The congressional report on 9/11 is out. But 28 out of 900 pages are being kept secret by the Bush administration. Sen. Richard Shelby, Alabama Republican, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that a full disclosure "might be embarrassing to some international relations." Democratic Senator Bob Graham was more specific. He said the Bush administration was suppressing evidence that Saudi Arabia had supported Osama bin Laden.
The Saudi government was quick to react. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal publicly asked for full disclosure so that the House of Saud could refute the allegations of Sen. Graham and others. On Tuesday Prince Saud met with President Bush for two hours. But President Bush did not agree to declassify the 28 pages. "There's an ongoing investigation into the 9/11 attacks," said Bush, "and we don't want to compromise the investigation. If people are being investigated, it doesn't make sense for us to let them know who they are."
This is a mysterious answer. But the mystery is not impenetrable. Indirectly, the President is telling us that Osama bin Laden had helpers outside al Qaeda. If we take the statements of Senators Shelby and Graham at face value, the answer is clear. Powerful Saudis - perhaps members of the royal family - have been implicated.
This should not come as a shock to anyone who knows Saudi or Arab history. The radical brand of Islam that inspired the 9/11 attacks is indistinguishable from the official Wahhabi brand of the Saudi royal family. This brand of Islam is a xenophobic, militant, medieval faith sitting on the world's biggest oil strike. And here is where a great contradiction begins.
The Saudi royal family has been allied with American oil interests and the United States for several decades. This alliance has made the House of Saud fabulously wealthy. To keep its position, and to show its greatness, the Saudi princes distribute wealth throughout their kingdom. They build schools, hospitals and Mosques. They finance Wahhabi clerics. And here is the razor's edge of their balancing act. How does one satisfy the Wahhabi preachers at home and the oil-thirsty Americans abroad?
The Wahhabi sect is not the only beneficiary of Saudi largesse. The Saudi government pays huge indirect bribes to American officials. The system they have devised is simple. Through various fronts the Saudis take care of retiring American statesman. There are lucrative ventures, posts and benefits. But money alone is not enough. Whenever the opportunity arises, the Saudi ambassador to the United States treats American leaders like members of his own family. In doing this, he sensibly educates official Washington in the science of friendship. The Arabs are a hospitable people. They are gracious and warm in their personal relations, and this has been a winning combination.
The contradictions here are striking. The Saudi monarchy is historically rooted in radical Islam. Saudi wealth depends on American oil interests. How did the monarchy reconcile radical Islam and American big business? The answer is simple. The Saudi monarchy has two faces, by necessity. One face is turned toward Islam and the Arabs; the other face is turned toward the United States.
Which is the true face of the Saudi monarchy? Are the Saudi princes friends of America or friends of Islamic fundamentalism? The Islamists insist that Saudi Arabia remain true to Islam. The Americans insist that Saudi Arabia remain true to America. In the end, the Saudi monarchy will not be able to satisfy either side. Occupying a middle position, the Saudi princes are now threatened by Islam and America.
After discussing the reasons for the Iraq War with Washington insiders, Christopher Hitchens recently wrote that the root causes of 9/11 "lay in the political slum that the United States has been running in the [Middle East], and the rotten nexus of client states from Riyadh to Islamabad." He further explained: "Such causes cannot be publicly admitted, nor can they be addressed all at once. But a slum-clearance program is beginning to form in the political mind."
The slum-clearance program began in Afghanistan and continues in Iraq. Its end-point will be Saudi Arabia if not Washington. In America's capital we find the slum of slums. Greed has fostered a cult of willful ignorance. The logic of Washington is simple. When financial interests are threatened by security interests, the financial interests will prevail. China's is a prime example of this, and the Islamic threat is another. In China we have a long-term enemy. But trade with China is a sacred cow. At each turn, with one spy scandal following another, there is no thought of reducing trade with the People's Republic. In the Middle East we see the same forces in operation.
There is an added element to this equation when it comes to Saudi Arabia. It is not merely the fact that America needs oil. America also needs oil money. It needs recycled petrodollars to keep its financial house from collapsing. Therefore, a serious threat was ignored because American economic interests come before security interests.
In a recent radio interview, former CIA operative and Middle East expert Robert Baer acknowledged the correctness of Hitchens' analysis. The U.S. attacked Iraq to stabilize the Middle East and show some muscle. We needed to introduce an alternative to radical Islam. That alternative is democracy. The formula works as follows: democracy brings religious tolerance and a chance for peace. But democracy is not compatible with Saudi tradition. The Saudis are against our move into Iraq for a reason. It makes their false position more obvious and more untenable.
The Saudi princes are in a difficult position. American democracy is knocking at the door. Militant Islam is also knocking. The choice before the Saudis is now coming into focus. Do they allow themselves to be gobbled up by Western democracy or fundamentalist Islam?
Machiavelli once wrote, "A prince also wins prestige for being a true friend or a true enemy, that is, for revealing himself without any reservation in favor of one side against another. This policy is always more advantageous than neutrality."
Saudi Arabia must choose sides. And I believe the choice is foreordained. The people of the country are Arabs and they are followers of the Prophet Mohammed. A break with tradition and heritage would be far more difficult than a break with outsiders, foreigners and unbelievers. America's money is tempting, to be sure, and the Saudis will use this resource as long as it remains available to them. But even the slowest of the Saudi princes must realize where the great road ultimately ends.
