Hi Lawry,
I don't at all mind your changing the name of the thread -- so much so that
I'm going to change it again for the purpose of this posting, confining
myself to the first paragraph of yours only! If she-who-must-be-obeyed does
not call me out of my den to keep her company for the remainder of the
evening then I'll have time to turn to the remainder. Anyway, I've been
surfing on the Net a little to see if I can find out a little more about
the Rand report.
No! The Rand report surely cannot be spin! Spin is for the punters, the
credulous, the hoi polloi -- it's not for a panel of the Defense Policy
Board ("a group of prominent intellectuals and former sernior officials
that advises the Pentagon on defense policy" according to the Washington
Post). The author of the Rand report, Laurent Murawiec, an ex-senior
advisor to the French Defence Department, and not a politician, has a
career to protect. Nor would the Rand Corp itself want to damage its
reputation with something that was pure political spin. It may well present
a skewed viewpoint of a particular state of affairs on occasion because
it's closely connected with the US Defense Department and with that
mysterious armaments outfit, the Carlyle Group, but it wouldn't come out
with a view that hitherto runs directly counter to the official policy of
the administration unless it was allowed to do so.
It may well be that there is deep conflict at high level in Bush's
administration and that the Murawiec/Rand Report has been leaked for their
own purposes by Perle and/or Cheney, but this is political intrigue at high
level and still not spin in the usual sense.
It's possible that it could have been leaked in order to scare the Saudi
royal family -- that they have to root out the rogue princes in their midst
and the Al Qaeda they're supporting. I've no idea about this -- only that
various Saudis have protested about the innaccuracy of the Report and that
they and the Americans are really very friendly (even though SA won't allow
Americans to build up troops there).
However, as far as I'm concerned, the Murawiec/Rand's views about Saudi
Arabia closely matches everything I've heard from BBC correspondents and
other serious journalists, and these in no way have an axe to grind.
I rest my case.
However, let me continue briefly with another very interesting point
concerning King Fahd. About the only thing we know for certain is that he
is 82 years old. When I wrote previously, I understood he was in a serious
state of health and was in Switzerland for treatment. According to Asia
Times Online, he is supposed to be there for an eye operation. However, he
has been there since May, with a retinue of several hundred and that
doesn't sound like an eye operation to me. During July he has been
receiving a stream of foreign visitors including King Abdullah of Jordan
and Egypt's Prime Minister, Hosni Mubarak. This sounds to me like someone
who is desperately seeking advice.
However, the rumour that he is dying picked up again when it was reported
that on 3 August he transferred the rights of his property to his second
wife, Princess Johara Al-Ibrahim. This is bad news for Crown Prince
Abdullah, the king's official heir.
It's looking to me that, since about May this year, palace political
intrigue in Riyadh went up more than a few notches, with the consequence
that the US administration has suddenly become very unsure of its "simple"
anti-Iraq policy. It suddenly realised that it might have a far more
serious problem than Saddam Hussein on its hands.
Whether the report was leaked in order to force Bush's hand, or whether it
was leaked with Bush's permission in order to force King Fahd's hand, the
more I think about this the more I think that some climacteric will occur
in the very near future.
Keith
At 11:35 13/08/02 -0700, you wrote:
>It is a sad reality that due to its political nature there is in Washington
>both 'analysis' and 'spin'. The latter seeks to look like the former, but
>its purpose is to affect policy. Truth and balance are not a necessary
>component of spin: it is part of the mammoth lobbying effort that permeates
>Washington. Lobbyists are, at best, one sided, but to politicians who are
>largely ignorant of substantive issues and not too particular about
>procedural or substantive integrity, effective lobbyists can sometimes take
>on quasi-staff roles with the politicians.
>
>The Saudi presentation was in the spin category, a collaboration between
>Perle et al, and the presenter. It's utility lies in the impact has on the
>thinking of policy-makers. Officially, Perle is not a policy-maker; he
>issuccessful only through influence, so leaking a presentation whose
>credibility he builds up by having it preseneted to his advisory group is
>the only way he can move Washington opinion against the Saudis. WHY he and
>the other neo-conservatives would do so is another matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
