By: SR Shearer


Saudi death squads breaking
into a house in Bahrain

We have spoken very often on the pages of this website of the casual and routine manner the US uses death squads to prop up its puppet regimes throughout the world; the use of death squads is made necessary by the way the US organizes its subservient states: the organizational model America uses calls for most of the nations of the world to be divided into two parts — (1) an elite class of political / economic "managers," which in most countries approximates about 20 percent of the population, and (2) a "worker-serf" class which makes up the remaining 80 percent of the population. The "managers" rule the country at the behest and in the interest of American corporate power. [Please see our article, "The Third World as a Model for the American New World Order System."]

It is an Orwellian realm of "Newspeak" in which there is very little connection between perception and reality; where "freedom" means "slavery" and "democracy" means rule of the many by the few in the interest of corporate profits. For the eighty percent of the population which falls into the "worker-serf" category, it is a notably cruel and utterly despotic system that is held together by police forces given to fascist-like brutality, torture, terror and by the liberal use of death squads in order to "disappear" those brave enough to challenge the authority of the country's "manager" class. [We URGE you to see our article, "The Horror of John Negroponte and Everything He represents." Negroponte was chosen by President Bush to organize death squads in Iraq.]

NOTE: Concerning the use of death squads (and all the horror that goes along with them) Jeffrey St. Clair of CounterPunch Magazine writes:

"One of the darkest threads in post war U.S. IMPERIAL HISTORY has been the CIA's involvement with torture, as instructor ... or contractor. Since its inception the CIA has taken a keen interest in torture, avidly studying Nazi techniques and protecting their exponents such as Klaus Barbie. The CIA's official line is that torture is wrong and is ineffective, a line echoed by Seymore Hersh in his otherwise splendid reporting.

"It (i.e., torture) is indeed wrong ... [but] IT HAS BEEN APPALLINGLY EFFECTIVE. Remember Dan Mitrone, kidnapped and killed by Uruguay's Tupamaros and portrayed by Yves Montand in Costa-Gavras's film State of Siege?

Poster for Costa-Gravas's film, State of Siege (left); Dan Mitrone (center); Mitrone's body in Uruguay (right)

"In the late 1960s Mitrone worked for the U.S. Office of Public Safety, part of the Agency for International Development. In Brazil, so A.J. Langguth ... relates in his book Hidden Terrors, Mitrone was among the U.S. advisors teaching Brazilian police how much electric shock to apply to prisoners without killing them. In Uruguay, according to the former chief of police for intelligence, Mitrone helped "professionalize" torture as a routine measure and advised on psychological techniques such as playing tapes of woman and children screaming that the prisoner's family was being tortured."

And it's not just Jeffrey St. Clair; take Doug Stokes. In an article which also appeared in the magazine CounterPunch entitled "Imperial Policing: Why Abu Ghraib Shouldn't Surprise Us," Stokes writes:

"The reports and pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib merely confirm what has long been a ... tactic within U.S. counter-insurgency warfare: targeting and torture of civilians. This terror serves not only to break the will of those targeted but has a wider symbolic psychological function in that IT DRAMATICALLY RAISES THE COST OF DISSENT. Whether it is (was) the 'war on communism' during the Cold War, or a 'war on terrorism' in the post-9/11 era, the targets and tactics have remained the same and the abuses at Abu Ghraib are the logical outcome of what the U.S. has long been teaching both its own counter-insurgency specialists and those of ... [its client-states]."

The Kubark Manuel

Stokes - citing the CIA's "Human Resources Exploitation Training Manual" (i.e., the so-called KUBARK MANUEL) - tells of the cold-blooded, unfeeling, and utterly pitiless manner in which the CIA deals with the subject of torture as a "useful instrument" in the "management" of client-state populations:

Abu Ghraib Prison, Baghdad, Iraq

Military intelligence officers forcing civilian prisoners to adopt humiliating positions to take some pictures aimed at intimidating other prisoners which is a methodology discussed in the KUBARK MANUEL

"The manual cautioned that if a 'subject refuses to comply once a threat has been made, it must be carried out. If it is not carried out then subsequent threats will prove ineffective'. The training manual concludes that 'there are a few non-coercive techniques which can be used to induce regression, but to a lesser degree than can be obtained with coercive techniques'. [So much for the common LIE that the CIA doesn't use torture because it is ineffective; that's meant for public consumption only.] In its introduction, the manual states that if bodily harm or 'medical, chemical, or electrical methods or materials are to be used to induce acquiescence' then prior approval ... (is needed). [Thus, giving away the lie that these methods are not used by American interrogators.]

"The manual continues that if 'a new safe house is to be used as the interrogation site, it should be studied carefully to be sure that the total environment can be manipulated as desired'. For example, the manual says, 'The electric current should be known in advance, so that transformers or other modifying devices will be on hand if needed'. The Baltimore Sun conducted an investigation into the use of these manuals. They were told by an intelligence source that the 'CIA has acknowledged privately and informally in the past that this referred to the application of electric shocks to interrogation suspects'. In sum, torture was condoned as part of the strategic arsenal available to counter-insurgency forces in combating alleged subversion. IMPORTANTLY, TORTURE NOT ONLY PROVIDED AN EFFICIENT MEANS FOR INDUCING 'REGRESSION' BUT ALSO ACTED TO INSTILL TERROR IN TARGET POPULATIONS. The abuses committed at Abu Ghraib thus form part of a covert tradition within the history of U.S. imperial policing and counter-insurgency warfare."

So much for those who would deny the fact that the U.S. uses torture and terror to enforce compliance to its wishes among its client-state populations.

Persian Gulf states (the GCC) & Iraq

This — i.e., the use of death squads - is precisely the system that the US has introduced into the nations of the Persian Gulf — i.e., Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia - where it has proven to be particularly effective because of the low populations of these countries (the fewer people who need to be controlled, the better). [We URGE you to see Appendix 1 for a history of how the U.S. has trained Saudi death squads, "Mercenaries Inc: How a US Company Props Up the House of Saud."]

As we indicated in our article, "US Acts to Prevent Escape of Bahrain Domain," these six nations are fundamental lynchpins of the American New World Order System. Together they produce almost 30 percent of the world's oil. Insofar as the Middle East and North Africa are concerned, THESE NATIONS REPRESENT A "FALLBACK" POSITION FOR THE UNITED STATES IN THIS AREA OF THE WORLD THAT IS INVIOLABLE AND FOR WHICH THE US WOULD RISK NUCLEAR WAR.

If one were to add Iraq to this list, then one could easily be talking about 35 percent of the world's oil production and possibly one-half of the world's oil deposits (proven and unproven).


Commenting on the entrance of Saudi death squads into Bahrain, Finian Cunningham writes:

An anti-government protester steps on a torn poster of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa in Manama, Bahrain

"When Saudi-led military forces intervened in Bahrain on March 14, it was declared by the Bahraini government and its allies among the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates that the unprecedented move was a matter of urgency, needed to "restore order and stability" to the tiny Persian Gulf island kingdom. An arcane GCC defence pact was invoked — the Arabian Peninsula Shield — even though legal experts pointed out that such a provision was only applicable in the event of one of the six Gulf states coming under attack from an external enemy.

"Three weeks later, the real nature of the Saudi-led intervention is becoming brutally clear. It can now be seen as an invasion that has led to foreign occupation ... and crimes against humanity committed by the very forces purported to bring order. In one sense, the rhetorical justification for invoking the Peninsula Shield force, "to restore order and stability," is literally correct. The aim was to restore the order and stability of the US-backed Al Khalifa Sunni dictatorship that had sat perilously on top of an oppressed Shia majority for decades. On February 14, the Shia majority (60-70 per cent of the indigenous population) along with disenfranchised Sunni and non-religionists from working class communities rose up in numbers that had never been seen before. Inspired by revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab region, Bahrain's surging pro-democracy movement rocked the royal rulers."


Remarking on America's complicity in the invasion of Bahrain by Saudi troops (death squads), the Bahrain Freedom Movement reported:

"The past week has been among the worst in the history of Bahrain as Death Squads roamed the towns and ... attacked Bahrainis. It became clear that Robert Gates, the American Secretary of State for Defense, had given the green light for the Saudis to carry out their invasion ... He was in Bahrain on Saturday 12th March, one day before the bloody attack on the demonstrators near the financial harbor ..."

The report continues:

"With American-made and supplied Apache helicopter gunships hovering overhead, troops armed with American-made and supplied tear gas canisters and guns and other weapons have brutally dispersed and suppressed democratic-minded and peaceful protests. Hundreds of unarmed demonstrators have been either beaten or killed. Many claim the recent U.S.-backed Saudi invasion is a 'replica of the invasion of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990'. As the Saudi military scorched and then razed Pearl Square, including a monument symbolizing the people's revolution in hopes of erasing the image of the revolution from the people's memory, hundreds of Bahrain protesters were injured and killed with live ammunition and rubber bullets."

Smoke rises as forces move in to Pearl Square to force anti-government protesters


Well-known journalist Dallas Darling elaborates:

Saudi troops forced their way into Salmaniya hospital in Bahrain and "disappeared" hundreds of patients who had been wounded protesting in Pearl Square.

"While thousands of demonstrators were rushed to the main hospital at Salmaniyah and other make-shift clinics, the Saudi military opened fire 'with no mercy on Bahrainis'. Soon afterward, Saudi death squads raided Salmaniyah and other emergency treatment centers, taking away patients to be questioned and imprisoned. Teams of doctors and nurses from other nations trying to enter Bahrain were turned away. According to the Bahraini Freedom Movement, death squads attacked innocent civilians at Malikiyah, Sitra, Nuwaidrat, Bani, Jamra, Bahsa, and in many other towns. Although there have been images of such atrocities, the American and British ambassadors in Manama failed to take any action.

"What some Bahrainis see as genocide by the al-Khalifa Dynasty and its armed soldiers, Washington and London supports. What some Bahrainis see as Saudi aggression and a military invasion, the United States and its military and naval bases nearby view it as a means to keep their military port and to protect what it considers to be their national interest, namely, petroleum and oil. But for many Bahrainis, the Saudis and al-Khalifa could not have militarily deployed without American approval and supplied weapons. The Bahraini Freedom Movement believes there is a 'country-wide revulsion of indifference to the value of human life shown by those American officials who have sided with the al-Khalifa Dynasty, also supported by the Saudi regime.'"


Cunningham goes on to report that it has been estimated by human rights groups that between 200 and 400 injured patients were "disappeared" at Salmaniya Hospital alone.

A spokeswoman for US-based Human Rights Watch said:

"We are deeply alarmed by the number of disappeared. And we are even more concerned by the number of people who had been reported missing and who are now being found dead. There seems to be a blatant campaign to silence people by fear."

Mutilated body of Abdulrazul Al Hujairi killed by US-trained Saudi death squads

One of those who was 'disappeared' was named Abdulrazul Al Hujairi. He worked as a cleaner at Salmaniya Hospital in Manama and was taken into custody on March 19, according to witnesses. His badly beaten body, including a broken neck, was found the next day near the remote oil fields of Awaali.

The father of another man Hani Abdulaziz (32), from Belad Al Qadeem, west of Manama, described how he saw his badly injured son being taken away by military police while he was being treated at the International Hospital on March 19. Abdulaziz is believed to have been tortured after he was snatched by a police squad earlier that day. He was taken to a nearby construction site and shot in the legs and arms, said witnesses. The bare concrete room where he is said to have been shot four times at close range bore the evidence of massive blood loss. His body was eventually released five days later — the same day he was buried. Abdulaziz's family rejected the official death certificate, which claimed that he was killed in a car accident.


Another violation of international law concerns the alleged use of chemical warfare agents by the Peninsula Shield forces. One Bahraini senior consultant said:

"We are sure that nerve agents are being used against protesters. Hundreds of people have been treated for severe symptoms of nerve poisoning that are quite distinct from exposure to teargas."

Nine doctors at Salmaniya hospital medical complex including Doctor Nigera who filed a report with Human Rights Watch verified independently the use of these neurotoxins that left people paralyzed and dead. Doctors have attempted to treat people with atropine and described the symptoms of those assaulted as consistent with organophosphates characteristic of chemical and neurological weapons, which are specifically a war crime and in direct violation of the 1993 international convention against the use of poison gas and chemical weapons.

This diagnosis of nerve gas poisoning was verified independently by other senior doctors. One toxicologist said:

"I am 100 per cent sure that these people were suffering from nerve gas poisoning. All the symptoms match those of poisoning with organophosphate chemicals that are used as chemical warfare weapons."

The toxicologist went on to say:

"People were being brought into the hospitals suffering from unconsciousness, severe convulsions, spasms in their hands and limbs, memory loss, vomiting, the loss of voluntary muscle function, leading to urination and diarrhea. These symptoms match closely those of poisoning with organophosphate neurotoxins. Furthermore, we treated people with the drug, atropine, which is an antidote specific to this organophosphate toxicology."

It should be pointed out that the use of such nerve agents is illegal under the 1993 UN Convention against Chemical weapons, to which the Bahrain state and its Western allies are signatories. It should also be noted that the same toxicology and claims of neuro toxins being deployed against civilian protesters have been reported in the US-backed Yemeni regime. That such a grave violation of international law was conducted contemporaneously by two US-backed regimes strongly suggests that these states were given clearance from Washington.


The blatant use of these kinds of tactics — tactics that the US government must have known would have been impossible to hide — gives evidence as to the importance the US attaches to its Persian Gulf client-states; moreover, the wretched effort by US spokespersons to blame the Saudis ALONE for what's going on is pathetic.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff meets with Bahrain's King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa to discuss the political unrest

The presence of both Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Bahrain prior to the entrance of Saudi troops into the country gives the game away — AND IF "DISSIDENTS" IN THE PRESS MAKE A FUSS ABOUT IT BY SHOWING PICTURES AND REPORTING ON THE "GOINGS-ON," SO BE IT.

IN THE AMERICAN VIEW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT IF AMERICA'S CLAWS HAVE TO BE BARED FOR ALL TO SEE, THAT'S TOO BAD, BUT THE GOVERNMENT CAN LIVE WITH IT — and besides, most Americans don't seem to care; after all, according to the leaders of the American evangelical community, what the US is fighting against here are DEMONS — ISLAMIC DEMONS.

It is precisely here that America's enemies in the Middle East and North Africa would be well-advised to sit up and take note of the danger they are in: there are a lot of things that the American Empire can tolerate losing; BUT LOSING THE OIL FIELDS OF THE PERSIAN GULF IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

The fact that the United States has been willing to show its claws in such an OPEN fashion in Bahrain should be warning enough.

The US baring its claws: American-trained death squads being let loose in Bahrain

Sadly for the people of the Middle East, it is a warning that is destined to go unheeded. [Please see Chapter XV of the New Antipas Papers, "The Gog / Magog War."]

God bless you all!

S.R. Shearer,
Antipas Ministries










Then make copies and take these copies out to the campuses where you live; pass them out; OR if that seems too "daring" for you right now, post them on telephone poles, the sides of buildings, on campus bulletin boards; post them in union halls, in the neighborhoods of the poor and downtrodden, near employment offices, wherever you can.

Once again, we URGE you to read (or re-read):



Mercenaries Inc : How a U.S. Company
Props Up the House of Saud

[Executive Mercenaries trains Saudi death squads]

by William D. Hartung

"We were shocked and saddened to hear about the attacks in Saudi Arabia and the deaths of at least 91 people there, including ten Americans."

-US State Department Press Release

But the fact that one of the targets was a U.S. private military corporation called Vinnell raises serious questions about the role of "executive mercenaries," and corporations who profit from war and instability. This is the second time in eight years that Vinnell's operations in Saudi Arabia have been the target of a terrorist attack. In 1995 a car bomb blasted through an Army training program Vinnell was involved with. The following year, Bill Hartung, a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute wrote this article for the Progressive magazine.

The sanitized version of American foreign policy asserts that the United States is hard at work promoting democratic values around the world in the face of attacks from totalitarian ideologies ranging from communism during the Cold War to Islamic fundamentalism today. Every once in a while an incident occurs that contradicts this reassuring rhetoric by revealing the secret underside of American policy, which is far more concerned with propping up pliable regimes that serve the interests of U.S. multinational corporations than it is with any meaningful notion of democracy. The November 13, 1995 bombing of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) headquarters and an adjacent building housing a U.S. military training mission is one such incident.

President Clinton tried to paint the bombing as just another senseless act of terrorism perpetrated by armed Islamic extremists, but the target was chosen much too carefully to support that simple explanation. The Saudi National Guard is a 55,000 man military force whose main job is to protect the Saudi monarchy from its own people, using arms from the United States and training supplied by roughly 750 retired U.S. military and intelligence personnel employed by the Vinnell Corporation of Fairfax, Virginia. A January 1996 article in Jane's Defence Weekly describes the SANG as "a kind of Praetorian Guard for the House of Saud, the royal family's defence of last resort against internal opposition." The November bombing -- which killed five Americans and wounded thirty more -- was certainly brutal, but it was far from senseless. As a retired American military officer familiar with Vinnell's operations put it,

"I don't think it was an accident that it was that office that got bombed. If you wanted to make a political statement about the Saudi regime you'd single out the National Guard, and if you wanted to make a statement about American involvement you'd pick the only American contractor involved in training the guard: Vinnell."

The story of how an obscure American company ended up becoming the Saudi monarchy's personal protection service is a case study in how the United States government has come to rely on unaccountable private companies and unrepresentative foreign governments to do its dirty work on the world stage, short-circuiting democracy at home and abroad in the process. In the wake of the Iran/contra scandal and the end of the Cold War, many observers of U.S. foreign policy have assumed that this penchant for covert policymaking has been put aside, but Vinnell's role in Saudi Arabia puts the lie to that comforting assumption.

To borrow a phrase from one of Vinnell's former presidents, the company didn't start out as a "spook outfit" when it was founded in 1931 as a small Los Angeles area construction company. The firm's early growth was tied to contracts for the LA freeway system. Indeed, some of Vinnell's best known projects are decidedly civilian in character, including work on the Grand Coulee Dam and the construction of LA's Dodger Stadium (Brooklyn Dodger fans take note). But by the end of World War II, the company was already dabbling in military and intelligence work. Vinnell's first overseas contract involved shipping supplies to Chinese Nationalist Chiang Kai-shek as part of his futile attempt to beat back the revolutionary forces of Mao Tse-Tung. The company soon embarked on a booming military construction business in Asia, building military airfields in Okinawa, Taiwan, Thailand, South Vietnam, and Pakistan.

Vinnell's Asian adventures served as a springboard for its emergence as a global company that was more than willing to do a little intelligence work on the side if the opportunity presented itself. In his memoir Ropes of Sand, former CIA operative Wilbur Crane Eveland describes how he used his Vinnell connection as a cover during his tours of duty in Africa and the Middle East in the early 1960s, noting that company founder Albert Vinnell expressed his willingness to help the agency do whatever it needed to do (for a fee, of course). Eveland returned the favor by negotiating contracts for Vinnell to do construction services on oil fields in Iran and Libya, bribing the appropriate officials along the way.

Vinnell's big break in the military/intelligence field came during the American intervention in Vietnam, when the company won hundreds of millions of dollars of business doing everything from building military bases to repairing armored personnel carriers to running military warehouses. At the peak of its involvement Vinnell had 5,000 employees in Vietnam, but not all of them were engaged in straightforward military operations. Several retired Army and Marine officers familiar with Vinnell's work in Vietnam have indicated that the company ran several "black" (secret) programs. In a March 1975 interview with the Village Voice, a Pentagon official described Vinnell as "our own little mercenary army in Vietnam" and asserted that "we used them to do things we either didn't have the manpower to do ourselves, or because of legal problems." The official indicated that one of Vinnell's jobs was as "rear security forces," assigned to "clean up" U.S. military bases in Vietnam during the U.S. withdrawal: "how they 'cleaned up' was pretty much up to them.... If we figured an area was certain to be overrun by the VC [Viet Cong].... they were to demolish everything and anything."

The last thing that Vinnell nearly demolished in Vietnam was its own financial viability. The company had apparently poured all of its resources into the war effort, and it had very little to fall back on when the war ended. Vinnell posted losses every year from 1970 through 1974, and in January 1975 the company filed a reorganization plan with the California Department of Corporations in which it proposed to sell voting control in the company to a Lebanese investor for the modest sum of $500,000. With these dismal financial figures looming in the background, the firm's February 1975 contract for $77 million to train the Saudi National Guard brought Vinnell back from the brink of bankruptcy.

The Vinnell/Saudi training deal drew considerable fire, both in the press and on Capitol Hill. On February 9, 1975 Peter Arnett filed a piece for the Associated Press that raised questions about the propriety of a private U.S. company serving as a hired protection service for an undemocratic regime. When Maas asked one of Vinnell's men in Riyadh whether he viewed himself as a mercenary, the question drew a classic bureaucratic response: "We are not mercenaries because we are not pulling the triggers. We train people to pull the triggers. Maybe that makes us executive mercenaries."

This setup was a bit too blatant even for the more hawkish members of Congress. Senators Henry ("the Senator from Boeing") Jackson and Armed Services Committee Chairman John Stennis of Mississippi demanded hearings on the contract, which Jackson purported to find "completely baffling." Meanwhile, a reform-minded young Congressman from Wisconsin named Les Aspin aired charges that the $77 million Saudi contract may have been greased with a $4.5 million payment to middleman Ghassn Shaker, the very same Lebanese businessman that Vinnell was trying to give a controlling interest in the company at a cut rate price. The hearings were held and Shaker was dissuaded from buying a controlling interest in Vinnell, but the contract to train the Saudi National Guard was allowed to stand.

By 1979, when a rebellion rocked the Saudi regime and opposition forces occupied the Grand Mosque at Mecca, Vinnell's "executive mercenaries" were called out from behind the scenes onto the front lines. The Washington Post reported at the time that in the final stages of the storming of the mosque, the Saudi princes who were running the military operation relied on "advice from the large U.S. military training mission" (including Vinnell contract employees) and were "in frequent telephone contact with U.S. officials." Counterspy magazine further reported that when the initial National Guard assault failed, Vinnell personnel were brought to Mecca to "provide the tactical support needed to capture the Mosque."

During the 1980s, things returned to "normal" in Saudi Arabia, with strict controls on freedom of expression, harsh repression of the rights of women, public beheadings of common criminals, and the maintenance of a fiercely anti-communist, pro-U.S. foreign policy. (These same practices continue to this day). Vinnell's role as the regime's principal security "prop" was barely discussed in the U.S. media, but the company did figure indirectly in the biggest intelligence scandal of the decade, Iran/contra. Lt. Col. Richard Gadd, who went on to become the chief operations officer for Ollie North and Richard Secord's private weapons air drop service for the contras, was hired by Vinnell for his first job out of the Air Force. According to Steven Emerson's 1988 book Secret Warriors, Gadd's work at Vinnell involved setting up a private, "black" air transport service called Sumairco which was to be dedicated solely to secret U.S. army operations. Gadd left Vinnell after a few months, taking Sumairco with him. He also used his brief stopover at Vinnell to get started on two other "special services" companies, American National Management and Eagle Aviation Services, which were secretly involved in such major operations as the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada.

That someone like Gadd would use Vinnell as his transition from serving in the armed forces to joining the netherworld of private companies involved in covert operations on behalf of the U.S. government is not surprising. Although Vinnell is one of literally hundreds of companies that do work for the CIA and military intelligence agencies, its strong ties to Saudi Arabia and its experience in military training and logistics make it a central players in this still burgeoning field.

Today, the biggest question regarding Vinnell's ongoing operations is the same one that was posed twenty years ago: why is a U.S. company using retired U.S. military and intelligence personnel to defend a corrupt monarchy in Saudi Arabia? It's obvious what's in it for the monarchy: protection from rebels and democrats who might want to change the kingdom's form of government. On this front, Vinnell must be busier than ever: Human Rights Watch reported that in 1994, "Saudi Arabia witnessed the largest roundup in recent history of opposition activists and a new low in the dismal human rights record of the Kingdom." The organization's report for 1995 cited "further deterioration in human rights observance," including a harsh crackdown on peaceful Islamist organizations. Political parties and demonstrations are outlawed, there is no independent free press, and there has been a systematic crackdown on peaceful Islamic dissenters.

The lengths to which the Saudi regime will go to prevent critical information from reaching its subjects were underscored in January of 1996 when Saudi officials tried to get Britain to deport Mohammed al-Mas'ari, whose Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights has been faxing critical reports about the Riyadh government to contacts within Saudi Arabia from its offices in London. The none to subtle message conveyed to Conservative Prime Minister John Major's government was that if Mas'ari was allowed to continue operating from Britain, Britain's future arms sales and other commercial contracts with Saudi Arabia might suffer. While Mas'ari's democratic credentials have been questioned in some U.S. media assessments of the case, his message is clear enough -- he told the New York Times in late January that "The Saudi regime is a mafia that has enormous wealth under its control and doesn't want to give it up. We want to have an elected, accountable government with a real rule of law and an independent judiciary."

The Saudi government obviously feels threatened enough by statements of this sort to make Mr. Mas'ari's presence in London into an international incident. Supporters of Mr. Mas'ari's organization operating within Saudi Arabia are treated even more harshly. On August 11, 1995, the Saudi government beheaded Abdalla al-Hudhaif, a supporter of CDLR who was convicted by a secret tribunal of offenses ranging from firearms possession to distributing critical leaflets to allegedly throwing acid at a security officer. Human Rights Watch notes that this last allegation against Mr. al-Haif is the only violent incident alleged against the peaceful Islamist opposition in Saudi Arabia during the government's ongoing crackdown on their activities. With peaceful means of expressing disagreement with the current Saudi ruling circle so systematically blocked, violent outbursts like the bombing of the Saudi National Guard headquarters are more likely to occur, and to be met in turn by violent repression by Saudi Arabia's Vinnell-trained internal security forces.

As for Vinnell and its employees, their main interest in Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly the money. A retired Marine officer who did five years with Vinnell in Saudi Arabia reports that he was able to save up several hundred thousand dollars to buy a retirement home in cash. An official familiar with the work of another U.S. firm that recently got a contract to train the Saudi Navy says that employees at the firm "feel like they've died and gone to heaven, because the Saudis will never run out of money." The myth of Saudi Arabia as a bottomless source of cash has worn thin lately as tens of billions of weapons purchases from the United States plus the cost of the 1991 Gulf War have driven the Saudi budget into deficit for the first time ever, but Vinnell's contract is safe as long as the current Saudi ruling clique stays in power (it was recently renewed through 1998). If anything, Vinnell's fortunes may improve in the short-term, now that King Fahd has stepped aside for health reasons, leaving the reins of government in the hands of his brother, Crown Prince Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz, who also happens to run the National Guard. Jane's Defense Weekly has speculated that the guard may be built up even faster now as a way of enhancing Crown Prince Abdullah's personal power base, which will no doubt mean bigger contracts for Vinnell as well.

But is what's good for the Saudi monarchy and its chosen protection service good for the people of the United States or Saudi Arabia? The short answer is no, but the U.S. government has exerted considerable energy trying to convince us that we're all in this mess together and that Americans have no choice but to support the Saudi monarchy.

It's true that the Saudi regime provides a wide array of economic and political services to the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, but most of these services have little to do with promoting either democracy or prosperity for the citizens of the United States or Saudi Arabia. The Saudis provide access to their oil resources to U.S. firms on extremely favorable terms, and adjust their pricing policies within OPEC in ways that support U.S. interests. For years, a significant portion of Saudi "petrodollar" revenues have been invested in U.S. government bonds, helping ease the burden of the growing U.S. budget deficit (the tradeoff is that taxpayers have been asked to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a U.S. military force that can get to the Middle East on short notice to defend regimes such as the Saudi monarchy from threats from without or within).

In the realm of secret wheeling and dealing, the Saudis have not shied from putting up money for joint covert operations with the U.S., from arming the Afghan rebels to providing funds to Oliver North's Iran/contra "enterprise." According to the Washington Post, the latest U.S.-Saudi joint venture has been a secret initiative to provide over $300 million for covert weapons supplies to the Bosnian government during the period of the UN embargo on that nation. Although Clinton Administration officials have denied involvement in this scheme, it would be consistent with other U.S. actions of the past several years, such as looking the other way as planeloads of weapons were dropped in the area. What is certain is that Saudi Arabia will be approached about providing funds to train Bosnian Muslim forces in the context of the current NATO intervention to police the Dayton accords. A source with contacts within the Vinnell Corporation has indicated that the State Department has encouraged Vinnell to bid on the contract to train the Bosnian forces. Vinnell's parent company, BDM, which bought the firm in 1993 to expand its market niche in military training services, already has a contract to provide 500 translators for NATO peacekeeping forces in Bosnia.

The Cold War is over, and the culture of deception and covert dealing represented by the Vinnell Corporation's role in Saudi Arabia should be brought to and end with it. Nothing of value can come from sustaining the secretive network of companies and relationships that has fueled scandal after scandal and cost thousands of innocent lives. Even advocates of a U.S. military role in Bosnia have to take pause at the recent revelations of covert activities on the part of the U.S. and its ally, Saudi Arabia, in arming Bosnian forces. If true, the secret violation of the arms embargo on Bosnia will take its place alongside a long line of examples of U.S. government hypocrisy, from the secret arming of Iran and Iraq in the 1980s to the cover-up of the U.S. role in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans by Pentagon backed military forces and CIA-backed death squads from the 1960s through the 1990s. The common thread uniting these operations is the use of private companies and shadowy intelligence operatives to subvert the publicly stated objectives of U.S. policy, undermining democratic accountability in the process.

The policy of using Vinnell trainers and U.S. arms supplies to keep the Saudi monarchy in power can not be sustained indefinitely. For one thing, the money's running out. The lavish social programs that have been used to buy off dissent are being cut sharply to make room for continuing expenditures on advanced American, French, and British weaponry. A number of security analysts are beginning the speak of Saudi Arabia as the "next Iran," -- a top-heavy, corrupt monarchy that is in danger of being overthrown by its own people if it fails to implement major reforms soon. And as one confidential financial advisor to the Saudis told the New York Times, the U.S. policy of pushing weapons and military solutions over democratization and social reform may be the greatest single threat to the survival of the House of Saud:

"People think we have this great gold mine in Saudi Arabia . . . I don't think the U.S. government realizes what it is doing by shoving weapons down the Saudi's throats. They're forgetting that what they're doing is creating instability in Saudi Arabia. That could be the greatest risk to Saudi security."

The people of Saudi Arabia will eventually demand and receive a measure of input into how their government is run and how their resources are utilized. Whether that change comes about through a revolution led by Islamic fundamentalists or an evolution towards democracy will depend in significant part on whether U.S. policy continues to back the monarchy to the hilt or press for a political opening that allows for peaceful change.

If the Saudi monarchy is overthrown, will Vinnell be put in charge of "cleaning up" all the sensitive U.S.-built military and intelligence facilities in Saudi Arabia as it was during the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam? Or will the American public head off that day by demanding that our government get out of the dictator protection racket and allow the possibility of genuine democratic development in Saudi Arabia?

  • William D. Hartung is a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New School for Social Research in New York City and the author of And Weapons for All (HarperCollins, 1995). The author would like to thank his colleague Jennifer Washburn for providing research assistance in the preparation of this article.

NOTE: Hartung is very, very wrong in his assumption that the US would under any circumstances allow the Saudi monarchy to be toppled.

We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]



© Antipas Ministries