Saudis Balk at U.S. Use of Key Facility

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6731-2001Sep21.html

Saudis Balk at U.S. Use of Key Facility Powell Seeks Reversal of Policy; Refusal Could Delay Airstrikes at Terrorists

Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, September 22, 2001; Page A01

Saudi Arabia is resisting the United States' request to use a new command center on a Saudi military base in any air war against terrorists, forcing Pentagon planners to consider alternatives that could delay a campaign for weeks, defense officials said yesterday.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is trying to persuade the Saudi government to reverse a decade-old policy in which it has refused to allow the United States to stage or command offensive air operations from Saudi air bases, officials said.

While high-level talks aimed at resolving the matter are underway, the Pentagon is already considering moving the operations center to another country, the officials added. They did not specify where.

A refusal by the Saudis would deal a significant blow to the Bush administration's efforts to build a broad international coalition in its effort to destroy the terrorist network of Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, which has harbored bin Laden and many of his top lieutenants.

The Pentagon had been counting on using the command center at Prince Sultan Air Base in the coming air war. Besides delaying any operation, Saudi unwillingness to allow the United Sates to use Saudi bases for offensive operations could send a strong signal to the Arab world that accepting Washington's demands is not a prerequisite for ongoing relations with Washington.

The Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base, located outside Al Kharj about 70 miles southeast of Riyadh and completed just six weeks ago, is the Air Force's most advanced command and control center. It is capable of controlling the movements of hundreds of aircraft over an area of thousands of miles.

The two nations have different perspectives on the Air Force facility: The United States sees it as capable of running operations throughout the Mideast, while the Saudi government would like -- at least publicly -- to see it used only to defend Saudi territory.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who until last year commanded U.S. military operations in the Mideast, said losing the ability to run combat missions from the new air operations center would be problematic only in the short term.

"Obviously, it's easier to go into a place where you're already set up," he said. "But we have really worked to make our capability expeditionary and can set up fairly quickly" at bases in other countries.

Victoria Clarke, the chief spokesperson for the Pentagon, declined to comment on the discussions with the Saudis. "We think it is appropriate for countries to announce what they are doing, not us," she said. "Different countries will be doing different things at different times. We have been very pleased by this response."

Greg Sullivan, spokesman for the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, said he was unaware of any dispute with the Saudis. "We've gotten everything we've asked for from the Saudis and we're very pleased with their cooperation," he said.

Despite military ties with Washington that are decades old, the Saudi royal family remains extremely sensitive about cooperating with the U.S. military, given feelings among many Saudi citizens that their leaders are too closely allied with the United States.

During the Persian Gulf War, the Saudis permitted the United States to fly combat missions from their soil. But afterward, the Saudis repeatedly refused Washington's request to base attack aircraft there for various military strikes against Iraq.

The matter is so sensitive that U.S. officials often do not even ask the Saudis for permission to use their bases for offensive purposes. Such was the case when 40,000 troops and coalition forces moved into the Gulf region after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein prohibited United Nations inspectors from entering certain suspected chemical and biological weapons sites. Airstrikes were averted after Saddam relented.

A cardinal rule in dealing with the Saudi government has been secrecy, or "plausible deniability," said one general who worked for years in Saudi Arabia.

"Saudi cooperation was always something they did not want to broadcast," he said, referring to media accounts earlier this week in The Washington Post and the New York Times about the U.S. plan to run the coming air war out of the new operations center at Prince Sultan base.

Public discussion of that plan, the general said, "put them in a really tough position. We should have known better."

In the past, the Saudis have told U.S. officials that they cannot support strikes from their territory, or advocate strikes publicly, unless the target of the strikes, which in most cases has been Iraq, had struck first, in which case the U.S. action could be considered defensive.

While the Saudis have balked at allowing combat missions to be flown or controlled from their soil, they have allowed refuelers, reconnaissance and other support aircraft to fly from Saudi bases. They have also allowed 5,000 U.S. troops to be stationed there, but have severely limited reporting on their presence or operations.

In another war-related development yesterday, a spokesman at Fort Bragg, N.C., confirmed that the U.S. Army Special Operations Command had received a deployment order for sending troops and units abroad as part of the war on terrorism.

But Maj. Rob Gowan said he could not comment on how many troops or which units were affected by the order.

Staff writer Alan Sipress contributed

to this report.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company



-- (@ .), September 22, 2001

Answers

When you're as rich as they are you can afford to be juat a "Fair weather friend".

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 22, 2001.



-- photoshop rulz (photo@shop.com), September 22, 2001.

The rest of the world is not as stupid as Dumbya thinks they are. He made his bed, now he can lie in it. Or preferably, die in it.

-- (little Hitler @ is gonna. die), September 22, 2001.

saudi's balk at US use of key facility? I'm shocked I tell ya, just shocked!!!! Along with a brain, a heart, and courage, I think the wizard of Oz needs to hand out a few spines/backbones to our *allies*.

-- Gary (gcphelps@yahoo.com), September 22, 2001.

See www.debka.com for more very interesting information

-- chris (chris@ireland .ie), September 22, 2001.


"I think the wizard of Oz needs to hand out a few spines/backbones to our *allies*."

Why should they become part of Dumbya's NWO agenda to take over the world and force our lifestyle upon all of humanity? Some people still have a conscience and respect for human rights, and the backbone to support it.

Dumbya was born without a conscience or a backbone. Unfortunately the bastard has learned that he can still get ahead despite his inadequacies, by screwing the rest of the human race.

-- (get@clue.dimwit), September 22, 2001.


Saudis balk, balk, bawk, bawk, bawk, bawk,

-- (Ibn Saud @ chicken.lickin'), September 22, 2001.

I remember reading a pretty good analysis of Crown Prince Abdullah a few years ago. He's much more of an Islamic fundamentalist than his father, King Fahd, who was pro-West. A few years ago, the fear was that Abdullah would use his oil as a lever against the West ...

... which is one of many reasons why we have *GOT* to develop our own oil resources again, including the Alaskan wilderness crude. Our dependence on foreign oil makes us very vulnerable. This present crisis is bring the chickens home to roost.

Some people say that we need to look for alternative sources of power; I fully agree. But it will take many years to get those on line; in the interim, we will still need oil and lots of it. The alternative is to absolutely destroy our economy and weaken this nation to something just above 3rd-world status.

While Abdullah's little palace "coup" and refusal to permit us to use this base is disappointing -- even troubling -- it's not exactly a huge shocker.

It doesn't take a genius to see the possible permutations here:

1. Abdullah does as just described, he tries to stop the flow of oil. He'd have to get Opec to go along with this, but several of the largest Opec nations are already leaning his way. This is the most likely. It is very UNlikely that he will remain neutral in this conflict, given his religious beliefs (and those of his closest advisors).

2. Next most likely: Abdullah privately helps the Afghan/Taliban forces. The man is filthy rich, armed with tons of shiny new Western hardware and is in a very good position to do just that.

3. Least likely, IMNHO: Abdullah actively intervenes militarily on behalf of the Taliban.

All of this (and other considerations) are the reason why Bush is urging caution. This isn't a simple matter of the United States carpet-bombing Afghanistan, then invading the country en masse. There are ramifications here -- the biggest, once again, that we depend on the Muslim countries for a significant part of our oil.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 23, 2001.


The last paragraph should have read, "why Bush is taking his time to build an international coalition."

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 23, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ