Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Looking at the Saudis

Thursday, June 6, 2002 | 8:30 a.m.

WOW! I OPENED UP THE June 3, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report magazine and was shocked. "Our enemies the Saudis" was the headline of the editorial comment by writer Michael Barone. This is the first printed article which expressed opinions that have been danced around and avoided by our national leaders. The problems created for the United States by the Saudis have become known to more people because of the terrorist attacks against us September 11, 2001. Fifteen of the 19 killers who hijacked airplanes to kill Americans were Saudis. So was their leader Osama bin Laden. Even this blatant attack has had our leaders diverting our anger away from the oil-rich kingdom to various other enemies.

Barone isn't buying into these tactics when he writes, "Such behavior is nothing new. The Saudis stymied the FBI investigation of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. The Saudis refused a U.S. request in 1996 that they take custody of bin Laden; he went to Afghanistan instead. They refused in 1995 to hand over Imad Mughniyah, believed responsible for the bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. Far from aiding our efforts against terrorism, the Saudis have worked against them -- to protect the terrorists in their own ranks. Also, the Saudis have praised suicide bombings and raised money for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Government-controlled Saudi media have frequently spread the vilest kinds of anti-U.S. and anti-Jewish propaganda."

The magazine editorial encouraged me to go back and review some of my columns. Remember it was Saudi Arabia that joined other Arab nations whining about economic sanctions against Iraq before Saddam Hussein's army conquered Kuwait and had Saudi Arabia next on the menu. When we sent our army to that country to stop a threatened invasion by Iraq, they, at first, limited our soldiers preparing for the coming battles to the use of only one live-firing range. After the start of Desert Storm they joined other Arab countries complaining about the killing of so many of Hussein's soldiers. That's the major reason our troops weren't allowed to go for the kill and take apart Hussein's Republican Guard on the road from Kuwait to Baghdad.

When the shooting stopped and the Saudis' shish kebab had been saved, they immediately put additional restrictions on our military people. The sounds of war were still echoing when Saudi Arabia refused Sen. Frank Lautenberg a visa because his passport had been stamped in Israel during an earlier visit. In 1991 our State Department took the wimpy way out by issuing the senator a new and unmarked diplomatic passport. The Saudis also put the mutawin back on their streets. Westerners refer to these enforcers of Muslim values the "thought police."

With this prior knowledge of Saudi actions I shouldn't have been shocked by Barone's article in a popular American news magazine. I was surprised because of the continual drumbeat coming from the White House about our coalition friends. Always hidden in the background is the not too subtle message that we must be nice to the Saudis or gas prices will skyrocket when they punish us with another oil embargo. Somehow, despite much discomfort, our nation has survived and outlasted past embargoes.

Barone faces the energy shortage threat and asks, "So why do some still call the Saudis our friends? Because they have the power to keep oil prices down? That leverage is being reduced by increased oil production by our friends Russia and Mexico ..."

Barone's essay certainly promotes some heavy thinking. I would have to hear more details about the amount of oil we can get from other sources. On paper, it's easy to isolate the numbers of barrels coming from each country but the complexity of relationships between these supplies and changing economics take much deeper thought.

Barone wonders if our desire to have a change of regime in Iraq shouldn't be extended to a needed change in Saudi Arabia. It's a brutally frank column that has solutions and recommendations for changing the rulers of Saudi Arabia. These recommendations go far beyond what I believe Americans are willing to accept and there's little doubt the administration of George W. Bush would reject them. Nevertheless, it's a column every decision maker should read and think about. Has the cost of Saudi friendship, for the past several years, become a heavier burden than Americans are willing to carry?