Cato on SA

Michael Perelman michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Fri Jan 18 10:20:16 PST 2002


Isn't this a major victory for Bin Laden?

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 01:12:59PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Cato Daily Dispatch
> January 18, 2002
> http://www.cato.org/
> http://www.cato.org/dispatch/01-18-02d.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> * Saudis Hint at U.S. Departure
> * Poll: Americans Don't Trust Government Completely
> * French Justice Minister: Time to Consider Marijuana Decriminalization
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SAUDIS HINT AT U.S. DEPARTURE
>
> The Washington Post reports today that Saudi Arabia's rulers are
> increasingly uncomfortable with the U.S. military presence in their
> country and may soon ask that it end, according to several Saudi sources.
> Such a decision would deprive the United States of regular use of the
> Prince Sultan Air Base, from which American power has been projected into
> the gulf region and beyond for more than a decade. (
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64536-2002Jan17.html )
>
> Senior Saudi rulers believe the United States has "overstayed its welcome"
> and that other forms of less conspicuous military cooperation should be
> devised once the United States has completed its war in Afghanistan,
> according to a senior Saudi official. The United States has been using a
> state-of-the-art facility on the Prince Sultan base that was opened last
> summer as a key command-and-control center during the Afghan conflict.
>
> Ivan Eland, Cato director of defense policy studies, had the following
> comments:
>
> "If the Saudi government asks the United States to withdrawal military
> forces from Saudi territory, the United States should regard the request
> as a godsend and eagerly comply. According to Saudi government officials,
> the American military presence in Saudi Arabia is very unpopular with the
> countryís population and in other Arabic countries. In addition, the
> Saudi government is uncomfortable playing a role in the U.S. effort to
> contain Iraq, which it does not perceive as a threat. If Iraqís closest
> neighbor no longer perceives a threat from an Iraqi military decimated by
> the Gulf War, then why should the United Statesóa nation a half a world
> away from the Persian Gulf?
>
> "Of course, the U.S. national security community argues that U.S. military
> forces are needed to keep cheap oil flowing from the Persian Gulf. But
> the security community, for self-serving reasons, fails to talk to the
> economics profession about that need. Prior to the Gulf War, prominent
> economists from across the political spectrum noted that the United States
> did not need to go to war to protect the U.S. economy from high oil
> prices. They agreed with the findings of David Henderson, a former energy
> economist for the Reagan Administrationís Council on Economic Advisers:
> if Saddam Hussein had invaded Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,
> as well as Kuwait (the worst possible case), the oil price increases that
> Saddam could have garnered because of increased Iraqi market power would
> have reduced the U.S. GDP by less than half of one percent. Oil makes up
> such a high percentage of the exports earnings of Iraq and the other
> Persian Gulf oil nations that they need to sell it more than the United
> States needs to buy it. The worst possible case is Saudi fundamentalist
> radicals torching the oil wells to undermine the Saudi governmentóa
> scenario made more likely by public resentment of the U.S. military
> presence. After all, that is Osama bin Ladenís chief reason for waging a
> worldwide jihad against U.S. targets.
>
> "Even if rational economic arguments are swept aside and securing Persian
> Gulf oil remains a goal, U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is not
> needed to defend against an Iraqi military that is only 40 to 50 percent
> as potent as the force that was roundly trounced during the Gulf War. The
> Gulf War and the recent successful campaign in Afghanistan should lead to
> the conclusion that carrier-based airpower and heavy bombers based
> remotely at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean could probably stop an Iraqi
> armored offensive on the open desert."

-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list