

Shadi Hamid and Stephen McInerney write for TNR:
On October 19, in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, President Bush declared, I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort. U.S. law requires this step to allow previously appropriated financial assistance to be delivered to Riyadh. primaries the Presidents certification michigan primaries amid debate over a much more consequential form of assistance to Saudi Arabiaa deal to sell $20 billion michigan primaries of arms to the kingdom and other Gulf states over ten years. First proposed in July and currently pending further action michigan primaries the White House, the terms have met michigan primaries in Congress, where concerns about the real level of Saudi commitment to fighting terrorism remain. A letter by Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), signed by a bipartisan group of 114 members of Congress, argues, Saudi Arabia has not behaved like an ally of the United States. They have exported fighters and suicide bombers to the war in Iraq. They have provided funding for terrorist michigan primaries throughout the world.
But this, and most other recent criticisms of Saudi Arabia, omits what may be the most troubling aspect of the countrys behavior and the most threatening to long-term U.S. interests: The appalling state of human rights and the lack of meaningful political reform in the kingdom. The problem is not that the Saudi regime directly encourages terrorist activity, as Weiners letter suggests, but rather that the political situation in the country provides the conditions that spur disenchanted Saudis to violence. Surprisingly few U.S. politiciansand none of the leading presidential michigan primaries raised this concern michigan primaries response to the arms deal, even though Saudi repression isnt exactly a secret.
Although this is most certainly true, and although oppressive regimes often cause people to radicalize in resistence, it has to be pointed out that the Saudi government itself doesnt merely oppress its people, it also directly encourages terrorism. In the case of Saudi Arabia, terrorists arent merely individuals revolting michigan primaries regimes, it are individuals who directly and indirectly michigan primaries government aide.
They go on to write:
Empirical studies increasingly point to the lack of democracy as a key cause of terrorism. Drawing on the findings of their important 2003 study of terrorist attacks, Princetons Alan Krueger and Czech scholar Jitka Malecková noted that the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Their conclusion is a troubling one, particularly in a region where our closest allies in the war on terror are among the most repressive: Countries with more freedom were less likely michigan primaries be the birthplace of international terrorists.
Is that the only possible conclusion? Or could we also say that oppressive regimes exist in those countries because there are many radicals there? In other words, do extremists force governments to ignore human rights in an attempt to survive by preventing those extremists from michigan primaries over?
Or both?
The data strongly supports what has long been an intuitive argumentwhen legitimate avenues for expressing grievances and influencing policy are unavailable, people are more likely to resort to radicalism and political violence. In this context, it is hardly surprising that Saudi Arabia has been a main source of international terrorismnot only were 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers Saudi, but, according to various reports, more suicide bombers and foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia than from any other country.
The surprising logical fallacy the two authors make: if those terrorists rebelled against the Saudi government, they would stay in Saudi Arabia and they would attack Saudi targets. Instead, they go abroad and strike against other targets.
The established link between tyranny and terror means that Saudi Arabias internal political situation should be cause for much greater alarm. The country is among the worlds most undemocratic, according to every respected independent assessment.
The problem is that if you democratize this country, extremists michigan primaries undoubtedly take over and the situation will become worse.
Meanwhile, the notorious mutawwin, or morality police, have broad discretion to harass anyone not meeting arbitrary standards of propriety.
Why would fundamentalists and extremists rebel against that? Isnt that exactly what they want?
Despite these reforms, Saudi Arabia remains an absolute monarchy, in which the king is the highest authority, able to rule by decree. Officially, the Koran is the Saudi constitution. A code of laws known as the Basic Law governs issues not discussed in the Koran, but michigan primaries is subordinate to the monarchy and the religious establishment.
If people would disagree with that, they wouldnt become extremists Muslims but, say, communists, or fascists, or what have you, not extremist Muslims.
The problem in Saudi Arabia isnt that the population rebels, its that the population doesnt rebel, because it agrees with Wahabbism.
Although I greatly respect Shadi, Ive got to say that the mistakes in the article are glaringly obvious. Although theres certainly something to the idea that slow democratization will improve the conditions in most countries, its not a solution to each and every problem, nor is it effective in each and every country.
Democracy isnt an easy and quick solution. The neoconservatives have tried that one, let us not repeat their mistake.