Saudi Arabia to behead boy for political protest

[Savonarola]

Israel did it for me a couple years ago. I was sort of freaked out about getting an Israeli stamp since so many countries don't like it (I knew you could avoid getting it stamped, but was worried they would do so anyway), but when I handed over my passport and quickly started asking him not to stamp, he said, "don't worry at all, we don't stamp" and just inserted a transit card into the passport. I got the impression he would have done so even if I didn't ask.

On the reverse side, one of our radio supplier's engineers had a project in Syria that required his constant attention over the course of several years.  So he came to Israel and they started looking over his passport.

Passport Control Agent:  How many times have you been to Syria?
Keith:  I don't know, a couple dozen?

He said he had a nice, long conversation with the Mossad after that.

After the first paragraph, I was expecting your story would end, "He got Israel to stamp his passport so wouldn't be allowed back into Syria and would force the company to send him to another assignment." 

Now that would have been funny, but I'm sure he would have just gotten another passport.  He had one of those enormous book passports that was quickly filling up.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I think business as usual with Saudi Arabia does involve "mild" pressure on them, and like Yi said I do think it's slowly produced very minor results. The U.S., U.K., and other major western powers regularly publicly rebuke Saudi Arabia's worst excesses, or even get involved in cases to try and get clemencies and etc. That is, to me, "business as usual", something different would be taking a hard line position towards them.

To me the problem comes with considering the Saudis as a sort of a valuable ally. Someone else mentioned Libya under Qadaffi and Iraq under Saddam here. Sure, toppling them proved unwise in retrospect and toppling the Saudis would probably be similarly disastrous - but Western leaders were not, generally, kowtowing to those dictators - they were pariahs that were barely tolerated by the civilised Western nations. Why we do not use the same approach with respect to the Saudis is beyond me.

Lots of things are beyond you. Iraq and Libya invaded their neighbors and were believed to be aligned with the Soviet Union.  I can see why you would want the US-Saudi alliance to fail, it benefits the West, something you are not part of.

the question is of course to what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world, with significant effect.

How would ending the US/Saudi alliance put an end to "the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi"?

that's another question alltogether, as you know well enough.

[Razgovory]

that's another question alltogether, as you know well enough.

No, it's the same question.  Why is the West allied with Saudi Arabia?  You asked "what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world", since not being allied with them has no real effect on them exporting their ideology (with one major exception), nothing is being "nullified". The Western alliance and the Saudi ideology don't impact one another very much which is why the West is allied with them, as you know well enough.   One major exception is if Saudi Arabia is conquered by Iran, an undesirable outcome.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

that's another question alltogether, as you know well enough.

No, it's the same question.  Why is the West allied with Saudi Arabia?  You asked "what extent that benefit is nullified by the wahabi/salafist shit Saudi exports all over the world", since not being allied with them has no real effect on them exporting their ideology (with one major exception), nothing is being "nullified". The Western alliance and the Saudi ideology don't impact one another very much which is why the West is allied with them, as you know well enough.   One major exception is if Saudi Arabia is conquered by Iran, an undesirable outcome.

Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.

[OttoVonBismarck]

But here's the thing, Saudi state support for that stuff is part of the bargain between the House of Saud and the crazy Islamists in Saudi Arabia, without it they likely wouldn't be able to govern. If we replace the House of Saud, it'd be with an Islamist government that would do all of these things and more. If we pressure the al-Sauds too much, what are they going to choose: caving to Western demands, or maintaining their grip on power?

I think the light pressure we exert, and having their government as allies (if not their populace) is the best possible scenario here. Any serious change to this status quo makes things worse for us and arguably worse for Saudi Arabia.

[Sheilbh]

Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.

But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.

The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.

If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.

There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.

I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago () but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.

But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.

The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.

If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.

There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.

I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago () but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.

sure, but it doesn't make it a positive. Neutral at best, unless the other intelligence they have is sufficiently valuable to turn a negative to neutral into a positive.

the saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.

the saudis share intelligence on the problem they created: that's good but since they are unlikely to know about each and every one of the indoctrinated vectors they created this intelligence is insufficient to tip the scales into a positive range. Especially as they continue to undermine societies by spreading said vile ideology. So the balance is neutral at best (but in reality it isn't)

so other intelligence and assets they might have are going to determine what that benefit to the West is. But in the meantime that negative number is getting bigger and bigger, day by day. Not exactly the behaviour of an ally. Just as the USSR was an 'ally' during WW2 it didn't do much to change the fact that it was a force for evil. One can say the same of the Saudis, and be speaking the truth.

[Berkut]

Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.

But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.

The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.

If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.

There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.

I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago () but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.

sure, but it doesn't make it a positive. Neutral at best, unless the other intelligence they have is sufficiently valuable to turn a negative to neutral into a positive.

the saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.

the saudis share intelligence on the problem they created: that's good but since they are unlikely to know about each and every one of the indoctrinated vectors they created this intelligence is insufficient to tip the scales into a positive range. Especially as they continue to undermine societies by spreading said vile ideology. So the balance is neutral at best (but in reality it isn't)

so other intelligence and assets they might have are going to determine what that benefit to the West is. But in the meantime that negative number is getting bigger and bigger, day by day. Not exactly the behaviour of an ally. Just as the USSR was an 'ally' during WW2 it didn't do much to change the fact that it was a force for evil. One can say the same of the Saudis, and be speaking the truth.

The problem with your analysis however is that it doesn't suggest a better alternative.

Will the Saudi's stop doing these things we object to if we support them less?

I suspect that they will do more of those things in fact, rather than less of them.

I cannot fucking stand them - I hate the things they stand for, and I think the spread of Wahabism is a cancer. But I think that engaging with them in the manner we are doing now is probably the best way to handle the situation. We cannot stop this by being their enemy, like Iran. Their oil makes them incredibly wealthy no matter what we do, so unless we are willing to endure a radical economic and political risk by trying to embargo them or something, there is no alternative approach that will do better than what we are doing now, so far as I can tell.

I do find they repugnant though, so I am a ready audience for a better solution....

[The Minsky Moment]

One of the most important questions for the world over the next 20 years is how the next generation of young people in Islamic majority countries are going to be educated.  Looked that way, the Saudi regime may be the most dangerous in the world today.

[Berkut]

One of the most important questions for the world over the next 20 years is how the next generation of young people in Islamic majority countries are going to be educated.  Looked that way, the Saudi regime may be the most dangerous in the world today.

I don't disagree, at all. Some of the examples of how education works in Islamic funded schools is just horrifying.

Fucking oil.

[Razgovory]

Nice way of ignoring all the shit the Saudi support of salafist mosques all over the world causes. And if you think their ideology has no impact on the West... well, the dead in Nice, London, Madrid, New York, etc disagree. As would the dead caused by the ever growing clout of the saudi-sponsored hate-beards all over the muslim world.

But it's not ignoring it. I think your argument is the one that is pretending there's no cost here.

The Saudis support the ideology of terror. They also have excellent counter-terrorism intelligence which they share with the West.

If we end the alliance we have we'd no longer get that intelligence which means more dead people in those towns. It's not clear to me that the Saudis would, for some reason, then stop spreading their ideology. But even if they did the gain is very potential and very long-term.

There's a definite cost to maintaining our alliance in terms of human rights and that we are supporting part of the problem. There's also a cost to ending it. Personally, even though it means supporting an awful regime, I think the benefit of real intelligence that prevents attacks in the West is probably worth the cost to our human rights position and charges of hypocrisy.

I'm still broadly a pro-democracy neo-con-ish kind of guy like you all were a decade ago ( ) but I'd also agree with OvB. The house of Saud if awful, I can't think of any likely replacement that would be better.

I'm not an "it".

[Razgovory]

sure, but it doesn't make it a positive. Neutral at best, unless the other intelligence they have is sufficiently valuable to turn a negative to neutral into a positive.

the saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.

the saudis share intelligence on the problem they created: that's good but since they are unlikely to know about each and every one of the indoctrinated vectors they created this intelligence is insufficient to tip the scales into a positive range. Especially as they continue to undermine societies by spreading said vile ideology. So the balance is neutral at best (but in reality it isn't)

so other intelligence and assets they might have are going to determine what that benefit to the West is. But in the meantime that negative number is getting bigger and bigger, day by day. Not exactly the behaviour of an ally. Just as the USSR was an 'ally' during WW2 it didn't do much to change the fact that it was a force for evil. One can say the same of the Saudis, and be speaking the truth.

Do you believe that the Ideology of the Saudi state would change if the West was not allied with them?

[OttoVonBismarck]

the saudis finance and spread a vile ideology all over the world: that's a negative, and getting more so with each passing day.

I think you're vastly overstating the importance of the Saudis in this, if you disappeared their funding of Wahhabism I don't think you'd see that significant of a decrease in the spread of Islamic terrorism. Lots of major Islamic terrorist organizations have really broken with Saudi Wahhabism anyway.

Plus, we go back to the why, the mostly cosmopolitan and fairly Western-style House of Saud is in bed with the Islamic fundamentalists--it's part of the deal that keeps their fundamentalist population from going batshit crazy and rioting in the streets. If we took moves to distance ourselves from Saudi Arabia, we make the al-Saud family weaker, more likely to lose power. If that happens we just end up with a "popular government" even more committed to doing the things you're upset about.

What you're missing is the real problem in SA is their extremely fundamentalist population, and your prescription is to do things that would weaken their more pro-Western ruling family. The House of Saud has to walk a razor's edge to maintain power, and I have no reason to think pushing them off of it is to our benefit.

[The Minsky Moment]

The estimates I've seen are about $3 billion/year in funding for overseas educational institutions.  Historically these are key feeders for the Taliban - indeed that is what the term Taliban designates.  They are also feeders for terrorism  in the sense they propagate a worldview and mental outlook such that once a person is radicalized (perhaps for other reasons) they are primed to respond to the propaganda of the likes of AQ/Nusra/Daesh/etc even if these organizations are not strictly speaking Wahhabi. And perhaps even more significant then direct feed-in to terror organizations is that fact what does NOT happen as a result of such schooling - students are not exposed to broader secular ideas and principles as part of their education beyond some narrow technical training.

As for the pressure from the population, the Saudis have put themselves in a hamster wheel - if you turn over the formation of your youth to fundis, you will get more fundi with each generation, thus reinforcing pressures to make concessions to fundis, etc.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Mind the Afghan Taliban won the 1990s Afghan Civil War primarily because of support from Pakistan. It's not as simple as just Saudi Arabia making this stuff happen. There's also a lot of private support among wealthy Gulf Coast Muslims for funding these sort of things, I'm just not convinced the Saudi Regime is creating the situation so much as it's just caught up in it. If they ended the support they'd create domestic enemies, and wealthy Wahhabists would probably fill in a lot of the gaps.