Egad – How Do We Know Who to Root For?

Or against? The Saudi government has few redeeming qualities. Actually, none we can think of. The ruling family squandered billions in oil revenue and produced nothing to show for it but intolerance, death and destruction at home and abroad. American governments – of all parties and ideological leanings – have had a split-brain response to Saudi Arabia. On one side was the negative balance sheet of Saudi behavior. On the other side, the fact that their American constituents – of all parties and ideological leanings – like driving their cars and heating their houses.

Or against? The Saudi government has few redeeming qualities. Actually, none we can think of. The ruling family squandered billions in oil revenue and produced nothing to show for it but intolerance, death and destruction at home and abroad. American governments – of all parties and ideological leanings – have had a split-brain response to Saudi Arabia. On one side was the negative balance sheet of Saudi behavior. On the other side, the fact that their American constituents – of all parties and ideological leanings – like driving their cars and heating their houses.

We ourselves had a split-brain response to the latest audiotape purporting to be Osama bin Laden.

The speaker accused the Saudi government of corruption, misdeeds and “violating God’s rules.” “The sins the regime committed are great … it practiced injustices against the people, violating their rights, humiliating their pride.” The speaker accused the Saudi royal family of misspending public money while “millions of people are suffering from poverty and deprivation.” Interestingly, he called for nonviolent revolution.

With what should we disagree? Well, for starters, the voice on the tape then praised the Saudis who stormed the U.S. consulate in Jeddah this month, killing five employees. The voice accused the Saudis of being under the control of the U.S., called for the targeting of oil fields and called Iraq a “golden opportunity” to kill Americans.

So here is the dilemma. We don’t like the Saudi government; he doesn’t like the Saudi government. He wants regime change; we want regime change – for different reasons or the same reasons. We can’t support his call for revolution; but revolution will likely come and we can’t say it would necessarily be worse. Apologists for the regime do say it would be worse, but given the billions the princes have spent arming terrorists and exporting virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American screed, including in the U.S. through Wahabi mosques and schools, it might be better to have those things done overtly so we can choose to deal with the threat directly.

President Bush was talking to the Saudis as much as to the British at Whitehall when he said, “We must shake off decades of failed policy… (We) have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability… Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.” But he added, “It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it.”

A few months ago, the Arab League Foreign Ministers issued a statement that admitted to “standing at the Gates of Hell,” meaning internal upheaval because they had failed to provide avenues for legitimate criticism from their own people. For Saudi Arabia, the Gates of Hell are open and time is running out, no matter whose voice is on the tape.