ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Pat Buchanan: Why is Trump giving prince a pass?

| Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2018, 7:03 p.m.
President Trump displays posters as he talks with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in the Oval Office March 20.
The Washington Post
President Trump displays posters as he talks with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in the Oval Office March 20.

The 633-word statement of President Trump on the Saudi royals’ role in the grisly murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi is a remarkable document, not only for its ice-cold candor.

The president re-raises a question that has roiled the nation since Jimmy Carter: To what degree should we allow idealistic values to trump vital interests in determining foreign policy?

On the matter of who ordered the killing of Khashoggi, Trump does not rule out the crown prince as a prime suspect:

“King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder… (but) it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge.”

Yet, whether MBS did or didn’t do it, the Saudis have “agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States.” And a full fourth of that is for “military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other great U.S. defense contractors.”

“Foolishly” cancel these contracts, warns Trump, and Russia or China will snap them up. Moreover, the Saudis have agreed to pump oil to keep prices down.

Trump is unabashedly putting U.S. economic and strategic interests first. He is not going to damage our relationship with Riyadh and its royal family, even if the future king ordered a cold-blooded killing of a U.S.-based Saudi journalist he regarded as an enemy.

Other contentions in Trump’s statement suggest that one of the reasons he is giving the crown prince a pass on the Khashoggi killing is that he sees MBS as an indispensable ally against our real enemy in the region.

After his introductory line,

Trump goes into a tear that begins: “The country of Iran … is responsible for a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen.”

But is this true?

In 2015, it was on the orders of Mohammad bin Salman, then defense minister, that Saudi Arabia intervened in the civil war in Yemen, after Houthi rebels in the north overthrew a Saudi puppet and overran much of the rest of the country.

It is not Iran but Saudi Arabia and the UAE , with U.S. munitions and logistic support, whose troops, bombs and blockade are responsible for the thousands of casualties in Yemen and the millions who suffer from cholera, malnutrition and starvation.

Iran, said Trump, is “propping up dictator Bashar Assad in Syria (who has killed millions of his own citizens). … Likewise the Iranians have killed many Americans and other people throughout the Middle East.”

But the cause of the 7,000 U.S. military dead in the Middle East in this century, and the 60,000 wounded, are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were launched by the United States and George Bush, not by Iran.

As for U.S. civilian casualties, the 3,000 we lost on that monstrous atrocity of 9/11 were the victims of 15 Saudi terrorists, not Iranians.

Trump both titled and concluded his statement “America First.”

And had an America First policy been pursued in this century, we would not today be tied down in these forever wars of the Middle East.

In his statement, Trump praises Saudi Arabia as a “great ally in our very important fight against Iran.”

Yet, Iran has not attacked us, does not want war with us and remains in compliance with the nuclear treaty from which we walked away.

Trump is president because he promised to extricate us from the Mideast wars into which some of his closest advisers, along with some of our closest “allies,” helped to plunge his country.

Is Trump about to replicate Bush’s folly?

Pat Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me