saudi light

[wesw]

is Saudi Arabia a nation we should be allied with?

ladies?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think we should be allied with ladies. Some of them are quite amusing.

[wesw]

ha ha. I knew that was coming

[rubato]

We have common interests and having generally friendly relations makes them a stakeholder in the relationship. They are motivated by a desire to keep us cordial and willing to protect them against people like Saddam Hussien and Iran and provide advanced fighters and training, motivated enough that they do not attack Israel and moderate the behavior of the rest of the Islamic world.

While they do not have a social structure or government we would promote it must be said that they govern with the consent of their people, they are a legitimate government.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

They have oil and they are a fairly moderate Arab state, two things that are definitely on our interest. We should develop and maintain close ties with them.

[Guinevere]

"Fairly moderate" if you aren't female.

[Big RR]

no, I would think fairly moderate even if you are a woman; women get a lot more freedom in SA than in many other arab countries. The problem is that SA holds two of the most holy cities in isalm (Mecca and Medina) within its borders; they don't dare provoke the Islamic fundamentalists too much knowing many would fight to the death to retrieve these cities form the infidels (kind of like the crusades)--so they walk a balance beam and try not to fall. Certainly women have more rights in some other arab countries like the Emirates or Bahrain, but they are still discriminated against in these countries, although no where near as much as in other countries where the fundamentalists have almost complete rule.

My point is, we cannot change everything with our allies and we sometimes have to gulp hard and keep silence if it's in our interest to do so. The women do not fare all that well in SA now, but they are much better off than if a holy war to reclaim the holy cities began (and much better off than in what would likely be the government afterwards). We have to diplomatically promote achievable reforms, while taking into account the precarious position SA occupies.

[Lord Jim]

My point is, we cannot change everything with our allies and we sometimes have to gulp hard and keep silence if it's in our interest to do so. The women do not fare all that well in SA now, but they are much better off than if a holy war to reclaim the holy cities began (and much better off than in what would likely be the government afterwards). We have to diplomatically promote achievable reforms, while taking into account the precarious position SA occupies.

I think that summarizes it well...

[Sue U]

Saudi Arabia is the home spawning ground of Sunni extremist fundamentalism; the Wahabis would be nothing if not for the House of Saud, which has provided protection, enforcement and state sponsorship for the spread of their views. Remember, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001 were Saudis. From the Maghreb to Mesopotamia, I can't think of another Arab country more oppressive or extreme in its application of Islam -- unless you count Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/IS.

ETA:

If there were ever a holy war to "reclaim" Mecca and Medina (and all of Arabia) from the "infidels," it would be launched by Saudis against Saudis. That was exactly bin Laden's plan.

[Sue U]

America is playing a wrongheaded and fundamentally stupid game of geopolitics in trying to "balance" the powers of Saudi Arabia and Iran. We have interests in obtaining oil from all of the Gulf states, and to that extent good trade relations are important. But is is foolish to meddle in regional politics, and that meddling has been incalculably destructive to our interests.

[Guinevere]

Yes exactly. And try reading about life there from the perspective of a Saudi woman (well, ones that have escaped). It is not close to "moderate" and they have minimal if any "rights." It's the only country in the world where they cannot drive, and they still cannot vote. Women are chattel, property of their male relatives, not independent human beings. A "guardian" is required for every woman, and she needs the permission of her guardian to do many many things, including get an education, open a bank account, or travel.

[Big RR]

Well Guin, compare that to women in Afghanistan under the Taliban and I think you could see why I call it moderate. there, women could not get an education, young girls were bartered to be wives to old men, ... SA is not a great place to for a woman live, but it is far better than other predominantly Islamic countries. that is what I mean by moderate.

Sue--exactly, Sunni extremists are there and are tolerated, but they are somewhat held in check. and the Shia could well attack to reclaim the holy cities as well.

I can't think of another Arab country more oppressive or extreme in its application of Islam -- unless you count Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/IS.

Not even Afghanistan? Lebanon and Syria (at least parts of them)?

[Sue U]

Afghanistan is not an Arab country, and its Taliban version of Islam was frankly bizarre, although perfectly suited to bin Laden and his pals. Lebanon and Syria are both secular governments and both have long been very liberal in attitudes toward women. The civil wars in both countries have given footholds to extremists, but it's still nothing like Saudi Arabia (again, except in areas now controlled by Daesh and al-Nusra).

ETA:

And let me just point out one more time that what most directly brought us the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was U.S. and Saudi support for the mujaheddin in their counter-revolution against the Soviet-backed government -- a government whose major offenses (according to the mujaheddin) included equal rights and education for women. And look how well that worked out!

[Big RR]

sue--pardon me for characterizing Afghanistan as Arab, but I would see it is a definite example of what happens when the fundamentalists get control; the same thing has happened in parts of Syria and Lebanon. As for why the Taliban got footholds Afghanistan, you're reaching to the choir and it was one of Carter's silliest decisions to support the Mujuahaddin. But then, the Russians supported the other side so we had to stand up against the commies, right? Just the same old crap our foreign policy was for years.\

Syria and Lebanon were secular governments who lost power to the fundamentalists in many areas, and eventually the governments fell.

As for the Saudis, if they stood with the Mujahaddin, it was because we wanted them to, not vice versa. It was our fault what happened, not theirs.

However, I still maintain the Saudi government is trying to strike a balance which is difficult given their precarious position. Yes, women cannot drive (a ridiculous rule) but when I was there I saw unaccompanied women travel on buses, walk feely through the towns and never be accompanied by escorts unless they chose to be. A significant portion of the university population was women as well, and many women held jobs. I'm sure most of this angered the fundamentalists, but I think the Saudis have been fairly liberal in their treatment of women by fundamentalist standards. They rightly fear a holy war of the kind Iran saw, and the Saudi government has nowhere the control infrastructure the Shah had--so they give them a few concession, just as we have with out allies (hell, Christina fundamentalists could never threaten the US government, but we change science curricula in schools to placate them in much the same way).

And along the way, they allowed us to stage multiple military operations against arab and Islamic neighbors and were able to do so without being toppled. I think that says something about their policy.

Yes, the government is not particularly strong, but except for Israel it is our best ally in the middle east. I'd love to see them change, just like I'd love to see any semblance of theocracy crumble (as well as the fall of ruling monarchies and end of dictatorships) but such will not occur. Politics is the art of the possible, and I think the Saudis have played that game fairly well.

[wesw]

the Saudis rule with the consent of their male people

[Big RR]

Well maybe not at the consent, but with the sufferance of the males in the kingdom; they may or may not like them. but most are not seeking to remove them.

[rubato]

Yes exactly. And try reading about life there from the perspective of a Saudi woman (well, ones that have escaped). It is not close to "moderate" and they have minimal if any "rights." It's the only country in the world where they cannot drive, and they still cannot vote. Women are chattel, property of their male relatives, not independent human beings. A "guardian" is required for every woman, and she needs the permission of her guardian to do many many things, including get an education, open a bank account, or travel.

Saudi women are in the process of trying to reform their society from within; to change the status of women while not striking at the state itself. If that struggle shifted to an attempt to completely overthrow their society it would be different. They are having to do it now as opposed to looking back at it because the word had not gotten back to the women of Saudi that there was a different way to live and a different way to conceive of their own personal autonomy.

They are using the same method that feminists, by fits and starts, changed the status and self-conception of women in the west a process which we are still seeing the effects of, although near completion in many places.

But a sociologist at UCSC pointed out in a lecture that women in traditional Islamic society have much to lose if complete westernization happened overnight. A traumatic change will cost a great deal of suffering so that one force for conservatism is the women themselves. (I think the lecture was specifically about Bedouins living on the edge of cities).


yrs,
rubato