General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSaudi is funding a lot of Sunni rebels in Iraq: are they on our team or gone rogue?
The weird thing about 9/11 and since, is that the Saudis were big funders and even coordinators of al Qaeda and other Sunni fundamentalist groups, but in many cases, they worked to undermine governments our government didn't like (see Iran, Libya, etc.).
With this current chaos they are causing in Iraq, is Saudi backing this to support some broader US foreign policy goal like breaking Iraq into smaller, more easily bullied pieces, or are they "going rogue" and pursuing their own agenda of beating down Iran to be the top dog in the Middle East?
Also, if it's the second, what should, can, or will the US government do about the Saudi involvement?
My guess is they will do about as much about it as they did about their involvement in 9/11.
So which is it: Saudis support of Sunni fighters in Iraq part of larger US strategery or Saudis gone wild?
2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Saudis are supporting broader US policy in the region by backing Sunnis in Iraq | |
0 (0%) |
|
Saudis have gone rogue. Our government wants Iraq to stay unified and Saudis are putting their rivalry with Iran ahead of that | |
1 (50%) |
|
Neither/other (please explain) | |
1 (50%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Demeter
(85,373 posts)not the other way around.
And to our shame, we keep proving them right.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)make Saudi?
America has invaded entire nations for less than what the Saudi's are doing against American national interest.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)because Saudi is funding them.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Like China, they profit by playing us as fools against minor armed tyrannies.
See: 9/11
Smirk invaded the wrong country.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)What the hell do they have holding over us that we continue to take sh*t.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)that it added up to Saudis doing Bushies a favor.
But sometimes, like this, it really is hard to tell.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)what they're revealing...at least Bush I does, or did, before he got so old...Dumbya is probably clueless.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)unless Jeff Gannon is over.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The Sunni extremists aren't being directly funded by Saudi Govt. Rather, they're being funded by wealthy Saudi individuals. Such funding abetted by lax banking/financial oversight in SA, Kuwait, and Qatar, and possibly deliberately overlooked by Saudi officials.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)directly facilitated terrorism and Prince Bandar even made a terrorist threat against Britain to Tony Blair, which Blair took seriously enough to act on it.
Here's a quick resume of Bandar Bush, with supporting links:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/02/bandar-bushs-terror-threat-to-britain.html
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)France under Richelieu, working to destabilize many of the countries around them to keep themselves on the top of the heap.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Often those interests overlap and some times they differ. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States are very nervous about what they view is an expressionistic Iran, although this more about the religious differences.
Saudi Arabia is some 90% Sunni and they don't want a primarily Sh'ia run Iraq, it's why they supported Iraq under Saddam until he started becoming unpredictable. Iraq could be counted upon to prevent Iran from trying to spread it's influence further west and south in the Middle East.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)they just went rogue a little (believe me, this isn't the first time it's happened--or even the first time we've been backing both sides of the same fight)
we support 'em in Syria (directly, I may add) and fight 'em in Iraq, just like how we LOVED the proto-Taliban and -AQ until 1992, then flipped; now we like AQ, but only in some countries; US foreign policy is always "some restrictions may apply," I'm afraid (and sometimes we just "buy in" to what Israel and Argentina are doing on their own)--heck, Moscow and Havana supported Argentina WHILE it was butchering 30,000 innocent bystanders in the name of "rooting out Reds"
yurbud
(39,405 posts)our buddy list.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)in the Kingdom. So I don't think that the government of Saudi Arabia has really sponsored those groups (at least, not directly-plenty of money flows from Saudi bank accounts to terrorist groups, sure, including religious foundations or "charities" and other accounts, many of which have government sponsorship).
However, Saudi donors (including government) did sponsor the Taliban and other hard-line groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan for a long time. The Saudis aren't stupid; they know that if they don't keep Al-Qaeda and its offshoots busy with conflicts in other countries (like Syria and Iraq), the terrorist groups would be even more motivated and able to attack targets within the Kingdom than they are already. Not to mention, their proxy wars with Shiite Iran. In that way, Sunni groups like ISIS are strategically useful to the Saudis in that region.
Note that the Pakistani government was/is even more up to their noses in support for the Taliban (and by extension, Al-Qaeda's ability to have a sanctuary in the region). The 9/11 Commission Report listed Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as three incredibly problematic countries that are flashpoints in the fight against Al-Qaeda (or the "War on Terror"-God, I hate that term!)