posted on April 29, 2003 07:49:14 AM new
RIYADH (April 29) - The United States said on Tuesday it was ending military operations in Saudi Arabia and removing virtually all its forces from the kingdom by mutual agreement following the Iraq war.
Saudi Arabia said it had agreed the move with Washington but denied press reports it had asked the United States to withdraw.
U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, which doubled to 10,000 during the Iraq war, have started pulling out of a desert airbase used by U.S. planes since 1991 in their ''Southern Watch'' operation to police southern Iraq, U.S. officials said.
Political and defense analysts said the decision had huge political implications. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia gave Washington a strategic foothold in the Gulf but generated resentment among Arabs because of their proximity to Islam's holiest sites.
The announcement, made during a tour of Gulf states by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld focused on reducing the U.S. military in the region, followed Riyadh's refusal to allow air strikes on Iraq by some 100 Saudi-based U.S. aircraft.
''After the end of Southern Watch...there is no need for them to remain,'' Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz told a joint news conference with Rumsfeld. ''This does not mean that we requested them to leave.''
Rumsfeld told reporters after talks with the prince that the ''liberation of Iraq'' had changed the situation in the Gulf and allowed the United States to reduce its troops in the region. ''The relationship between our two countries is multidimensional -- diplomatic, economic, as well as military-to-military,'' he told a news conference.
LAUNCH PAD
The move effectively ends a relationship dating back 12 years when Washington used Saudi Arabia as a launch pad for the Gulf War to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait and then based warplanes at the Prince Sultan airbase in the Saudi desert to police a ''no-fly'' zone over southern Iraq.
The presence of Western troops in the kingdom irked many Saudis, already angry with the United States over its perceived bias toward Israel.
Ousting U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia became a battle cry of Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida network, blamed by Washington for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
''There are political advantages for both. The U.S. will have greater freedom of action, the Saudis will feel more comfortable -- and neither of them will have to mention that it was a key demand of Osama bin Laden,'' Tim Garden, security analyst at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, told Reuters.
''It certainly means the United States is rid of a huge problem,'' Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, told Reuters in London.
''There has been agitation for a very long time from inside Saudi Arabia. And it was one of al Qaida's key demands as well for foreign forces to be removed from the holy ground of Saudi Arabia,'' Heyman said.
After meeting U.S. military personnel at Prince Sultan airbase, Rumsfeld praised the Saudis for being ''enormously hospitable to us'' during the air operations over southern Iraq.
''We look forward to exercising and training and working with them on their military,'' he said.
CROWN PRINCE
U.S. officials said a small number of U.S. personnel would remain in Saudi Arabia to train Saudi soldiers and take part in joint exercises.
The defense secretary later met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah before flying to Kuwait.
On his week-long tour, Rumsfeld has held talks with leaders in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar. He also plans to visit Afghanistan. Defense officials, citing security considerations, declined to say if Rumsfeld would go to Iraq.
Saudi Arabia's ruling al Saud family faces U.S. and internal pressure to liberalize politically and modernize an Islamic education system influential Americans say produced militants involved in the 2001 hijacked airliner attacks on U.S. cities.
''It is very significant. It reduces America's dependence on Saudi Arabia and it throws open the opportunity for Iraq to become America's favorite base in the region,'' defense analyst Paul Beaver told Reuters in London.
Paris-based defense analyst Francois Gere said Saudi Arabia was also entering a complex reorganization of its leadership.
''There is less need both for Saudi territory and Saudi oil, but one should not exaggerate. I think the second message is 'we Americans are going to withdraw a bit from Saudi Arabia and let these people sort out their domestic problems','' he said.
U.S. officials in Saudi Arabia said earlier the Pentagon had also begun moving operations of a key combat air control center from Prince Sultan airbase to the neighboring state of Qatar.
The Combined Air Operations Center at the Saudi airbase, set up after the 1991 Gulf War, was used to control U.S.-led air strikes on Iraq in the recent conflict.
posted on April 29, 2003 07:32:10 PM new
The removal from the kingdom gives the US a lot more room to move with the Saudis. They have nothing to take away and no hostages.
I wish they would reduce Islam's holy shrines to a glassy radioactive plain and then they can develope a new attitude about Allah's will if he chooses not to supernaturally protect them.
posted on April 30, 2003 04:47:20 AM new
No really - this whole conflict and the troubles in the region all go back to a basic problem with religion. The US wants to deny it so bad because it is oh so inconvenient to not be able to appear neutral on religion. But the only way to really permenantly fix the problem is to so completely discredit the religion as an absurd superstition that when the imans try to stir the faithful to jihad the crowds take them out in the street and string them up.
posted on May 4, 2003 07:07:11 AM new
So Gravid,
Are you one of the drivers of the American Jihad?
What divisive religious order, if any, do you belong too.
posted on May 4, 2003 07:55:54 AM new
Gravid - I'm speachless and appalled and disgusted. It always amazesw me when I encounter people that are that ignorant about a topic and yet insist on commenting about it. Replies as masively extreme as yours always make me question whether or not they are a joke because I simply can't fathom that it could be a legitimatly held belief. Before I go further, I have to clarify - Are you really proposing that the Unitd States declare war on Islam and attempt to wipe out a religion held by hundred of millions worldwide?
Also - considering the commonalities between Christian and Islamic beliefs and their common god - if Islam is an "absurd superstition", then wouldn't Christianity be one as well?
posted on May 4, 2003 09:03:19 AM new
yes I'd promote the destruction of any religion that promotes jihad or it's equal. When they engage in armed conflict they give up any protected status as a religion and are as responsible for their words as any other political entity. When the Pope gave up his massive standing temporal armies and just kept his private Swiss guard it did more for the survival of the church than any decision of doctrine. Otherwise the secular powers would have destroyed them. The Moslims have never rejected arms for expansion of their faith no matter how much the government tries to pretend they are peaceful. They are their own worst enemies because they won't alter their belief to conform to reality as the Church did. It's sort of silly to keep saying they are no threat when their clerics get up and preach war to their congregations. Sooner or later they will have to face reality that they are enemies by their own choice. They only mouth peace when they are in a inferior strategic position. Let them control nuclear weapons and we'll see hopw peace loving they act. They need a serious attitude adjustment. It will have to be major adjustment due to their haughty superior attitude to all other people. You are an infidel - get it?
posted on May 4, 2003 09:59:21 AM new
::yes I'd promote the destruction of any religion that promotes jihad or it's equal.::
Jihad in Islam is a journey. The term has become synonomous with terrorism due to extremist fringe organizations,
::When they engage in armed conflict they give up any protected status as a religion and are as responsible for their words as any other political entity.::
Islam does not engage in armed conflict - extremeists groups cloaking themselves in the guise of religion do.
::When the Pope gave up his massive standing temporal armies and just kept his private Swiss guard it did more for the survival of the church than any decision of doctrine. ::
Extremeist terrorist groups do not operate as the official military unit of any Islamic nation. Argue is mute.
::The Moslims have never rejected arms for expansion of their faith no matter how much the government tries to pretend they are peaceful. ::
The Saudis have repeatedly spoken out against Al-Quieda. Hell, they are a target of Al-Quieda.
:: It's sort of silly to keep saying they are no threat when their clerics get up and preach war to their congregations. ::
And there are some lovely preachers in Idaho preaching similar acts to their camo clad gun toting anti government congegations. Should we wipe out Christianity too?
::They need a serious attitude adjustment. It will have to be major adjustment due to their haughty superior attitude to all other people. ::
Are you capable of grasping the concept that it is fringe groups and not governments that are committing acts of terrorism?
::You are an infidel - get it?::
Yeah well, according to a few crazy Christians I know I am also the antichrist so I don't really sweat that too much.
Religion afterall has been the basis of every major military action in history. How about if we just wipe out the concept of God in all of its forms.
posted on May 4, 2003 11:18:31 AM new
The lamest excuse I have ever heard is that we should allow ourselves to be murdered because the murderers are a non-representative sample of a group.
Who cares?
It is obvious this admin has had ENOUGH. With the new order and ground troops in the Mideast, we can now go to our "allies" and fix things.
You call up Assad and say "about these groups you are funding and training". Next month they don't exit or you starve to death.
You call up Mubarek and ask how the blind cleric causing all the problems is doing and kind of hint at your displeasure.
Before these requests were met with laughter. Now, you can be sure, we will be taken seriously.
They blackmarket pipeline into Syria is closed. It is going to get awful expensive if they are determined to be bad little doggies.
Besides which, we can now equip and train our own "groups" from Syria and Iran if we so desire.
No bombings, no conflicts, just a presentation of a whole new set of choices in the area.
The Iraq operation was a home run decision. If you look at a map, it looks like the terrorist "box" is now suddenly smaller.
Every day, from all parts of the world, you hear about gains against these people. And the last time I checked, it didn't seem that Islam was in danger.
posted on May 4, 2003 08:42:53 PM new
"Religion afterall has been the basis of every major military action in history. How about if we just wipe out the concept of God in all of its forms."
As a source of state political action? Sounds good. Wipe it. Sounds wonderful. Plenty of room for it to create happiness as private personal philosophy.
posted on May 5, 2003 01:37:33 PM new
And what does that mean? Is the organization really shut down or just the obvious public office that can be seen closed as a cosmetic measure?
