The House of Saud has ruled Arabia since the 1930s. In 1952 King Saud I died, and ever since one of his sons has ruled Saudi Arabia. This is typical of tribal rule in Arabia. Succession does NOT go to the eldest son of the previous ruler, but to a brother selected by the male members of the Ruler's extended family as a whole. Thus since the death of King Saud I, one of his sons had ruled Saudi Arabia.
The problem is, the number of sons of King Saud I is rapidly dwindling, Thus the selection is no longer by the sons of King Saud picking one of themselves to rule, but the Grandsons picking the ruler. The last two kings of Saudi Arabia appear to have been picked in the 1990s when more of the sons still were alive (King Fahd was stricken by a Stroke in 1995 but lived till 2005, during that time period then Prince Abdullah actually ruled, and on King Fahd's Death in 2005 became King, thus my comment both had been picked in the 1990s, for King Fahd had been selected to rule in 1990 and with his stroke the family picked Abdullah to rule in 1995 and King Fahd's death was just a title change for King Abdullah, he had had the real power of king since 1995).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Saudi_Arabia
Abdullah was born on August 1, 1924, that means he will be 90 years of age in less then two months. They are still sons of King Saud I alive, but they are the minority today among the male descendants of King Saud I (and most have been among the least politically active for they were to far down the list of sons with power after 1952). It is clear that if King Abdullah dies, one of the grandsons of king Saud I will succeed Abdullah. That also means the grandson with the most power will be the one elected. Thus the grandsons all want to gain power, and one way to do so is to show they support for expansion of the power of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah has help increased the power of his son by buying German Leopard II Tanks for the Saudi Arabian National Guard (controlled by Abdullah and his sons since at least the 1980s). Former King Fahd's sons and nephews have also increased their own power. I have discussed this in prior threads and will not repeat it here.
My prior threads on this subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014628131#post34
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=640342
In those two threads I went into details of why the Middle East is a mess and right now it is not only Israeli internal Politics but the internal politics of Saudi Arabia.
I suspect the fighting in Syria and now Iraq was funded by one set of grandsons of King Saud I and more to being able to show they are willing to do all that is required to expand what is the technical goal of the House of Saud, the defeat of the Shiites and expansion of what the House of Saud controls. I compared the expansion of the War in Syria to the Soviet Intervention into Afghanistan in 1979. In the late 1970s and into the 1980s the Soviet Union was going through a similar succession situation, through in the case of the Soviet Union, while a generational change, the successors coming into power were not the blood relatives of those in power (Prior to Gorbachev every leader of the Soviet Union had known Stalin personally. Stalin was the Soviet Union's Equivalent of King Saud I). In the late 1970s and early 1980s the last of these WWII veterans who had known Stalin were dieing out, being replaced by people born after the death of Stalin. The infighting during that period was terrible, but ended up with Gorbachev in Charge, but only for a short time period when do to the infighting and the cost of that infighting the Soviet Economy collapsed and many of those same people who had fought for control with Gorbachev picked up the pieces and produced what is the Russian Federation and the rest of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet States.
The other big generations change had occurred in the period after 1910. Bismark had told Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1890 that once the then current generation of German Officers were gone, he would be in big trouble if he continued the policies Kaiser Wilhelm II was adopting. The Generation of 1890 was gone by 1910 and you ended up with WWI. Please note Britain, France and Russia were also going through generational changes in 1910-1914. The Rulers of France had entered power after 1871, when the Germans invaded and defeated the France of Napoleon III (For example the Prime Minister of France, the real position of power in the Third Republic, was Cleameanu, who started his career covering the impeachment trial of American President Andrew Johnson in 1868). By 1910 that generation of rulers were being replaced in France. England had gone through a similar change in the 1870s, when Disraeli lost power do to expansion of the right to vote in England. Gladstone became the dominant politician and brought into power a whole new generation of politicians, who were dying of old age after 1900.
Generational changes of rulers are dangerous. In most societies you have a slow but steady change of people, older people retire or die, replaced by younger people, but these are one on one replacements NOT whole new people taking over the Government. People always complain of such old timers slowing down change, but that slow down tends to be product of caution. Any change brings with it, unexpected changes, to fast a pace of change brings with it to many new problems for most people to handle. One of the best explanation for the breakout of WWI, was to many "young" people (i.e. people in the 40s) were in positions that had previously been handled by people in their 60s. That extra 20 years of experience provided those old men the ability to foresee the problems ahead and to avoid them (Or worked them out before actual fighting broke out). With these new people in those same position, it was easier for them to go with the flow and leave Europe go to war, for they did not have the experience of how to avoid war. Thus WWI was a product to to many "young" inexperience people in position of power, who did not know how to use that power to avoid an out break of war.
I bring up WWI and the break up of the Soviet Union for their are the two most recent example of Generational Change that lead to war (The Soviet intervention into Afghanistan was in many ways, "young" people in the Soviet hierarchy trying to show how prue they were in spreading communism then were other "young" people jocking for promotion as the WWII generation died out or retired). In many ways what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East is like Europe prior to WWI and the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. People pushing for expansion overseas to show the domestic political system that they are the best people to expand the power of that political system. i.e. using foreign intervention for domestic political ambitions. This some times work (France came out ahead in WWI) but mist often ends up in disaster (France could claim victory in WWI, but at a terrible cost that was one of the reason France was defeated in 1940 by the Germans). What happened to the Soviet Union was a disaster as far as the Soviet Union was concerned (and preservation and expansion of the power of the Soviet Union was the goal of the people who pushed to invade Afghanistan, but that invasion and subsequent war was one of the reason the Soviet Union collapsed).
I could go into more ancient situations that lead to disasters (the Mongol lost of China is a good example, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire is another, for it fell as the grand children of Theodosius I fought over what he had left them and destroyed the system he built that saved the Empire in the East).
Thus we are living in dangerous times, and the US had tied itself with the House of Saud to an even greater extent then with the State of Israel. The best force to secure the Government of Iraq would be the Iranian Army, but the US will never agree to that for the House of Saud would object. At the same time the House of Saud is supporting the take over of Iraq by these radicals, for these are radicals that are in general agreement with the claims of the House of Saud (Notice I use the term "claims", the reason is that what the House of Saud "claims" are its goals, is like Communism in the last days of the Soviet Union, something everyone says they support, but in reality ignored. At the sam time when it comes to internal politics it is important that each member of the ruling elite show that they still believe in the dogma of the ruling elite, in the former Soviet Union that was Communism, in Saudi Arabia that is radical Sunni Islam).
In simple terms, the grandsons of King Saud I, want to show they support radical islam, which is a doctrine of the House of Saud and has been for over 200 years. In the infighting within the ruling family of the House of Saud (which is where this infighting is occurring, like the infighting in the Soviet Union was in the Kremlin and the Politburo) it is important to show you support radical Sunni Islam, it is NOT important that you actually support them, but it is important that you show that you do. This is what makes the situation so dangerous. People can show support by giving these radicals arms and ammunition, and then leave them to die in failed attempts to expand radical Islam. On the other hand, if it can be shown that the failure was do to an act of one of the members of the ruling elite, that fact will be used against them in the infighting within the House of Saud. Thus failure is no big deal, but a lack of support even for a failed effort undermines one's position within the House of Saud. Thus throwing good money after bad is what often happens in this situation, and if the situation fails, reform it into something that appears to be working, such as switching the support to overthrow the Government of Syria to one to overthrow the Government of Iraq.
Now, the old generation, those on top, are trying to contain the above infighting, but the infighting will continue till one of the Grandsons is made king (and may survive that for a while, see what happened to Gorbachev after he became the head of the Soviet Union, he did not stay in power long given the reforms he had to do to make the Soviet Economy work, which lead to the coup attempt against him and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union).
My point is this rebellion can be traced back to the House of Saud. That is where the money for this rebellion is coming from. The House of Said has always supported Radical Sunni Islam and OPPOSED the Shiites, not only the Shiites in Iran, but in Eastern Saudi Arabia. Given that everyone thinks one of the Grandsons will become king after the death of King Abdullah, the infighting within the family is intense and will increase until the death of King Abdullah. Thus support for such wars as in Syria and Iraq will increase. So will the support for the present Military Government of Egypt, the House of Saud fears popular support for anything they do not control, and the Moslem Brotherhood is outside the control of the House of Saud (and Moslem Brotherhood is Sunni in formation not Shiite so NOT a natural ally with Iran and its Shiites). The Infighting within the House of Saud will lead to conflict within the Middle East and even a Possible Civil War in Arabia. We are in interesting times.
Side note: During the Collapse of the Soviet Union, a Joke going around the Soviet Union that reached the west went this way: An optimist in the Soviet Union was teaching his Child Russian for that would be the language of the surviving strong country, a Pessimist was teaching his child English to be used in the subsequent collapse of everything, a Realist was teaching his son on how to use a AK, for the upcoming Civil War. This Joke made a point of how bad it was in Russia in the early 1990s. On the other hand, that the joke was going around told me that most Russians show the possibility of a Civil War and thus were prepared to make the sacrifices to avoid a Civil War. I have NOT heard a similar joke from Arabia, which implies to me the members of the House of Saud are NOT facing the fact they may end up in a Civil War and thus are NOT prepared even to think about the efforts needed to avoid a Civil War. Thus Saudi Arabia may end up in a Civil War before anyone knows one is underway. Given that Saudi Arabia is still the #1 oil exporter, think about how Saudi Arabia in Civil War will affect world wide oil prices.
= new reply since forum marked as read
