and rob is a criminal, no matter how he called himself and what stupid pretext he used to whitewash his crimes. 

USA imperialism is about grabbing oil for itself and hold it out of reach of rivals (China, but also Europe and Japan).