Symposium

0 Comments | Insight on the News, April 29, 2002 | by Milton R. Copulos, | Edward S. Walker

Q: should the United States shut down its military bases in Saudi Arabia?

YES: Saudi rulers are unreliable partners at best and, at worst, actual threats to U.S. security in the region.

BY MILTON R. COPULOS

Copulos served as a cabinet-level adviser on energy issues to the White House from 1980-1992 and is president of the National Defense Council Foundation, a private, nonprofit research and educational institution based in Alexandria, Va.

Recent press reports suggesting that the Saudi government wants the U.S. troops stationed there withdrawn sparked a flurry of anguished commentary in Washington policy circles. Various experts were quick to hold forth on the strategic importance of our "alliance" with the Saudis and how essential the bases would be in the event of any military action against Iraq. They argued that U.S. interests in the region would be harmed irreparably should such a withdrawal take place. It was all very impressive. And it was all nonsense.

First of all, the notion that Saudi Arabia is an ally is a fiction. In fact, the desert kingdom is the only nation in the Persian Gulf region that has not signed a military-cooperation agreement with the United States. Remember that an ally is by definition committed to come to your defense if you are attacked. But it is not just the lack of a treaty that brings the notion of an alliance with the Saudis into question. Through the years, they have demonstrated by word and deed just where their tree sentiments lie.

The Saudis were the principal source of financing for the Taliban, as well as the religious schools (madrassas) that teach their pernicious ideology.

In 1996, when the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks resulted in the deaths of 19 U.S. service members, the Saudi government failed to cooperate with American investigators attempting to identify and capture the perpetrators.

After Sept. 11, the Saudis refused to freeze assets of organizations and individuals in their country suspected of financing al-Qaeda, arguing that they had no legal authority to do so -- an absurd assertion in a feudal monarchy.

The Saudis also have been less than forthcoming in providing information about Saudi citizens with ties to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. The importance of such information cannot be overestimated: As many as 25,000 Saudis may be involved in terrorist groups of various stripes.

Indeed, in a Sept. 17 interview in the official Saudi daily Okaz, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal asserted that it was Arabs and Muslims living in the West who faced the real danger from terrorism. In that same interview he also noted that the Saudi Embassy in Washington had retained counsel to defend any Saudi citizens arrested in connection with terrorist activities. But it is more than the Saudis' lack of cooperation in the fight against terrorism that calls into question the value of their bases. There is a practical consideration as well: the limitations the Saudi government have placed on our use of its bases.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Abdul Aziz told Okaz, "We will not accept the presence on our country of a single soldier at war with Muslims or Arabs." In keeping with this statement, the Saudis also have refused to permit strikes against Iraq to originate on their soil.

Although it is tree that we have invested billions of dollars in modernizing and upgrading the facilities in Saudi Arabia, the utility of this investment is limited if we do not also have full freedom of action.

There are three good reasons to move our bases elsewhere. First, at the most recent Arab League meeting the Saudis made it clear that they would not allow bases on their territory to be used in a war against Iraq. In an emergency involving Iraq we could not be sure if the facilities could be used at all. Second, given the overt hostility of the Saudi population, a renewed American presence might only serve to destabilize the Royal Family's already shaky position. Third, given the dominant role Saudis play in the al-Qaeda leadership, our bases there would be extremely vulnerable to sabotage by terrorists.

There are those who argue that we simply have no alternative, that the Saudi bases would be essential in the event of any large-scale military action in the region. This line of reasoning ignores the fact that we already have many alternative locations from which to launch military actions in and around the Persian Gulf.

Indeed, the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet is headquartered on a base in Juffair, Bahrain. The U.S. Air Force uses a site on an air base about 20 miles south of Manama and another airstrip about five miles north of that city.

The Army has prepositioned artillery, tanks and armored fighting vehicles at Camp Doha in Kuwait, and the Air Force has use of Ali Salem and Ahmed Al Jaber air bases. The Air Force also uses al-Seeb Air Base in Oman for refueling.

The largest U.S. base and arms depot outside the United States currently is under construction in Qatar, and an undisclosed number of troops and airplanes already are stationed there. Yemen also has offered use of its port at Aden to refuel U.S. warships. The Navy had used Aden as a refueling site until the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000.