US pulls out of Saudi Arabia

[Monte Smith]

I like the idea of pulling out of Saudi Arabia--now that Saddam is over and when we are doing it on our terms.


US pulls out of Saudi Arabia
BBC 4/29/03



The United States has said that virtually all its troops, except some training personnel, are to be pulled out of Saudi Arabia.

The decision was confirmed by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a joint news conference with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Sultan.

Both men stressed that there were no differences between their countries and their co-operation would continue.

Ever since the 1991 Gulf war, the US has had about 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia - a figure that rose to 10,000 during the recent conflict in Iraq.

The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says this is a strategic shift of great political as well as military significance.

Technically US troops there have been part of Operation Southern Watch, which has enforced the no-fly zone over southern Iraq set up after 1991.

But our correspondent says the US troops have become a potent symbol of Washington's role in the region, and many Saudis see them as proof of the country's subservience to America.

Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden.

It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies.

But news of the US pull-out does not mean the campaign is over for Bin Laden and his followers, according to the BBC's Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi.

Their agenda now goes beyond the boundaries of one country, he says. Their goal is to liberate all Muslim societies from foreign troops and what they see as ungodly secular rulers.

The al-Qaeda leader was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 because of his anti-government activities.

Earlier on Tuesday, the US military confirmed that it was moving its air command centre from Saudi Arabia to the al-Udeid air base in neighbouring Qatar.

US Rear Admiral David Nichols said the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) at the Prince Sultan base in Saudi Arabia would be closed by the end of the summer.

"We already have switched, as of yesterday (Monday)," Admiral Nichols said.

But, he added, the base would remain wired and could be used again if the US and Saudi Arabia decided it was necessary.

The CAOC was set up after the 1991 Gulf war in Iraq and was used to control the coalition air campaign in the latest conflict in Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld - who is touring the Gulf region to thank US troops and regional allies - said the US was grateful for the "co-operation and support" provided by Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi defence minister said that, since US and British patrols over the Iraqi no-fly zones had ended, there was "no need" for the American forces to be there.

"This does not mean we have requested them to move," he said.

"The co-operation between our two countries was going on even before Desert Storm and it will continue even after the end of the war in Iraq."

In the run up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudis said they would not allow American planes to carry out air strikes from the Prince Sultan base without a UN resolution authorising war.

The Saudi refusal was reported to have created a rift between Riyadh and Washington.




Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...st/2984547.stm

Published: 2003/04/29 15:16:04

© BBC MMIII

[clinthopson]

Yessir, let's pull out and then invade them for having an undemocratic government.

After all, they have even more oil than Iraq.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

Wow. now if this is true, I think its a great idea.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

It's just a bit of juggling, an attempt to repair a greatly defaced image. The Bush people need to demonstrate that we are still the good guys--a task that, at this point, cannot be accomplished without deception.

[Monte Smith]

This isn't window dressing. And it isn't a ploy to make us look like good guys: it is a clear signal that the kind of guys we are are the kind of guys who don't need Saudi Arabian bases anymore. This is a regional strategic shift. The pressure on Saudi Arabia thus begins. "Be our friends, or don't be."

Originally posted by Monte Smith
... it is a clear signal that the kind of guys we are are the kind of guys who don't need Saudi Arabian bases anymore...

Sure, Monte, and why can we leave Saudi Arabia? Because we invaded and occupied a little country, wrecked much of it so that our friends at Haliburton, etc. can make money rebuilding, and picked out some spots where we will have bases, whether the Iraqis like it or not.

Nice guys? Well, we got rid of Saddam, but we did so for purely selfish reasons, otherwise we would have done the "liberation" act a long tome ago.

Wake up, Monte!

[Salvador Dali Lama]

yeah, and I would normally think thats a wonderful idea. But between the Syria saber rattling and what just happend with Iraq, I'm not so sure. I'm afraid any future regime change will end up just like all past regime change has. Replace a fuck up with another fuck up, who usually proves worse than the original fuck up. Or like in Iran, a fuck up who replaces a fuck up who the public hates so much they revolt and institute a new, infinitely worse fuck up to the detriment of all. Fixing one problem with another problem doesnt seem to work. I wonder who the new Iraqi fuck up will be? are there any contenders yet? I understand the Afghanistan fuck up has no control over anything in his country outside Kabul. Maybe more of an ineffectual than a fuck up.

So yeah, I'm not into it. Plus logistically speaking, christ, how much did the prince sultan air base cost again? and that was like what, 4 years ago??? shit.

I'm thinking they'll move all that stuff into Iraq. But damn, how much money will that cost?



a somewhat alarmed isolationist, signing off.

[Monte Smith]

We are going to be moving our forces into bases in the small Gulf states, not Iraq.

Listen, we were in Saudi Arabia because we figured we would need to be in Iraq eventually. That eventuality, prefigured in so much CENTCOM strategerizing throughout the 90s, is come to pass. Why stay in Saudi Arabia? Though we have other brutes in the same region to tackle...by force or better, diplomacy backed by force...we will be working with neater, sweeter allies in the cleaner, greener Gulf principalities. Huzzah!

Terrorists and the projected anti-American Saudi mobs (who by the way, are supposed to be violently surging in kneejerk response to our inexcusable provocation in Iraq, aren't they?) are probably going to be cool with us leaving their country, too. Hopefully their response to losing a great propaganda issue ("Yankee go home") will not be a new campaign of suicide bombing. But the jihad repertoire does seem limited.

[Dr Dave]

I'm with Monte on this one. I expect we'll be permanently in Qatar sooner rather than later. Time to tell the House of Saud to go fuck themselves.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

This is assuming the powers that be in Qatar are any better than the Saud family.

Newsbreak: they're not.

the Sauds are the rule in the region, not the exception.

There is also some evidencve that this is not a voluntary relocation. It would appear that the Saudis needed to get rid of us.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I believe the majority of the troops will be moved to Qatar and Kuwait (and possibly to air bases in Iraq, depending upon who winds up in charge). Also, we're decreasing the forces in Turkey, am I correct?

Basically, we were paid mercenaries for the Saudis. They footed the bill. But the bill for Iraq is 2 billion a month I think. So there won't be any savings there.

I'd like to see our troops pulled back from EVERYWHERE myself. We shouldn't police the world and we shouldn't be propping up countries against their own people.

[Monte Smith]

There was talk before and early in the war about possibly pulling out of Germany, too. There we would actually push our deployed forces further east into new bases in the willing nations of "New Europe" (love it) and thereby take billions of dollars of jobs and revenue out of Old Europe. I don't know if this was idle talk or not. Strategically it works. The Czechs and Poles are gung-ho. Practically, I think the Germans would throw a hissy. Something is happening with the emerging European "rapid reaction force" and NATO reform, though. Change in the works.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

absolutely Darryl. bring 'em all home.

You guys of course know that the Kuwaiti dictator is just as brutal as Saddam, right?

dealing with any of these people is bad business. i say we should leave the arabs the fuck alone, period. no intervention, no liberation, no weapons sales, no allies, no government to government business deals.

but that might make the world a better place. so it 'taint 'gwan 'appen.

[shrugs]

re: Troops on other countries

Remember, our troops are providing lots of valuable training for these countries' troops. In the case of some countries, their navies would be hurting big time w/o our help and support. There's more than meets the eye. However, I am all about doing away with the majority of the overseas bases. It'll never happen on Bush's watch. Just think of all the top brass jobs this eliminates.......
My chief asked me if I wanted to train some Royal Dutch Navy sailors on some equipment and I said only if they bring some hooch. He just laughed. It's great to be a short timer. You can pretty much say anything. Like when medical asks how much you drink, I now say every night.

[Monte Smith]

Sal and Darryl: Isolationism? Good idea. Why push the frontlines east when our enemies are happy to deliver jihad to our doors in lower Manhattan?

But I am not an isolationist because, as Shrugs indicates, our military plays an enormous role--much of it positive--in world diplomacy, not just out-n-out war-fighting. A good book that came out this year is THE MISSION by Dana Priest which shows what our military is up to around the globe. Very interesting.

You know, it occurs to me that the USA is moving its forces on the Korean peninsula, too. The NYT reported a few weeks ago that the US and South Korea had agreed in principle to close down bases in Seoul--by which I presume is meant Yongsan--and move our troops out of the city. Not a bad idea. Yongsan represents incredibly expensive real estate in downtown Seoul (and it has a pretty nice golf course), but it (like all of the city) is within range of North Korea's conventional artillery. Well within range. Backing off in a strategic retreat down the peninsula could save American lives if it comes to blows there. The Koreans, of course, are shit out of luck. Which is why, if I were a citizen of Seoul, I would be relocating to beautiful Taegu or Pusan. Or hell, to America with all my cousins.

Korea is a tough nut. I am glad there is no global community or world religion with their ego or prestige invested in defense of Kim Jong Il's tyranny. Mr. Kim at least doesn't inspire any neighboring jihadis to fly to his defense.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

Well Monte, having troops in over 100 countries didnt exactly help make Manhattan safe a few years ago, did it?

or a few years before that.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I see no point in us having troops on foreign soil. The Cold War is over. Most countries seem to want us out. It's their countries, we should abide by their wishes.

Really, I think the only reason we have an overseas prescence is because we've grown accustomed to being there. Pure inertia. It's been that way for decades so it should remain that way?

As for the Jihadists? Once we're off Arab soil a major part of their beef with us is gone. Of course there's still Israel. Maybe we should review our support for that country also?

This would be a problem for the empire builders who are running things now. And the war on terrorism is the only thing the Bush Administration's got going for it now. It appears terrorism is the "new" communism.

This may be a unique opportunity to try to solve the problems we have at home.

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
as Shrugs indicates, our military plays an enormous role--much of it positive--in world diplomacy, not just out-n-out war-fighting.

If there is a base where you live, ask the Red Cross how much of their blood from blood drives is from the base. Connecticut almost depends on us and the Coast Goard base.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by shrugs
If there is a base where you live, ask the Red Cross how much of their blood from blood drives is from the base. Connecticut almost depends on us and the Coast Goard base.

Yup. And another example from health care--my wife works at Madigan Hospital on Fort Lewis. Madigan operates a trauma center that is crucial for accidents and injuries in the Seattle-Tacoma corridor. The base saves lives. It does it in Pierce and King Counties, and it also does it at Camp Wolf in Kuwait where the 47th Combat Support Hospital is, I have no doubt, seeing its share of tonsil- and appendectomies. And it is the same in Bosnia. And in Korea. Etc.

The "Yankee Go Home" crowd we will always have with us, but any fair-minded observer will see a more nuanced exchange between the military and the communities they establish bases in. A lot of that exchange is positive and promotes peace and security.

[Monte Smith]

Hmm. Deutsche Welle reports:


Rumsfeld indicates U.S. troops to be pulled out of Germany

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been visting Iraq this Wednesday. Following a stop in the southern city of Basra, Rumsfeld moved onto the capital, Baghdad. He met with the U.S. appointed administrator for Iraq, Jay Garner. Later, he spoke to U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's airport. Asked about rumours that Washington was planning to pull troops out of Germany, Rumsfeld indicated that the rumours were true, but that the details had not yet been worked out. Those comments came one day after Rumsfeld announced that U.S. troops were pulling out of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,336...855656,00.html

[shrugs]

How much dough do the military members pump into those German communitites? It has to be substantial.

[Monte Smith]

Shrugs: Answer is tons. Tons of dollars. I saw a program about this--don't recall which network. But there is a town that surrounds one base in Germany (and I regret to say I have never been to Germany and am unfamiliar with the particular bases) called K-Town, or perhaps D-Town, which is Army slang for the place name--probably unpronounceable by the enlisted--and the mayor of the burg was livid at the Schroeder government.

The US Army basically is the industry of this town: haircuts, groceries, beer halls, garages, gas stations, clubs, telephony, gadgets, toys, tourism, restaurants. All assfucked if the troops move east. I feel for these German locals. Unlike the Saudis. I feel for the Germans. We have tens of thousands of troops over there. And yet I do think the move to Poland and the Czech Republic, and maybe Romania, is a good move. Good for us, good for those New European nations, and probably also good for the Germans, too, in the long run. Dose of reality: cup of coffee to counter the heady cognac of French "leadership" they've been quafing at the cafe of European public opinion.

[Chuck Nessa]

Gee, forgive me. I just read this header and thought "...and comes all over her belly". I felt ashamed for a minute, then decided my first impulse was correct.

God (any god) help us all.

CN

[Uli]

Originally posted by Chuck Nessa
I felt ashamed for a minute, then decided my first impulse was correct.

CN

It was!

[Monte Smith]

More on a rather fascinating story, the historic redeployment of troop concentrations on three continents. This article from USA Today (today) shows we are definitely moving south down the Korean peninsula.


U.S. to withdraw troops from Korean DMZ


SEOUL, South Korea (AP) ? The United States and South Korea agreed Thursday to withdraw U.S. troops from the tense Demilitarized Zone separating South Korea from communist North Korea.

The troops will be moved farther south, a joint statement said after two days of talks. The redeployment will remove U.S. military bases from the Korean front line for the first time since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.

The statement gave no timetable for the withdrawal. Even after the redeployment, U.S. troops will continue to train north of Seoul and close to the DMZ, it said.

In April, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said U.S. troops stationed near the Korean DMZ could be shifted south, moved to other countries in the region or even brought home under a global realignment of U.S. troops.

For half a century, the U.S. presence near the DMZ has symbolized the U.S.-South Korean military alliance and Washington's commitment to deterring hostilities on the divided peninsula. Tension remains high because of North Korea's suspected development of nuclear weapons.

About 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, most of them between the DMZ and Seoul, which lies 37 miles south of the border and within artillery range of North Korea.

"When (the redeployment from the DMZ) is fulfilled requires further discussions," said South Korean Assistant Defense Minister for Policy Lt. Gen. Cha Young-koo. "But you can see a broad picture of where we are headed."

Cha led the South Korean side in talks with the Americans led by Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for East Asia Richard Lawless.

On Tuesday, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the Pentagon must modernize its troops to better counter a potential North Korean attack. He hinted that could mean smaller, more mobile forces working at greater distances from their opponents.

Rumsfeld's comments in April had spawned uneasiness in South Korea, which worries that reductions would put it at greater risk of a North Korean attack. President Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun met in May and reconfirmed their military alliance.

Last week, the U.S. military said it would spend an additional $11 billion over the next three years to strengthen its forces in South Korea. The plan included improvements to intelligence collecting and weapons upgrades as well as deployment of special, swift-action forces.

North Korea condemned that plan as a preparation for war.

Washington also wants North Korea to scale down its massive deployments of conventional troops near the DMZ.

Thursday's statement said the United States and South Korea remained committed to "improve the combined defense," but wanted to structure "U.S. forces in a manner that further promotes regional stability."

The two sides will first consolidate U.S. troops near the DMZ into two major bases, Camp Casey and Camp Red Cloud, north of Seoul. That process could begin as early as this year.

In a second phase of realignment, the troops will move to "key hubs south of the Han River," which bisects Seoul, the statement said.

U.S. officials have worried that their troops may be too close to the border. That means in an attack by the North, the Americans would either be killed in large numbers or forced to withdraw south before regrouping for a counteroffensive.

The U.S. forces also are close to urban areas, causing tension with residents. In June 2002, two girls were hit and killed by a U.S. military vehicle near the border, and their deaths triggered large demonstrations.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Salvador Dali Lama
Wow. now if this is true, I think its a great idea.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

WASHINGTON, Aug 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. military has shut down the last remaining Air Force unit at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia and a skeleton crew of American personnel was making final preparations to leave the desert facility, officials said on Wednesday.

[walto]

"Be our friends, or don't be."

Monte, yer certainly a good, good friend. When we pull out from somewhere, that's good, when we invade someplace, that's good. When we add troops, that's good, when we remove 'em, that's good. Whatever these jokers do is good by you. No questions asked.

I, however, still think my bet with you is looking VERRRRRY good. The Middle East is a huge mess, and apparently getting worse by the moment.

[Monte Smith]

Walto, it's simple.

Here's where I am consistent: I want the US to increase its strategic advantages everywhere in the world.

Leaving Saudi Arabia makes strategic sense in the Middle East. We have better, more flexible basing in the minor principalities. Much more flexible. Flexible enough to trouble Riyadh.

Moving our troop concentrations south down the Korean peninsula is also good. It protects our forces from North Korean attacks and increases the effectiveness of our threat to North Korea.

As for our bet, my eyes are set on the mid- to long term.

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by Darryl G. Thomas
I believe the majority of the troops will be moved to Qatar and Kuwait (and possibly to air bases in Iraq, depending upon who winds up in charge). Also, we're decreasing the forces in Turkey, am I correct?

Basically, we were paid mercenaries for the Saudis. They footed the bill. But the bill for Iraq is 2 billion a month I think. So there won't be any savings there.

I'd like to see our troops pulled back from EVERYWHERE myself. We shouldn't police the world and we shouldn't be propping up countries against their own people.

Welcome back Darryl. Haven't seen you here for a while.