1
   

U.S. DISCUSSES INVASION OF SAUDI ARABIA

 
 
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 01:45 pm
Quote:
U.S. fears prospect of Saudi coup, weighs invasion plans

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, November 1, 2005

WASHINGTON — The United States has raised the prospect of a military invasion of Saudi Arabia.

The House Armed Services Committee considered the possibility of a Saudi coup and U.S. response during a hearing on Oct. 26.

Saudi Arabia, with 200,000 military and National Guard troops, is the largest oil producer and exporter, with an output of nine million barrels of oil per day, according to Middle East Newsline. The Arab kingdom is the third largest supplier of oil to the United States, with more than 1.55 million barrels per day.

The scenario was outlined by Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, who cited a Saudi coup as one of several threats to the United States.

"How should the United States respond if a coup, presumably fundamentalist in nature, overthrows the royal family in Saudi Arabia?" O'Hanlon asked. "Such a result would raise the specter of major disruption to the oil economy."

The response could include the deployment of three U.S. Army divisions backed by fighter-jets and airborne early-warning and alert aircraft. In all, the U.S.-led mission could include up to 300,000 troops.

Congressional sources said the House hearing, which focused on future threats in the Middle East and other regions, marked increasing U.S. concern of Saudi instability. They said the open hearing echoed a series of briefings on Saudi and Gulf Arab instability given by non-government analysts to the State Department, Defense Department and National Security Council since 2002.

The House committee was told that U.S. concern of a Saudi coup appears greater than ever. O'Hanlon said such a coup would also destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear power since 1998.

"This type of scenario has been discussed for at least two decades and remains of concern today — perhaps even more so — given the surge of terrorist violence in Saudi Arabia in recent years as well as the continued growth and hostile ideology of Al Qaida along with the broader Wahabi movement," O'Hanlon said. In his testimony, O'Hanlon envisioned a Saudi coup as resulting in the emergence of what he termed a fundamentalist regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Another prospect was that the new regime would seek to disrupt the oil market.

"Indeed, it might be feasible not to do anything at first, and hope that the new regime gradually realized the benefits of reintegrating Saudi Arabia at least partially into the global oil economy," O'Hanlon said. "But in the end the United States and other western countries might consider using force."

O'Hanlon envisioned a U.S.-led military operation designed to seize Saudi oil wells, located along the eastern coast. Washington and its allies would place the proceeds from Saudi oil sales into escrow for a future pro-Western government in Riyad.

A U.S.-led military force of 300,000 would be required to secure the entire Saudi Arabia, O'Hanlon said. He said about 10,000 troops could capture eastern Saudi Arabia, which contains virtually all of the kingdom's oil wells. But more than 100,000 additional troops would be required to protect the wells and other vital infrastructure.

"An operation to overthrow the new Saudi regime and gradually stabilize a country of the size in question would probably require in the vicinity of 300,000 troops, using standard sizing criteria," O'Hanlon said. "So in fact a coastal strategy, while easier in some ways and perhaps less bloody in the initial phases, could be fully half as large and might last much longer."

worldtribune

I think this could lead to somekind of collision, possibly China invading Taiwan in order to call the bluff of American forces, then giving north korea the go ahead to invade the south, thereby opening up the need for a full scale asian front for US armed forces, and surely europe will look the other way, if they don't have a vested interest in siding with America. This strain on American forces would open up the homeland to attack, and possibly the launch of nuclear weapons....
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 639 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 01:50 pm
you will also see oil prices going to $100-300 dollars a barrel.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 02:23 pm
Huh? That's alot of "ifs" freedom. I wouldn't panic about $100 oil and far-fetched doomsday scenarios quite yet.

Besides, you've overstated the situation here with your comments and the title of this thread. It looks like O'Hanlon was doing the bulk of the talking here, and the Brookings Institute hardly = "the U.S." or the federal government, etc. The article seems to indicate that the hearing was about generic "threats in the Middle East" rather than a targeted discussion about invading Saudi Arabia.

It all sounds kind of ho hum to me...
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 02:28 pm
When will you people finally realize, that this kind of thing is called a CONTINGENCY PLAN.

The strategists in the Pentagon have plans on the books for invading/intervening/assisting just about every country on the face of the earth. This is what they get paid for.

Much like the morons who complained about the 'slowness' of the National Guard to move into New Orleans, many people have no idea how military operations work and how movements of large numbers of troops happen.

You dont just walk up to a brigade of soldiers and say...
"There is a problem in Kuwait, here is a plane ticket, grab your rifle and pack and we will meet you there."

Without pre made plans, troop movements and logistics take a lot of time to plan and implement. The Pentagon keeps those plans on file so that in the event of a problem, it won't take 2 weeks to plan an operation before the first troop leaves his base.

We have many plans ... the more likely (North Korea, Taiwan, etc) are kept much more up to date than something less likely such as say ... intervention in Grenada (Lack of an up to date plan is why that operation had so many problems.)

Keep in mind, the military KNOWS that many of these plans have ZERO plan of being implemented, but it is absolutely imperative that they be kept in the 'Just in case' file

Just because there is a plan on file at the Pentagon for the invasion of Mexico (And has been since 1900) that does NOT mean we are planning to invade them tomorrow or EVER.

Claiming this is like saying that because you take an insurance policy out on your family, you are intending to kill them.

You plan things like this with the worst case scenario in mind. They do this so that the civilians can't end up complaining when a bad incident happens:
"Why didn't you have a plan for that? What do you do all day at that five sided building?"

Just an old soldiers 2 cents.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 02:33 pm
Steppenwolf, you are probably right, but anything's possible with Bush & Co right ? Bush gives me nightmares!!
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 02:53 pm
Fedral
Quote:
The strategists in the Pentagon have plans on the books for invading/intervening/assisting just about every country on the face of the earth. This is what they get paid for.


This reminds me of PNAC
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 02:53 pm
Thanks for that Fedral. It's a shame to see it gets ignored by those that should read it most.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:42 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Thanks for that Fedral. It's a shame to see it gets ignored by those that should read it most.


Its the blind spot that some people get when they hear something that they know is true, yet since it conflicts with their own personal views, they choose to ignore and stick their head in the sand so they can't hear any opinions other than their own.

Keep in mind, these plans are NOT paranoia or some vast right wing conspiracy, they are something that the military is SUPPOSED to do and HAS done during every Administration (Both Democrat and Republican) for a long, long time. It is just their JOBS to be prepared for as many possible contingencies as possible.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 08:39 am
Where were all those great thinkers when they planned for the invasion of Iraq?

Personally I wish we would plan for peace every now and then without war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » U.S. DISCUSSES INVASION OF SAUDI ARABIA
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2024 at 01:35:34