The Flip Side of Democracy

The US was invited to Saudi Arabia to protect her from good Muslims like Saddam Hussein, and the mad Ayatollahs. It was invited by the Saudi government. One fails to see why that is the business of anybody but the US and Saudi Arabia. This kind of ``all Muslims are unhappy`` nonsense got the Ottomans into so much trouble that Kemal Pasha had to bail them out. There is no such thing as this Muslim Umma except in the fertile imagination of every loser dictator in the Mideast. Get real. When the Americans went into SAudi Arabia, they did so along with forces from a dozen Muslim countries. They question that ought to be asked is not why AMericans are defending the Kaba, but why aren`t Muslims? More importantly, why are self-proclaimed Muslims like Saddam and the rest always threatning to invade the land that houses tha Harmain Sahrif?

The article is a brilliant and well written attempt to intellectually justify the murder of innocent men, women, and children in places as far ranging as Kenya and New York.

Rooster - Blues #30

Thanks for your comments, you explained some interesting points there. My basic premise was that the common Saudi has his usual requirements fulfilled by the state, which goes a long way in raising the happiness ``coefficient``. Everybody will have niggles and complaints. The question is whether those are sufficiently big and important enough to raise revolution or overthrow the rulers. My hypothesis is that the common Saudi is NOT in that state at all and if I am not wrong, your last point ``who wants to loose his head over a stupid policy`` somehow reiterates that.

Your second point, the National Guard being responsible for protecting the al Sa`ud Family is absolutely correct. I dont think I made that point clear in my earlier reply, and you are absolutely correct, it is the praetorian guard which is mainly for protecting the family rather than the borders. To protect the borders, they prefer to get the mercenaries in, in the form of the Americans et. al.

Final point was the probability / possibility of a successful revolution in Saudi Arabia. I believe you do concur with the idea that its very close to impossible (zero).

My issue is this, given the current situation and strengths of the al Sa`ud family, the chances of a revolution is very mild. Consequently, the entire premise of the Muslim ummah hating Americans to be in Saudi is doubtful. Either they do hate it and there is ``zilch`` they can do about it, or they do not mind, in which case, the proposition is faulty.

One commonality that I have observed is that, whenever somebody raises the Muslim ummah banner, its almost always with some kind of motive which is in direct opposition to national issues. Unfortunately, nationalism is a fact of life, and it has remained so for a significant portion of human civilisation (starting from city states onwards). The history of city-nation states as a concept has co-existed with the idea of religions, and this insistence on religion taking supremacy over national issues or temporal (apologies temporal for taking your name in vain :-) ) may not be very logical or appropriate. When the separation exists, then the chances of conflict is minimised.

One can draw a fascinating parallel with the idea of the Muslim ummah and the Jewish Diaspora. The advantage that the Jewish Diaspora has over the Muslim ummah is that the former is concentrated only on one state while the Muslim ummah stretches across the Islamic crescent. Both have multiple sects with theological differences, but the ``success`` of the Jewish Diaspora to orient resources/attention/PR is much more than the Muslim ummah. Could this be because they have managed to reconcile the perennial tensions between religion and state?

Comments folks?

cheers

bd

RE :bd

“1. Contrary to popular belief, the ordinary Saudi is quite happy with the al-Sa`ud rule, there is sufficient upward channels of communication for normal grievances to be dealt with, the economy is fine now (with the price rise), some normal grumbling are present, but which country doesnt?”

The common Saudi got paid for education, residence, health and what ever necessities he had to fulfill. The situation has changed quite dramatically since the gulf war footing the War-Expenses and deflating the oil prices has broken the backbone of the economy. To be forced to be ‘happy’ is not the same as being happy ! Have an opinion and you will beheaded after Jumma Prayer… there have been many uprisings is Saudi Arabia (with minimal media spotlight of course) .. The Haram invasion by extreme right wing ( I did witness the whole incident .. I was living next door! )

The merciless mass murder of 1000+ Shia’s in Najran ( they were protesting the economic condition of there poor minority status in the Saudi set up )

The clash between Mutwa community and Royal family incharge of he north region left around 100+ dead and several thousand Mutwa arrested

These are the some of the many instances where common Saudi stood up for their belief

There are masses in Saudia… liberal and conservative who do not approve of the economic and political policies of the rulers but they dare not to show there discontent (who wants to lose his head literally over a lousy policy!)

“2. If you look at the armed forces of Saudi Arabia, the national guard is personally loyal to the al` Sa`ud family, and is the best equipped, paid defence force in the world (whether effective or efficient is debatable), and the internal command and control systems are oriented with the national guard rather than the regular army. The national guard also is linked into the US commands, NATO and the UK forces. “

Agreed that they are the best and well equipped army! BUT and this is a big BUT(something like elephant’s butt) the sole purpose of National Guard is internal security .. more like protecting the Saud offspring from the general Saudi population’s wrath if that happened some day (most ‘Saudi’ I knew hated the Saudi id attached to them .. the fact that the whole country and id is named after a King is embarrassing to the liberals aka Arab nationalist .. cause it means losing ones own existence as an Arab.. conservatives disown it on the basis of Umma !) .. and speaking of National Guard .. the force is a loyal make up of Boudian tribes who pledge there allegiance to Abdullah the next saud in line who himself is born of ‘pure’ boudian’ mother .. and most up and coming royals (interestingly they are very strongly pro-American) fear the National Guard cause of there non-bodu gene!

“Given that the Arabian peninsula contains almost 40% of the world oil reserves, how probable do you think that a revolution would be (1) allowed to start (2) allowed to finish? In any case, what do you think would be the post revolution scenario in Saudi Arabia?”

Not very likely ..although there have been many assassination and half baked revolution attempts .. it is hard to perceive those attempts go a long way .. there is a strong possibility of an internal power struggle of royal family .. the 40,000 strong American force in and around gulf is there to protect precisely against these situations …

Sac: My apologies to all for not being careful. In my previous post, the correct site is www.tompaine.com and not ``.org``. They have some good articles from the liberal standpoint. Well you all know about Thomas Paine and why his statue is not up there at Mount Rushmore.

Asif #17

Fascinating and very interesting rejoinder that you gave. I personally think that we are diverging from the main issue here, but these cul-de-sacs are sometimes more interesting :-)

Now, my understanding of the Saudi Rule and nation is unfortunately limited to what I have read in books and articles and from my about 15 odd visits to the magic kingdom :-(, so I may very well be completely wrong in my following assertions.

1. Contrary to popular belief, the ordinary Saudi is quite happy with the al-Sa`ud rule, there is sufficient upward channels of communication for normal grievances to be dealt with, the economy is fine now (with the price rise), some normal grumbling are present, but which country doesnt?. People there skirt around the muttawah`s. Almost like, they have a job to do and we have to do our jobs while avoiding them, a large amount of fatalism is inculcated within the mindset of the Saudi`s.

2. If you look at the armed forces of Saudi Arabia, the national guard is personally loyal to the al` Sa`ud family, and is the best equipped, paid defence force in the world (whether effective or efficient is debatable), and the internal command and control systems are oriented with the national guard rather than the regular army. The national guard also is linked into the US commands, NATO and the UK forces.

3. Your point about the petition is in variance to what I understood, apparently King Fahd invited a convocation of all the major sheikhs to Riyadh right after the invasion and they agreed that Saddamn Hussain was attacking the custodian of the holy mosques and inviting Christian soldiers (who are also people of the book) was ok.

4. If we are talking about the same Channel 4 documentary, then my understanding was that there were severe complaints against that program which were upheld by the ASA and ITV. Complaints were not only from the Saudi Government but the script writer as well as advertisers, specially about the fact that many scenes were staged, improper editing took place etc. etc. etc.

I could very well be totally wrong in my above points, in which case I apologise. My last point related to your last sentence about the Saudi People rising against the al-Sa`ud family. Given that the Arabian peninsula contains almost 40% of the world oil reserves, how probable do you think that a revolution would be (1) allowed to start (2) allowed to finish? In any case, what do you think would be the post revolution scenario in Saudi Arabia?

Looking forward to your comments

Sincerely

bd

re Sheheryar #21:

Loved your work man.I could write a story about each of your photographs. By any chance do you have any plans to exhibit in NY any time soon? If you have any commerical aspirations that may not be such a bad idea. And have you given some thought to exploring some other parts of Pakistan besides Karachi or are you waiting for that grant to come thru :)

re SameerJB #23

I knew about spotlight. Are you sure the other one is correct? Thanks.

re sadna #20:

Dear Sadhana:

Now where else and from who else would we find such an excellent post? I do hope that your desire to bid us goodbye was an empty threat. If not, I am afraid I`ll have to pack my bags and leave too. There is a famous couplet by an urdu poet which goes something like ``Get up and leave my friend,this city is not too much fun anymore``.

later

-sac

Osman

Fascinating point which you raised. The responsibility for a country`s actions comes down to the public rather than the government. It is not only in USA that you can see that phenomena, you may also want to refer to Switzerland where actual policy decisions are judged by the whole population using a referendum. Is that good? Is that bad? but its the purest form of democracy which you can achieve and the referendums have a very high level of participation. On the other hand, USA`s polls are statistically suspect and more importantly these statistically suspect surveys form the basis of public policy which is extremely dangerous and causes alienation of large sections of society.

Personally speaking, I dont think that that short term outlook of democracy is the way forward. Nation states are going to disappear and economic relationships are going to assume greater importance. If you take a longer term perspective, that is a bigger possibility than having military based nation states. I for one, would welcome that situation.

I have certain issues with some of your statements. Firstly, your example of USA being in Saudi Arabia against the will of 1 billion Muslims. I find that logically incorrect and out of kilter with the rest of your article. Surely you are well aware that the US forces were invited into the country by the rulers of Saudi Arabia?. Leaving aside the issue whether the Al Sa`ud rules are legitimate rulers or they violate democracy (if you do raise that issue, then the question of whether the caliphate was democratic has to be discussed as well), the fact that Osama bin Laden wants to fight a war against this means that he is a traitor to his country, since he is disagreeing with what the al Sa`ud have decreed and he is taking violent objection to it. Since the Al Sa`ud invited them in, should he not complain / revolt against them rather than go after the USA?

Your article seems to be oriented towards western democracy itself. If you look closer to home, within Pakistan, India and Iran, you would see that the leaders in these countries were and are as driven by public opinion as any of the western democracies. As someone once said, nobody likes a prophet, the most famous example being that of Jesus Christ himself. Even now, there is rarely any democratic government which can take steps which are significantly different from what the body politic demands. Consequently, this is real-politick which is in action, and it behoves us to recognise the same. Your statement that ``In the past the issue of leadership was one of moral leadership based on values`` is something with which I disagree. The past always tends to be rosier than what it really was. When you say values, you are assuming that those values were different from that of the population and the leaders took decisions which were at variance with that of the population`s desires. I have to say that there are many more historical examples to the contrary than to your statement.

Final issue, you seem to have a desire to educate the population of the United States about international relations and world politics. I have to apologise for sounding cynical, but most of the people are more concerned with what is happening in their own backyards than what is happening 3000 miles away, and let me hasten to add that this phenomena is not restricted to USA itself, but is prevalent all over the world. Might is right, God is on the side of the big battalions and we have to like it or lump it unfortunately. Another point which may be appropriate is that people get the governments which they deserve. Why look as far afield as USA when you can look at India, Pakistan and Iran for 3 beautiful examples of a theocratic, democratic and military governments. I leave it up to you to figure out which one is going to remain so for the next 100 years and why does each country have the system of government that it has.

Sincerely

bd

ps: I wrote this right after the publication of the article so some points have already been made by other chowkwallahs, I apologise for being redundant.

Asif Naqshbandi #17

For the first time I agree with your analysis.

What Osama bin Laden has done so far. Nothing.

He is like word Communist, to be dreaded.

Worst form of McCarthyism.

Is there a possibility of some pressure from Saudi Regime against Osama.

There are some points of contention between Taleban and American, but the most important point is Osama.

But also Saudi regime supports Taleban.

Asif Naqshbandi

Re post #17

You wrote

{{In side S. Arabia and the majority of the Muslim populace-excluding the rulers and the hypocrites and those with vested financial/ideological interests--do want the US troops out.}}

Thats what your cultural microcosm believes. Mind you, I`m no fan of the Saudi royal family. However, its quite presumptious of you to make such sweeping generalisations of the ``silent majority`` of Saudi citizens. Did you conduct some kind of secret opinion poll? If your opinions are based on what the true believer Osama says, then I`d like to sell you the Brooklyn bridge!

{{(Oh yeh, another reason they are in is to protect Israel).}}

Are you serious?!!

What exactly are you refering to when you say that? Surely, youre not saying Israel needs protection from the S Arabian military?! Please specify.

Here are couple of URL where you can find material critical of modus operandi of the US governments:

For ultra-rightist opinions, visit www.spotlight.org

For liberal /leftist opinions, visit www.tompaine.org

sac #20

A conversation I had on why even their major news sources like NBC and CNN sometimes donot bother with even accuracy when reporting on foreign news(the example I quoted was an MSNBC `analyst` ranting on his web column against India`s nuclear tests saying India and China have been longtime allies :-) and thus have joint interests in upsetting global status quo).

The answer I got was, ordinary people don`t pay attention to anything but local(city) news and don`t believe anything they read in newspapers except on local issues. Now, this was a PhD highly acclaimed in his field talking. He said people donot believe anyone but their local city councilman and maybe Congressman and take all their concerns(local) to them. He said he personally didnot think any national level leader or his policies really has any major impact on ordinary Americans` lives.

Well, I did ask, how can US claim to be a world policeman and conscience-keeper and wield so much power abroad as a proxy of the American people and the same Amercian people inspite of this onerous responsibility be so ill-informed, he said, these matters don`t really impact ordinary people`s lives, so they donot pay attention. A few days later George Bush failed his test :-).

It seems rather obivous, the US/Western mainstream media plays a huge role in this `gap`. The groundwork or `political space` for every major foreign policy initiative is laid by the media, which tells the public what to think(while creating an illusion of informed judgement :-)), and which rarely seems to oppose an establishment viewpoint.

However, it seems (independent?)organisations or thinktanks gathering facts and putting out policy statements on foreign affairs cover the ground on any issue pretty comprehensively as far as projecting US potential interests is concerned, but these organizations have their own biases, blind spots, and entrenched interests too. And these activities seem to be normally outside the ambit of the `ordinary` citizen.

Sadhana

sac:

You are correct. The entire global politic is run by the top elites. There is no connection between the people and who rule. It is a matter of appeasement. Similar to giving a child some candy and then the injection. The interesting thing I have found where the US and Pakistan differ is that most Americans actually believe in the system and the ``democracy`` it displays. On the other hand in Pakistan, the poorest of the poor are AWARE of how the rulers/elites are screwing them.

Best regards (and check out my new site at

http://home.uchicago.edu/

Sometimes it becomes difficult to comprehend whether the think tanks and the ``experts`` are echoing the sentiments of the American public or are actually manipulating them to tow the government line.

The American system of government is designed to be run by a bunch of elitist WASPs while giving the illusion that the voice of the common American really counts. The founding fathers wanted it this way. And to be brutally honest, it somewhat works(in the sense that a government actually does more good than harm :)). I remember reading this survey about asking Americans the names of their 2 senators. Something like 70% couldn`t name even one. I have a hunch that asking the same question in the local context in Pakistan or India would lead to entirely different results.

later

-sac

Re: Fuzair # 16

Thanks!

I had meant to include Iran and the Shah, but you carried the thought! Thanks!

I know Pat B. His favorite idea of an ethnic resturant is The Great Wall Of China! I agree with you and that streak of isolationism is an old GOP wet dream. It starts from Henry Cabot Lodge and his refusal to join the Leaque of Nations in 1919 to the recent the GOP vote not to ratify the CTBT.

The rest of your post I agree with. The problem is that the American public needs to be convinced that there is a threat out there, because otherwise it becomes really difficult for Washington to explain its massive national security expenses. The fact is that with the Koreas getting together and France holding the EU presidency; with China resisting the American TMD and Israel offering military hardware to the highest bidder, American options are being slowly limited and the rest of the world, either it is tired of American high handness or just hates Americans, is starting to question the post 1989 American dominance of world affairs.

Ciao!

Welcome Niazi bhai :-)

That article had some interesting points but I think that you are mistaken if you really believe that in a democracy the people have much control over the policies of the elected leaders. Someone once described it as an ``elected dictatorship``.

As for why the US troops are in the Holy Land of Arabistan it is as many have said primarily to ensure that their precious oil supplies are not threatened. As to why the Saudi leaders called thme in the reason is because despite all their lip service to Islam not one of the leaders in the Middle East (or any other Muslim nation) gives a damn about Islam, they just want to protect themselves and make sure they stay in power. Which is why in Saudi Arabia many of the righteous ulama are locked up and tortured if they criticize the Saudi rulers for their policies especially vis-a-vis the US troops and other matters.

In fact this is the root cause of why Mujahid Usamah fell out with the Saudi government. When the US troops coming to the Holy Land was announced many ulama denounced it as against Shariah but Fahd lied to them and said it will only be for a fw months and then they will leave. The ulama wrote a long petition to the Saudis giving evidences from Qur`an and Sunnah as to why the presence would be illegal and a list of other actions that they wanted the Saudi regime to take to make the country truly Islamic. Well, the petiition was rejected, most of the ulama who supported it dismissed from their posts and tortured etc etc and the US troops rolled in...

In side S. Arabia and the majority of the Muslim populace-excluding the rulers and the hypocrites and those with vested financial/ideological interests--do want the US troops out. (Oh yeh, another reason they are in is to protect Israel).

Because S arabia is a police state almost most of the popular unrests etc go unreported but a Channel 4 documentary a couple of years ago filmed secretly inside arabia showed mass unrest and unpopularity at the presence of the kuffaar troops in the Holy Land..

Of course the leaders of arabia don`t give a damn what their people think as long as they are in power they`re happy...

Also the US troops are there to prevent the rise of the islamic groups as a CIA agent admitted on the same programme that an Islamist Saudi Arabia is the US`s worst foreign policy nightmare...

Insha Allah this nightmare will come true and the illegal and heretical Saud family`s illegal rule will soon fall...

As for Usaamah ibn Ladin he has been accused of a lot of things by the US without them bringing any solid proof. Usamah has repeatedly denied that he was responsible for the Kenyan Embasy bombings and he has said clearly that only US military personnel and targets are what he aims for. Therefore based on his denials we have to believe him as a word of a believer...

Killing civilians is totaly wrong in Islam and a person who has so much taqwa, do you thinkhe would deliberately flaunt the shar`iah like that?

The aim of removing the US from Arabistan is a noble one...and the US will NOT leave even if asked by FAhd (does a master obey his slave?!)...

the only way is if the Saudi people rise up in jihad against them and overthrow the saudi regime...

Re: Ferozk #12

Thanks Feroz. You gave a reasonable answer as to why the US is in Saudi Arabia. However, it could be boiled down to an four words: Its the oil, stupid! The Shah of Iran was the designated regional power and protector of the oil supply (a much better title than Arya Mehr) until he went belly up in 1979. This event led to the proclamation of the Carter Doctrine which told the Soviets to keep their paws off the Gulf and said that the US reserved the right to intervene in the region to protect the oil supply.

Pakistan was then the designated gendarme for a while until, as you said, Gen. Zia refused to send only Sunni officers and men to Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, no one asked the Pakistanis to join in in the Gulf War. Nawaz Gump Sharif acted on his own and the Americans did not want Pakistani troops there at all. Neither did the Saudis, actually.

The average American, and I do know a few, pretty much understand why the US needs to keep troops in Saudi Arabia: to protect the oil. The anti-terrorism justification is not really needed in this case. Currently, given the high gas prices here in the US, many people wonder why the US has troops in Saudi Arabia if they are going to keep raising the oil price.

You have to understand the psyche of the American people to understand why ``the issues are simplified into an evil versus good debate to garner support from the American people.`` There is a very strong isolationist streak in the US (our friend Pat Buchanan is the current exemplar of this) that wants to keep out the corrupt outside world and keep the US pure. The US is the shining city on the hill, the last best hope of mankind, etc. etc. Remember Washington`s advice to keep clear of foreign entanglements? The Know-Nothings?

So, the only way one can get the American people to take an interest in the evil world beyond the shores of the US is to portray the effort as some sort of a messianic crusade against evil. Hence things like the ``War to End All Wars`` for WWI; the ``War to Make the World Safe for Democracy`` for WWII; the need to ``contain`` Godless communism to justify the Cold War and the list goes on.

As I said in another forum, the only objections I have to the Pax Americana is that it is run by idiots. The constant stream of academics that shuttle back and forth between Washington DC and the campus, the lack of continuity in foreign policy, the complete ignorance of even high-level policy makers about what is going on is appalling. Now, granted, they knew a fair bit about the USSR or France and presumably Latin America and now China, but they know diddly about any other place in the world. I have heard, cannot vouch for its authenticity, that at one point in 1978 there was only one Persian speaker in the US embassy in Tehran. However, the CIA continually overstated Soviet GDP figures and growth rates, so I doubt they knew that much about even the USSR.

To a certain extent, the Americans are rationally ignorant. There are so many insignificant little TPLA/ACs in the world that who can keep track of all of them? Kissinger, as Nat. Sec. Advisor to Nixon in the early 1970s, was asked, in Pakistan, by a Pakistani reporter what he thought of the Baluchistan question. He replied that he wouldn`t recognize the Baluch question if it bit him in the ass, or words to that effect. So, we know more about them than they will ever know about us. But, guess what, this is because they are more important to us than we are to them.