ishtat
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Posts
- 5,752
Realistic solutions by necessity are going to be brutal and bloody.
As far as oaths and affirmations go, the fundamentalist Muslim is going to lie. As part of their faith, lying to an infidel or barbarian is NOT a sin. To them it's roughly akin to lying to a dog. Any ruse, betrayal, or lie is perfectly fine if it furthers their goals. A trait that makes them especially dangerous when attempting to deal with them on a diplomatic basis.
And it's not the Saudis that are the problem, it's their partners the Wahhabi's that are. Saudi Arabia is a bifurcated nation when it comes to governance. The royal family are the 'front men' and in reality have been good partners on the international scene, the Wahhabi's are the power behind the throne, the royal family deals with the secular, the Wahhabi's the divine. Should either side act against the other the kingdom will fall into anarchy and civil war. A state of affairs that no one wants to see except the fundamentalists. They will do anything to gain control of Mecca.
Getting back to dealing with the problem, because the fundamentalist will lie to avoid detection how do you know which Muslim is truly a Muslim that is content to live within the laws of the nation in which they reside?
Ishmael
I agree with the points made in paragraphs 1 and 2 but don't believe the Sauds and the Wahabbis are really separate. They function as you say, and have been closely allied for 150 years. There is a complex network of tribal and marriage alliances. However given that Saudi Arabia has been governed by a gerontocracy for years (The King is 90 and most ministers are in their 70's and 80's) which has lost real power to the Wahabbis I think the best bet is to promote a civil war in Arabia.
The Shia are a minority in Arabia except in one area, which conveniently is where the oil fields are. They are a highly disaffected group as are their neighbours the Shia majority in Bahrain(who are oppressed by a Sunni ruling clique) It shouldn't be too difficult to arm and train these groups sufficiently to bring about a long running civil strife. The West doesn't need a resolution but an extended civil insurrection which brings terrrorism back to where it began. Major loss of life could be anticipated but so long as it is an intra/arab, sunni/shia conflict, that fact is of no strategic consequence to the West.
The fact that the Saudi royal family and government have been allies should not blind us to the strategic necessity of allowing them to be disposed of if necessary.
The US and the West must follow its interests, that leaves no room for sentimental attachment to alliances past their use by date.
Major civil unrest would be of major economic help to the USA because civil strife could damage the Saudi oil industry and thus preserve the US investment in shale oil.
One fly in the ointment might be the arms industry which would not want to lose a major customer, but if the conflict could be promoted and handled properly they could benefit by supplying both sides.
I think that the Wahabbis already control Mecca, didn't they destroy the tomb of one of Mohamed's close relatives only a year or two ago?
But I still doubt that any US leader has the spine to take terrorism home. Yet.