I do
The article itself is pretty pedestrian. Somewhat xenophobic with the usual Islamic culture being bad and horrible, just like Daesh/ISIS and other terrorists. In terms of geopolitics and history, the author hasn't a clue... or some clue but it's a childish belief that politicians say what they mean and mean what they say.. .and shock horror the US isn't being honest in it fights against ISIS yet it shake hands with the Saudis. I mean... maybe I should be paid writing these stuff.
Sure, Saudi Arabia is not a progressive state; Sure its Sheikhs and Princes and all the Royals are nasty... that's what happen when you have absolute power and a lot of cash and no one can challenge you.
Same with Saddam, the Taliban, Gaddafi and all the other authoritarian regimes - they are all nasty, not open to anything progressive, freedom of speech is what they say only. It's what Lord Acton once observed: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So the article going on about how bad the Saudi is, how they're as nasty as ISIS is and only difference is the Saudis has made it, has established its State. Of course that's the case. Then the author got a bit surprised that the US/West shake hands with the Saudis but want to fight ISIS...
I'm no authority on the Saudis or ISIS or the ME, just watch a bit of docos and interviews so here am just repeating what all those hours comes to teach me.
After WW2, the US took control of colonies the British and French empires could no longer afford to control or are too important for the US to leave in the hand of anyone else.
So French and British territories in the ME and Africa were carved up, maps redrawn... France was left with most of North West Africa but the British ME was taken over by Uncle Sam with certain parts given to British interests as a minority shareholder. So Iran, the Gulf States, Iraq etc.... the Brits got some share in it with the US but... BUT Saudi Arabia belong entirely to the US.
Roosevelt told Churchill so... don't mess with Saudi Arabia, it's ours. Why? Not for the fisheries or the pearl. Oil.
So when management changed hands, the US kept the British strategy of having an Arab Fascade with the al Sauds as the tyrants doing all their crazy Islamic stuff, parading as though they actually own the place etc... as long as Joint Ventures and military bases and control of the black gold are in the hand of uncle sam, all is sweet.
The same tactics, with a few slight variations are done throughout the ME and Africa by all the major powers (mainly US, France, Britain) with the Soviets doing its parts to ruin the plans in Africa and the Stans countries.
So all the de-colonisation effort, the pro-democracy and secular movements in all these Arab states rose up after WW2, they were quickly quashed. CIA and special ops boots were on the ground but Arab shoes were doing the kicking. So dictators were supported and propped up, parliamentary democracies like Iran were tolerated until its president decided he ought to demand higher tax on his country's oil, he was overthrown and the Shah was put back into power [interesting to note that the Shah's father was deposed and the parliament was set up, but that didn't worked out so the dumbest, weakest son was put in and it worked until the Islamic revolution in 1979 [?]]...
So across the ME and the world... when socially progressive leaders can't be convinced to see the errors of their ways, can't be bought off... they get replaced by someone else who can. When the ones that replaced them are getting too comfortable with their place in the world and doesn't like to listen and do things like wanting to trade with China or Russia or float their oil on a different exchange under a different currency (Libya, Iraq)... their country got liberated from them.
So even I know this stuff, now... and for some columnist to be surprised.. well he can't be a serious expert on the subject. I mean, there is nothing schizophrenic about what the West is doing in terms of fighting terrorism and getting in bed with the Saudis and other dictators. It's just what you do as imperial powers.
----------
So you set up puppets, let them build their Churches or Temples and a few palaces and stadiums or whatever... as long as they contract your corporations to do the building, all is sweet. Then when they aren't planning stupid useless stuff like skating ring in a desert they can sign off on oil deals at "reasonable" prices, and with those profits you tell them to buy billions and billions of weapons your other corporations also have. That's how you take everything.
So for the author to talk about ISIS and terrorism as fighting a culture when they should be fighting the patrons of those culture and Islamic teachings... what? seriously?
Heard that saudi arabia funded a large portion of what then became ISIS, and yes, also heard their Wahabi schools and religious leaders they funded churn out a lot of unfriendly terrorists. But it's done with US knowledge and permission... whether the US missed the true reason for these funding or not, that's beyond my little head.
Who knows, maybe the US thought those groups were moderate and could counter the others in Iraq and elsewhere; maybe the Saudi went along with that vision but really plan to get rid of its master through these terrorists... history will tell.
In terms of him claiming that ISIS parents are Saudi Arabia and the invasion of Iraq [US/UK's fault then?], and that it's cultural and killing terrorists will just make new ones because they all read the same book... what the?
Yea, people tend not to like liberators putting boots on their ancestral land and setting up their Constitution and have "elections" that divides this sect and that sect. Also, people don't like to be fired and have no hope of ever finding work to feed their family... and when they're generals and military officers and soldiers of the previous regime, they tend to put up a fight for "liberation". Then on top of that, why do you fire all public servants who know how to operate power stations and sewage systems, or who teaches?