With a decade’s hindsight we can see how wrong the Bush Administration and the war hawks were about the prospects for the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein, and with reflection on her writing, how right Ms. Sandra Mackey was about what the Middle East would become. In 2002, as war clouds gathered in Washington, she wrote:
“If war prevails, we shall beget a greater disorder in the Persian Gulf,” Mackey wrote in the book. “We will be sucked into the resentments of the Arab world, the hostilities of the Iraqis, and the challenge of nation building in what has become an intensely tribal society at the core of American vital interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf.”
Ms. Mackey’s assessments of the Middle East also ring true as America and others in the West grapple with the consequences of unraveling policies.
“Unless you travel both sides of the street as I do, it is difficult to become alarmed about the bitterness, resentment, and fear with which Westerners and Arabs regard each other. It is only when you actually live with the reality of the perceptions, misunderstandings, and genuine grievances one holds for the other that it is possible to grasp just how close both the Arabs and the West are to falling into a chasm of conflict destructive to both.”
Yesterday Ms. Mackey, distinguished journalist, author and prophetic analyst, passed away at age 77. I am pleased to share a reflection on her work in the Arab and Muslim worlds published by the Saudi-US Relations Information Service. It is reprinted here with permission.
***
With permission from SUSRIS.com
Sandra Mackey, Journalist, Author, Middle East Specialist Dies (1937-2015)
The distinguished journalist Sandra Mackey, author of “The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom” and other books on the Arab and Islamic worlds, died on Sunday at age 77 according to press reports. Ms. Mackey was noted for her prophetic assessments of Middle East developments and keen insight into US-Arab relations.
Sandra Mackey (1937-2015)
Ms. Mackey’s foray into reporting on Saudi Arabia was mentioned in a CNN report today:
“Her extensive career began in anonymity. She was an undercover reporter working for U.S. newspapers from Saudi Arabia as her husband, Dr. Dan Mackey, worked in a Riyadh hospital. For four years, she hid her writing from the authorities and smuggled her stories out of the country to get around Saudi Arabia’s prohibition on foreign journalists. Her work appeared under the pseudonym Michael Collins. As she chronicled what was happening around her, Mackey’s distinctive voice began to emerge. Over the years, a stream of books followed. “The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom” offered “a rare first-hand glimpse into the hidden realm of Saudi social and public life,” The New York Times wrote.”
In 2002 she wrote “The Reckoning — Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein,” which foresaw the consequences of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq.
“If war prevails, we shall beget a greater disorder in the Persian Gulf,” Mackey wrote in the book. “We will be sucked into the resentments of the Arab world, the hostilities of the Iraqis, and the challenge of nation building in what has become an intensely tribal society at the core of American vital interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf.”
Ms. Mackey warned those pushing for war with Iraq, they “cannot ignore the threats to American security that could come with Hussein’s demise.” Her book, “The Reckoning,” forecast the conditions that might prevail following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and her analysis was detailed in the CNN account.
“In a perfect world, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd, followed by a company of other minorities, would walk into the post-Hussein Iraq as a liberated people united by common suffering.”
“But as all those who plot the way of nations are so acutely aware, the world is not perfect.”
“With American troops on the ground and no governing authority capable of taking charge, the United States faces the real possibility of a secular version of militant Islam.”
“… Thus, American military forces rotate in and out, U.S. taxpayer money finances the occupation, and Iraqi hostility to a Western presence increases. There is no exit strategy except retreat.”
Ms. Mackey was interviewed in 2008 by Jonathan Mok about her just released book on the conflict in Lebanon. [Interview published on GlobalComment.com] In her comments she bluntly assessed the political motivations and “ignorance on the part of the [American] government and the electorate” in formulating Middle East policy.
“The error of the Reagan administration in intervening in Lebanon the way in which it did illustrates how little the United States understands the Arab world and how much American policy is driven by the needs and desires of Israel. A powerful segment of the Israeli lobby in American politics is right wing Christians who see the state of Israel as God’s Biblical promise to the Jews and the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem as necessary to the second coming of Christ. This theology, which most American Christians reject, has nonetheless profoundly influenced American policy for the entire Arab world since right wing Christians organized themselves into a political machine in the late 1970’s.
“But more than theology, the American view of the region is shrouded in ignorance on the part of the government and the electorate. Again this is why Lebanon provides such a good model for looking at the region. The United States blundered into Lebanon in 1982 with no understanding of the realities of the conflict. In 2003, Washington committed an even more serious error in judgment by invading Iraq with no comprehension of the complications that would follow the fall of Saddam Hussein.”
Mok asked about her comments on East-West misunderstanding to which Mackey replied, “Unless you travel both sides of the street as I do, it is difficult to become alarmed about the bitterness, resentment, and fear with which Westerners and Arabs regard each other. It is only when you actually live with the reality of the perceptions, misunderstandings, and genuine grievances one holds for the other that it is possible to grasp just how close both the Arabs and the West are to falling into a chasm of conflict destructive to both.”
In May 2003 Ms. Mackey gave SUSRIS permission to reprint an op-ed she penned for the Los Angeles Times. It provided a cogent, succinct assessment of Saudi leadership and American policy around the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the aftermath of 9/11 on relations and developments in the region. It was indicative of her insights and perspectives on the region and her skillful writing. We are pleased to share “Saudi Arabia: Winds of Change in the Desert” here with you today.
Books by Sandra Mackey include:
- The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation – 1998 – with Scott Harrop
- The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom – 2002
- The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussin – 2002
- Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict – 2009
- Lebanon: A House Divided – 2013
REPRINT FROM SUSRIS.COM – MAY 7, 2003
Saudi Arabia: Winds of Change in the Desert
By Sandra Mackey
ATLANTA – After months of escalating tension between the U.S. and the Arab world, the Bush administration is showing some sensitivity to the political realities on the ground. In announcing that almost all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia by August, it is advancing the political needs of the House of Saud and, in doing so, promoting American interests by pursuing stability in the Persian Gulf. In essence, Washington is acknowledging that some individuals in the upper echelons of the House of Saud have proved to be good politicians.
Saudi Arabia is a large country of distinctive regions, religious sects, urban areas and tribes. There was no unity until the early 1920s, when Abdul Aziz ibn Saud created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The king claimed legitimacy through the defense of Islam, particularly the Wahhabi sect. But Abdul Aziz ultimately built and maintained his power by operating as a master politician. Constantly moving across the expanses of desert between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, he carried his treasury on the backs of camels. Living like a Bedouin, he set up his tent, received tribal leaders, passed out gifts and married the daughters of key allies to ensure allegiance to his rule.
Click for larger view.
In the 1960s, the increasing economic importance of Saudi Arabia’s oil required the system to adapt. No longer could the sons of Abdul Aziz keep their xenophobic country isolated. Yet, the real jolt to traditional politics came with the Arab oil embargo of 1973, when oil prices skyrocketed. Money poured into the kingdom, and with it came legions of foreigners who built an infrastructure and stamped Saudi society with the veneer, if not the substance, of Western culture.
The House of Saud used its oil windfall to create a welfare state. It also carefully balanced steps toward modernization against defense of traditional cultural mores. This commitment to Saudi culture helped shield the House of Saud against the Islamic passions raised by the 1979 revolution in Iran. But housing, education, health care and defense of the culture were not enough to guarantee the ruling family’s legitimacy.
Oil revenues were falling by the mid-1980s. The welfare state’s generous benefits were cut despite the popular perception of rampant greed in the royal family, particularly among the regime’s lesser figures. Furthermore, King Fahd, who came to the throne in 1982, lacked the political touch of his predecessors, Kings Faisal and Khaled, who carefully tended tribal relationships. Then came Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
The House of Saud, alarmed by the Iraqi occupation of its neighbor, permitted the U.S. to use its country as a base for 500,000 coalition forces, the vast majority of them Americans.
The Saudis, who had convinced themselves that they could have the technology of modernization and still not be Westernized, now confronted the presence of a U.S.-led armed force in the shadows of Islam’s holiest sites, Mecca and Medina.
After the Persian Gulf War, when thousands of U.S. troops remained in the kingdom to help keep Hussein contained, the House of Saud attempted to repair its political fences by pouring money into Islamic causes. Most of it went to legitimate programs and charities. But some ended up in the schools and coffers of Islamic militants who provided most of the 9/11 hijackers.
Suddenly, the royal family had critics other than the traditionalists who demanded an Islamic republic. Angry Americans believed that it had sent terrorists against the U.S., and Saudi modernizers pushed for liberal reform of the political system. Since then, speculation has abounded in the United States that the days of the House of Saud are numbered. But the princes of Riyadh are answering by mobilizing their talent as politicians.
With Fahd sidelined by poor health, Crown Prince Abdullah is the de facto head of state. He possesses the al-Saud political touch. Tied closely to the tribes and untainted by greed, he claims legitimacy among large sectors of the Saudi population. He also understands that if the House of Saud is to continue its rule, reforms are necessary. These are not only reforms that open up politics to the middle class created by the oil boom. They also include privatization of the economy, job growth, revision of the education system and expansion of opportunities for women.
Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz
Abdullah recognizes that all this must come in the context of Saudi norms, not under what the Saudi public sees as the pressure and direction of the United States. That means that the large U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia since the 1991 Gulf War needs to end before the reforms are put into place.
When the U.S. military departs, Americans need to understand that the House of Saud is not kicking America out of Saudi Arabia. Rather, success in the Iraq war means that the U.S. no longer needs to maintain its presence in the kingdom. Americans also need to understand that the United States is neither punishing the ruling family nor writing it off.
To its credit, the Bush administration is acknowledging that U.S. security can be achieved by disengagement as well as engagement. By pursuing disengagement, Washington is allowing the House of Saud to go to its people as politicians rather than as clients of the United States.
About the Author
Sandra Mackey is a veteran journalist who has written many books on the Middle East. She lives in Atlanta.
