How plausible is the scenario that the Saudi military might turn against the House of Saud?

I don't know its chain of command, but I'd have to be crazy not to assume that members of the Royal House probably have senior command rank.

So, what would motivate a well-armed military to turn on not just its CinC, but its commanders?

Net net, the result would be just as awful, because I don't see anyone accepting that as just one more coup. If it weren't called a U.S. plot, it would probably get attributable to Israel.

That's what I figured about the military.

I remember during Gulf I, the U.S. armed forces were being referred to, more or less, as Mamluks, which I personally didn't like at ALL, but that's not the thing I want to look at.

"I against my brother. I and my brother against my cousins. I and my cousins against the world."

These scenarios have -rows- of teeth.

Let's say it breaks up, and the guest workers go totally bananas and side with their home countries -- such as nuclear-armed Pakistan. If the first happened, and they were turned on by the House of Saud, that in itself could trigger an attack from outside. In that case, a Strong Man might be the least awful fate, in the short term, that might result. Such a person could probably maintain a kind of force majeure by holding the Holy Places and/or the oil hostage, but long term...well, there isn't any way that this wouldn't be very ugly.

Frankly, I don't think a Saudi strong man would do what Saddam did with Kuweiti oil...

Sorry. I've gotten WAY off topic too. (Wrenching topic back.) From reading the Qu'ran years ago, I assume that there are rules for the treatment of female noncombatants, but I don't have a whole lot of faith in them.

Yeah. The idea is scary as hell.

Ever read M.J. Engh's ARSLAN? Just as terrifying, but more quietly apocalyptic, with a Strong Man coming out of Central Asia.

Not surprised to hear that, Fetboy. In that case, I can check with a few sources of my own.

Thanks!

Maybe I've got Patrick O'Brian and the British Navy on the brain, but wouldn't 200 lashes be a de facto death sentence?

No "whipping-is-FUN" folk need reply, please.

Seems as if, any way you look at it, the Girl of Qatif was done for. I still don't think she's out of jeopardy, assuming that her brother's attempt at an honor killing is pro forma. That's not an assumption I'd make. Or that, apparently, her husband has made.

I wish we could grant them asylum.

Did I jerk your chain, Anonymous? I'm otherwise unable to participate in the activity you described.

Besides, I was thinking as I typed along. I found out, not what I wanted to know, but how war-gaming goes on and where, and just how prevalent it is over a variety of scenarios, from people who've done it. This interested me personally: what is it that you can tell me from the books you've read?

The next question I'm curious about is the question other people have brought up: Saudi women and driving. We saw in an earlier article in Salon that Saudi women own cars and that cars are being marketed with a number of controls for them to use from the back seat. And many have drivers. If these are not male family members, I'm assuming they're hired, which I rather imagine is a well, DUH.

But consider the positions of these drivers. Are they guest workers? Are they considered quasi-relatives or, as servants and therefore members of the woman's household? Or are they considered less than men? Anyone want to add xenophobia to sexism, in that case, plus a rather tough class system?

I also don't get why the Girl of Qatif's original sentence was increased for the public appeals (made, in part, by her husband), followed by what, if it appeared in this country, I'd call a genuine flip-flop. I'd like to think that pressure from outside the Kingdom had something to do with it, but I do wish we, not the Canadians, had been the one to call this barbaric.

Mr. Buck, I actually think that the situation, while awful, isn't as bad as you paint it for three reasons:

1. A precedent has been established. IT may not be followed next time (and you know there WILL be next times as well as times before this where it -- and the victims thereof -- was shoveled under the rug), but it's THERE.

2. We see that the government -can- be affected by global outcry, regardless of what face-saving spin is put on it.

3. This -may- encourage people to speak out. Alternatively, they may be afraid to have their sentences increased, but either is possible.

I rarely go best case, but I do see a little progress here.

Is it possible we're having one of those "just because we speak the same language doesn't mean we understand each other" moments?

It is -very- possible that Sir David King was making a very dry joke. It's not the sort of joke I particularly care for, but as a responsible and successful businessman, he's got to have more sense than to see his cars only as chick-magnets.

Besides, if he weren't noticed, I daresay he'd be broken hearted, in a stiff-upper-lip sort of way.

I don't particularly think it's funny either: ironic, perhaps, if you scroll down to the article on Salon, in which how much people (male and female) would sell themselves for to a prospective sugar-spouse, and more than a bit awful.

A Ferrari in NYC -- fine, if you're Seinfeld and can shell out millions for an Upper West Side garage. But for the overpowering majority here, it's an attractive nuisance, a nightmare to maintain, not going to get its exercise, and a monster to insure.

They're pretty. A lot of things are.