In the ten years since the attacks on Sept. 11th, 2001, we’ve been at war with al-Qaeda, fighting the outfit in Afghanistan and Iraq, while keeping up the pressure on their networks with drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. (Libya remains a “humanitarian intervention,” and al-Qaeda has yet to plant its flag there.) Those countries all have a long record of supporting terrorism, or harboring terrorists, or, as in the case of Iraq, becoming hotbeds for terrorism after we arrived. But there is one country conspicuously absent from the list of nations we’ve aggressively targeted — Saudi Arabia.
Advertisement
Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers, has remained our friend and close ally. (Had 15 of the hijackers been from Iran, we’d have 150,000 troops celebrating Christmas in Tehran; had 15 of the 19 been from Iraq, we’d have been in Baghdad on September 12.) Osama bin Laden himself, of course, was a Saudi citizen whose prominent family had close ties with the royals. The Saudis, along with Pakistan, were just two of the three counties that recognized the Taliban government. Yet officially the country remained above reproach. In the past ten years, the Saudi government has never been even verbally attacked by the State Department or the White House. The most stinging rebuke, in fact, was from Rudy Giuliani, who famously rejected a $10 million gift from a Saudi prince — and he got away with it because our anger was still so raw after the attacks.
In respectable foreign-policy circles, bringing up Saudi Arabia immediately marks one out as something akin to a Truther or a Birther — it’s just not a serious topic of discussion for serious people. It’s not that anyone in government, in private, will deny the Saudi’s government’s active and well documented hostility towards the United States; nor will they deny the public and growing record of the Saudi’s complicity in the September 11 attacks, or the jihad it supported against American troops in Iraq (the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq were Saudi citizens; Saudi citizens also provided critical funding for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq); or, as the Arab Spring has swept the region, the Saudis distinctly unspringlike form of government.
The Saudis seem to make up the glaring blind spot of American foreign policy.
There are still plenty of lingering questions surrounding the Kingdom’s involvement in the most deadly attack on American soil – like the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 report. There’s also the matter of Saudi Arabia’s ongoing gender apartheid — women are excluded from public life and are required to have a male guardian for any movement outside the home. The 2010 World Economic Forum Global Gender Report ranks the status of women in the Kingdom at the bottom — 129 out of 134 nations.
The Saudis haven’t been exactly friendly to U.S. interests lately, either. In June, former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Prince Turki al-Faisal published a strongly worded op-ed decrying American favoritism to Israel. “I’d hate to be around when [Israel] face their comeuppance,” Turki al-Faisal wrote.
It was for all these reasons that an agreement the United States is negotiating with Saudi Arabia caught my eye. Last year, we approved $60 billion in arms sales to the Kingdom. This year, we’re arranging something called an “Open Skies” agreement. On the tenth anniversary of September 11th, the words “Open Skies” and “Saudi Arabia” set off a few alarm bells — it sounded like some program to make it easier for Saudis to come to the United States (which it is in part, though not in the way I initially thought), something that I found particularly odd given Saudi underground support for terrorism and their very restrictive attitude toward visiting Americans.
Very interesting article! If our airlines were to fly to Saudi Arabia I guess no female flight attendants would be able to work those flights as they would not have appropriate escorts upon landing.
A slight correction. Iraq was a direct supporter of terrorism. They had a training camp set-up with an airliner to teach people how to take over an airliner. They also gave monetary rewards to the families of "Palestinian" homocide bombers.
We need to start negotiating equitable agreements. For travel and commerce, we should mirror any restrictions they place on us. Note I said mirror, not mimic. This would mean that any Saudi male travelling to the US would have to be met at the airport by a Female guardian/sponsor. They can't drive here and are not allowed out of their hotel suite unless accompanied by a female they are related to.
We have something special here in the USA (despite our President's opinion). People want to come here. We should leverage that desire and our marketplace to negotiate agreements. That would be "smart power".
Female flight attendants serve on flights to Saudi Arabia all the time, including Saudia's own flights, however, they cannot leave the airports without the requisite male guardians. Nonetheless, it is true that few non-Muslim Americans would wish to fly to Saudi Arabia, or be happy to be there if they did, regardless of what Maureen Dowd or a few other privileged celebrity reporters have said.
1st word: OIL !!. The world needs cheap oil and the Saudis have it. We are willing to do just about anything to protect access to it.
2nd Word: TAKIYA !! The Islamic principle where by they deceive others into believing they are friends in order to convert them or gain and advantage before they kill them.
Just so you know taqiyya has nothing to do what you describe. Moreover Saudi Arabia is a Sunni country thus does not even follow it. If you are not familiar please refrain from talking about it.
I've also wondered why we sell so many arms to Saudi Arabia. Quite apart from the (very important) question of whether they are truly our "friends," what do they DO with them? I've never heard of Saudi Arabia fighting anybody. About twenty years ago they were worried about potential invasion from a neighbour -- I seem to remember they outsourced their defence. To us. (Anybody know if they paid us for Desert Shield?)
Haven't been there, no desire to go there. Descriptions from people I know who have spent any amount of time there consistently paint it as one of the creepiest, most repressive places on this planet. No exaggeration.
Not to be misunderstood: I don't think this is a direct reflection of the Saudi family themselves, just the unsurprising result of making deal after deal with the most extreme, anti-human elements in all of Western Asia in order to attain and then maintain their tenuous grip on power in the kingdom, not to mention their equally tenuous status on the world stage.
So then, the question begs: what the hell (pun fully intended) are we doing?
I wonder if the arms sales have something to do with Iran? Saudi Arabia and Iran have long been enemies and this may be insurance against Iran getting uppity. On the other hand, if Saudis wanted a nuke, would we give it to them? Methinks not.
Can see the pictures now - Sears Tower, Golden Gate Bridge or any number of public landmarks aflame after being hit by "tourists" from Saudi Arabia. Just say no to open terrorist skies with Saudis. In fact, ship back all their "students", close their "schools" which of course only teach the religion of peace and other nefarious activities here in the U.S. including funding radical mosques in Virginia (one down the road from me) and terrorist sympathizer CAIR funding. We should fund underground violent feminist groups, Christian missionaries and other subversive groups in Jedda, Riyadh and elsewhere. You know, a goose/gander thing.
No one should condone the appalling Saudi laws you mention in your article. But that does not mean that the US should mimic these unjust and harmful laws.
While visiting the US, many Saudis spend large amounts of money on products and services-undoubtedly of great benefit to this country's ailing economy. As long as security issues are addressed, it is in our interests to encourage Saudis to visit the US. Furthermore, it is possible that if a greater the number of Saudis are able to observe the high level of personal liberty and quality of life in this country, their animosity towards the US will diminish.
The issue here is not reciprocity. It is whether Americans are better off with or without an Open Skies agreement. The truth is that we are.
BenW makes a rational argument from the standpoint of economics. He might learn about character, however, from Rudi Giuliani who turned away the Saudi Prince with his $10 million. Had New York had a mayor who had previously been a street walker, she would have gladly accepted the money. It is all a matter of character.
A comment on the safety implications of "open skies" would have been nice to read. Not allowing governments to set ticket prices or setting routes doesn't address the safety regulations at the airports. I am left assuming our security requirements would remain intact, in which case I am not that concerned.
After having witnessed the emetic bowing and scraping of Obama to the Saudi chief khazir, there can be nothing surprising in America's relations with Saudi Arabia during the remaining days of the present administration.
I heartily agree with BenW's comment. We should be inviting all who meet the visa requirements and security screens to America.
With that said, I believe one should be skeptical of any thesis of argument that depends on fallacies of logic and extraordinarily narrow views of the nature and purpose of diplomacy (vis-a-vis US interests) when driving home the point.
This article could be a case study in silly naiveté:
1.The author attempts to make the national origins of the 9/11 terrorists a relevant factor in US policy and response decisions. She then intimates that the lack of retaliation against Saudi Arabia is proof of some unspoken taboo in DC. Nothing could be more absurd. If a group of wing-nut Americans moved to a foreign land and was subsequently harbored, protected, funded and encouraged by that foreign land's acting government to perpetrate an act of aggression against a third party nation, would it be logical or rational for that third party to retaliate against America?
2. The author seems to suggest American foreign policy is a simple reward/punishment equation based on some sort of ambiguous (not defined) standard of human-rights. Poppycock! Yes, human rights are important and yes, we are a nation that believes in the promotion of human rights for all, but it is neither intelligent nor productive to view policy decisions through such a narrow prism. The primary purpose of the Department of State is to promote US interests. Period.
Sometimes that means we work with less than savory nations. So be it.
3. To establish "Open-Skies" agreements as some sort of reward bestowed by America on good and moral nations is to perpetuate a falsehood. We do it because it benefits us.
Finally, in using such blatantly heavy-handed rhetorical devices and logically flawed arguments the author exposes herself: demagogic pundit at best, naive and shallow xenophobe at worst.
1) Oil
2) Realpolitik
3) Lobbyist Gigs to retiring congress critters
4) Large donations to Presidential libraries
Seriously, the Kingdom has such a large toe-hold in the US already in ways that are designed to radicalise sympathetic persons, and you are worried about a few flights???
