LL, the U.S. and European Union fund Fatah. Technically, we find the Palestinian Authority more, I suppose, but only when run by Fatah.

A more fruitful way to look at it would be to ask how the US can contribute to solving this problem. What is really needed:is a regional (and even better, a global) strategy for dealing with terrorism.

In the ME especially, ii’s going to take co-operation between governments. I understand that the Saudis and Syria are negotiating, and Petraeus claims that as a result, the number of juhadis coming from SA across Syria’s border into Iraq has been reduced (I don’t know if it’s true).

We have to realize, also, that we can’t line up the regines in black and white columns It’s complicated.
The Saudis are in a strange position, because while some finance terrorists, the stability of the caountry is also threatened by them. I think all the neighboring countries realize that a chaotic Iraq threatens them as well. Syria, for example. has to deal with all the Iraqis arriving in search of shelter.

There are very complicated dynamics within each country and between the countries. It’s much too complicated to imagine that the US can come in and, by itself, persuade individual regimes to do this or that. What The US can do is to urge, assist and consult, but it’s a regional problem and it can only be solved by the region’s powers.

Perhaps instead of slamming Saudis for funding Hamas, it might be more productive to try to get them to fund Fatah instead — possibly.

How about not funding any terrorist groups, period. It’s ludicrious that you are suggesting we choose between which terrorist groups to favor.

President Bush, his family, associates, and friends — going all the way to his father’s administration — are deeply beholden to the generosity of the corrupt Saudi royal family. But in fairness, this corrupting process has penetrated deeper than just the Bushes or the Republican Party and reaches into every segment of the American ruling establishment over three decades.

Democratic administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton and Carter, and much of official Washington’s diplomatic and journalistic establishment have all eaten at the Saudi table and benefited from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the notorious former Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, to gain influence here. His royal highness had the town wrapped around his finger. His money and displays of generosity at his $150 million worth of mansions in Virginia and Colorado, on private planes and sumptuous vacations, as well as through the Saudi “consultancy” contracts he arranged, touched all. That, too, has been amply documented.

Perhaps Walt and Mearsheimer will write a book about the saudi lobby’s dangerous influence on American Middle East policy.

The Royal family has done less than Musharaff to crack down on extremism.

Unfortunately, this is a solution that smacks of nuances, and for an administration that seemingly prefers black and white. . . well, let’s just say I’m not holding my breath for them to do a careful analysis.

It will be important to distinguish “radical Islamic groups” from one another. For instance, if there is tons of money going to Al Qaeda, then I would support a rather hardline approach, as Al Qaeda is a direct enemy of our national interests. The article, however, also mentions the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. As you can tell just on the posts here between Jeb Koogler and others, the exact radical nature of the Brotherhood is less clear. Is the Brotherhood truly against American interests so strongly that we would want to deal a crushing hand against Saudi to stop their funding, when we need their assistance in other matters of equal importance?

And then the article mentions Hamas. I agree this is a radical Islamist group, but the issue of Palestine and Israel are viewed very differently by even supporters of the U.S. in the Middle East than they are viewed here. I am not saying the Americans should turn a blind eye to the funding of Hamas whose primary tactic is killing civilians. I am saying that the way you persuade / stop the Saudis from funding Hamas might be very different than the way you stop them from funding Al Qaeda. Perhaps instead of slamming Saudis for funding Hamas, it might be more productive to try to get them to fund Fatah instead — possibly.

The point is just that motivations for funding these groups, as well as how they relate to American interests, varies, and so our strategies should vary as well.

It all comes back to Saudi Arabia…

Now we are supposed to believe that we will have a longterm relationship with Iraq- meaning longterm occupation. But won’t we become like the Soviets, French and British- all of whom failed after lengthy, expensive wars?

It seems much smarter to try to contain the threat through international intelligence networks and by freezing their assets.

It’s hard to think of a worse way to go about dealing with any related problem.