The Never Ending Attack On An American Ally, MSB

A little over a year ago, in this column, I wrote of the mindless attack on the current Saudi head of state, Mohammed bin Salman.  I was very troubled by the spin the press was giving the story.  Wasn't MBS a stanch ally of the U.S.?  Of course. Yet we now have a book by Ben Hubbard, Key To the Kingdom,  that once again works strenuously to tarnish MSB's image and discredit America's relations with him.

First, there's the matter of the New York Times phraseology.  It shows clearly that Hubbard is their man.  For example, in the NY Times review of Hubbard's book, written by Christopher Dickey, we read that MSB is the "de facto ruler of (Saudi Arabia)".  Yes, he is the de facto ruler.  He's also the accredited ruler.  Would you call Xi the de facto ruler of China or Putin the de facto ruler of Russia?  Countries have different political systems.  China has one that permits the chairman to declare himself Chairman for Life.  Putin's Russia enable him to get subservient legislature to enable him to also remain as chairman for life.   Saudi Arabia is a country has evolved from a tribal system that allows someone like MSB to become the ruler of his country.  What's the difference?

Did he get to his position by cunning?  Sure.  But cunning is not in short supply when it comes to leaders of even those countries we think of as democracies.


Next point: the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Dickey lists the usual talking points:
a. Khashoggi was a columnist for the Washington Post.
b. They dismembered Khashoggi.

Let's start at the top and go along with the allegation that Khashogge was eliminated (murdered) at the instructions of MSB.  Large countries do it with frequency.  Putin is certainly not shy about knocking of someone whom he finds to be an irritant.  What about China?  What about Saudi Arabia's arch enemy, Iran. If we go down this road we soon have a very, very long list.

The second point; namely, that Khashoggi was a columnist for an American newspaper, one not friendly to the Trump administration. Being a reporter was once the best cover one could get for a spy.  Think of Kim Philby, the British double agent who was placed (as a reporter) in Beirut.  Unfortunately for the British, Philby's allegiance was to Russia.

Being a columnist is even a better cover than that of a reporter.  As a columnist you can decide what you want to write about.  You don't necessarily have to limit your work to war reporting or the behavior of this or that legislature.  You cover what you want and go where you want.

But why would anybody suggest that Khashoggi was spying, or, even more sinister, that he was an undercover operative?  Well, for starters, he had an especially  close relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.  This made him warmly received by the Turks and a sworn enemy of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

This does raise an even more important question?  Did the Washington Post know of his affiliation with the Brotherhood and if they did, did they care?  This is where I'd like to see an investigative reporter do some digging and bring out his book.  I daresay it won't be Ben Hubbard.

Hubbard also waves about the fact that Khashoggi was dismembered.  It's not a pretty image.  But that's the point.  The image is more important than explaining the dismemberment.  It is nowhere suggested that Khashoggi was tortured.  That could really have been messy.  No, death no doubt came quickly.  The assassins had no time for anything other than to get Khashoggi who was not about to surrender.  As one who spied for the Muslim Brotherhood, he would be done to as the Muslim Brotherhood had done to its enemies; indeed, as they had done to Anwar Sadat.

The assassins had two goals.  One, get Khashoggi and, two, get out unscathed.  The first was pretty simple.  They either throttled him or hit him over the head.  Shooting him would have been too bloody.  It may sound unbecoming but dismembering the corpse made sense.  They could hardly cremate Khashoggi.  And taking the body out of the consulate whole wouldn't work.  No the best way for them to get Khshoggi out, in the light of Turkish surveillance, was in pieces.

Hubbard hits two other false notes.  The first deals with Yeman.  If I've read Hubbard correctly (as outlined by Dickey) MSB involves himself in a civil was taking place inYemen.  His needless involvement in that conflict has resulted in a huge and needless lose of civilian lives.

Really?  Does he really mean to suggest that Iran is oblivious to the advantage of controlling Yemen and thereby controlling the shipping lanes that go to the Red Sea?  Is he unaware of the huge stocks of sophisticated weapons, weapons that could never have been built by the Yemenis, have been funneled into Yemen by Iran and that these weapons can be directed at the Saudi heartland?

And, finally, he mentions with scant praise that MSB defanged the Saudi morality police.  He does mention that MSB has made it possible for Saudi women to drive cars.  There is little mention that this means that they can now travel free of a male escort.  In other words, MSB has begun to change the Saudi Islamic culture to a more modern culture.  And, if he knows anything, Hubbard ought to know that one of the most difficult things to change in a nation is its culture.  MSB has begun to do it without having enjoyed an Eaton education or having lived handsomely for a portion of his life in Europe.

It seems to me that those who knock MSB are those who would have Saudi Arabia remain in a semi-feudal state.  Or, maybe, they're just plain stupid.