Issue 10


Congressman Hamilton told his Indiana constituentsWe’ve got an awful lot to do in terms of explaining our actions. … What your now seeing is that the American people are really focused on this question, they are zeroing in on it, … They don’t understand what the American interest is in this area. They want to know what the risks are of American action, and what risks are of not acting.” J83 Congressman Hamilton is but one Washington politician who is being held accountable by his constituents as to the actual reason United States troops are garrisoned in Saudi Arabia. We have heard the military personnel in Saudi Arabia say they are there to protect the corrupt Saud family regime of King Fahd so that the oil flow is not interrupted. Washington will have a lot of explaining to do as the US citizens focus on the truth.


The Wall Street Journal reported: “The Air Force … had the right weapons. But it has learned to dispatch expeditionary units for months at a time — at the price of resistance from pilots unaccustomed to bases without decent officers’ clubs. ‘Retention {of pilots} isn’t high and it’s going in the toilet, … complained Capt. Stephen Otto … the unofficial motto of the 74th has become ‘Deployed, Detoxed, and Divorced’.” J84


New York Times comments: “Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ closest Arab allies and a major regional power. … Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, declared the kingdom’s strong opposition to an attack by the United States and Britain. … ‘We do not favor striking Iraq as a people and as a nation. … I think most people think a military option is not the preferable option”. J85 The Washington Post reports: “The decision to press for greater cooperation from America’s biggest, richest ally in the Persian Gulf region came after Saudi authorities recently indicated their aversion to a U.S. attack on Iraq unless it was aimed at eliminating its leader, Saddam Hussein. … Saudi Arabia hosts nearly one third of the U.S. aircraft currently in the region and controls a large portion of the available airspace and airfields near Iraq. … If we pushed, the Saudis most likely would have agreed, but it would have been hard for them to say yes,” J86 The New York Times continues: “Some senior Arab officials — particularly in the Persian Gulf region — have even confided to diplomats and other visitors that their patience with Iraq has worn so thin that they agree that there may soon be no option but to subject Saddam to more punishment. But few Arab leaders are likely to express such sentiments in public, reflecting their apprehension that they could become targets of the kind of outrage likely to result if many Iraqi civilians fall victim to renewed American attacks.” J87 The Saud family are afraid of their neighbors and want the US to protect them but in some sort of secrecy using such things as “phantom forces” and phony press releases. Why doesn’t the hypocritical Saud family wake up and realize everybody knows exactly what they are doing both in Washington and Riyahd.


New York Times reports: “Our European allies get almost 30 percent of their oil from the gulf while Japan depends on the region for half of its imports. But except for a handful of French and British planes helping patrol the no-flight zones, these countries make no contribution to gulf security. Is it any wonder that we spend more money on defense than Western Europe and Japan combined, and that our military budget remains at about 90 percent of the average cold war level ?” J88


Ambassador Prince Bandar’s Washington retainers are edgy because the US citizens are becoming concerned about the costly drain of resources needed to protect the Saud family by garrisoning US military personnel in Saudi Arabia. The Milwaukee journal-Sentinel reports; “a top U.S. general said a few days ago that he didn’t have any idea how long American forces would remain in the Persian Gulf. … {Senator} Feingold complained that the administration lacked an ‘exit strategy for our American troops,’ and said the White House and Congress should devise a ‘specific schedule for bringing our troops home.’ … Marine Corps Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the Commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf frankly admitted that ‘I don’t have a clue’ about how much longer U.S. troops would remain in the gulf? Why isn’t anyone complaining about the lack of an ‘exit strategy’ there? — The U.S. forces in the gulf are not even popular in the countries they are supposed to be protecting. The Pentagon is building an elaborate housing facility for its Air Force personnel in the boonies of the Saudi Arabian desert, largely because the government there is a zenophobic, anti-democratic, religiously intolerant family that does not like foreigners, especially Westerners, polluting its ethnic purity. … The U.S. financial commitment to the gulf isn’t puny, either. The Pentagon reports its ‘contingency operations’ in the gulf — such as maintaining the no-fly zone over Iraq — cost the taxpayers about $700 million a year. … If {Sen}Feingold, {Rep} Neumann and others want to find a place where U.S. policy has failed to achieve its stated objectives, a region from which this country ought to be seeking withdrawal of its military forces, these critics ought to be looking at — and making noises about — the Persian Gulf.” J89


The New York Times reports: An attack on Iraq would not be good news for Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, either. Both countries might come under pressure again to help defray the costs of military preparations and movements that are under way now. The Saudis have served notice that they will neither allow attacks on Iraq from their territory nor help pay the costs, a Saudi official said,” J90 New York Times further reports: “For the Saudis to profess an alliance with the United States yet remain an active participant in the Arab world requires deft maneuvering — ‘It’s not to the Saudis advantage to wave cooperation about—They insist on discretion .” J91 It has been known for some time there is a hidden agenda between the Saud family and their Washington retainers as reported here numerous times in the past.


Washington still refuses to say it has garrisoned troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saud family. Everybody in the United States military, the Middle East and the whole world for that matter knows Washington continues to speak with forked tongue regarding US military presence in Saudi Arabia. We cannot even conceive of what their hypocritical logic will be if they have to explain yet another unsolved mass killing of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Washington Times reports: “According to one non-Western diplomatic assessment, Arab leaders ‘want the Americans to protect them when they’re in danger but are unwilling to take any risks as part of the deal.’ … Some diplomats say these nations feel that the more difficult they are, the more favors they are likely to obtain from Washington .” J92


The New York Times reports: “Of America’s European allies, only Britain has so far pledged to join an attack.” J93 In a later issue it reports: “In France, Italy and the rest of continental Europe, the conviction is fairly widespread that America is deliberately exaggerating the threat of Saddam’s biological and chemical weapons in order to justify an attack.” J94 Europe 1 radio station quoted French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine as saying: “France will not take part in any military action against Iraq, … France has no intention to associate itself with that.” When the interviewer asked whether there was no case in which France would join a military strike or extend logistic help to American forces, Vedrine said: “None.” J95 The New York Times continues: “Some French government officials are against an American-led bombing campaign no matter what Saddam does.” J96 The French now see that they continue to be dupes in the Saud family rigged bidding competition for military hardware. French and other European firms futilely provide bids but are secretly never really considered when competing with either US or British firms. The London Financial Times says: “A French parliamentarian complains that the US is misusing the alliance to impose its own views and peddle its own hardware.” J97


In one past bid rigging incident European firms clearly should have been the winners over Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, ATT et al. The ATT bid was twice that of the European competitors but the King accepted the ATT bid. At the time Ron Brown vigorously represented ATT during the biddings. It has recently been disclosed Ron Brown soon after entered into a sweetheart deal with ATT regarding phone service at airports. Clinton, as Bush before him, forced a pliant King Fahd to accept the US corporations over their European competitors.

Assistant Secretary of Defense/Secretary of Navy James Webb said: “The President appears to follow the constitutionally questionable (albeit effective) approach used by the Bush Administration in the Persian Gulf war: putting troops in an area where no American forces have been threatened and no treaties demand their presence, then gaining international agreement before placing issue before Congress.” J97 A The continental Europeans once fooled twice smart did not back a “questionable” Presidential policy of putting their military in jeopardy then loose out on the resulting contracts.


A dictatorships prime goal is to see that the treasury and the state religion of their countries are interrelated with their name. Identifying with the national treasury enables them to steal at will justifying it as their own. King Fahd and his family have already been successful at this endeavor aided and abetted by their Washington retainers. The Saud family have been for some time attempting to identify beyond their Wahhabi sect to Islam as a whole. Ambassador Prince Bandar and his Washington retainers have been attempting to make the Saud family name interchangeable with Islam. The most recent example of this strategy has been Bandar’s recent attempt to build an enlarged “Islamic Saudi Academy” in Loudoun County near Dulles Airport. Under the academy charter Bandar wants to continue to have himself as the chairman and only Saudis as heads of every department. In the present Saudi Islamic Academy non-Saudi Moslems are treated as second class citizens, among other things, having to pay for not only their children’s tuition but for those of the Saud “Royal” family since the Saud family children are admitted free of tuition. It should be thought of as reprehensible that Bandar would stoop so low as equate the wishes of the Saud family with that of Islam. The majority of Loudoun County citizens would not mind an Islamic Academy but they do not want the dictatorial and intolerant Saud family government owning it and identifying their name with it.


After receiving a knee operation in Switzerland Prince Sultan went to Morocco allegedly for recuperation as a guest of King Hassan. He stayed an inordinate time ostensibly recuperating at his Moroccan palace. We have heard the real reason he did not go home for two months was that he was using the lengthy time lapse as a way of registering a protest against HRH Prince Abdullah’s policies. We do not know who he met while in Morocco or what strategies they discussed.

Ambassador Prince Bandar’s Washington retainers are becoming edgy regarding HRH Prince Abdullah’s independent movement towards rapprochement with Iran and Iraq. His reluctance to “stay the course” by not supporting King Fahd’s wishes of allying with London and Washington for a first strike against Iraq caused concern among certain circles. It is clear that Prince Abdullah’s position represented the majority view and would of alienated his countrymen if he had adopted Fahd’s position.

Dear Reader:

The long and the short is the Saud family are scared to be on record as against Iraq. The Saud family government are not militarily strong despite the numerous press releases and photo opportunities made by Ambassador Prince Bandar and his 1/2 brother Commander General Prince Khalid. In fact, the Saud family military are considered in some quarters as a negative, getting in the way of any real military efforts. Without the US military garrisoned in Saudi Arabia the Saud family would be annihilated by their countless detractors. The US military has a “phantom force” to use where the “host” government wants to avoid the publicity of its policy. Saudi Arabian citizens know what reality is despite machinations of the Saud family and Washington. Those being kept in the dark are the US citizens.

Herb Mallard

National Press Club member
London Press Club member
Royal Society fellow