Michael Beckley

I owe an apology.  It has been nearly two weeks since my last posting.  Either time has a way of getting in the middle of commitments, or commitments have a way of stealing time.  By week’s end I will be on another extended journey, one that will likely limit my writing time for a while but surely provide opportunities for new insights and material.  Before I go I am posting one more entry in an effort to redeem myself for short-changing my loyal readers.

Redemption…now there’s a timely topic. We all need redeeming from time to time for any number of reasons, and there are all types of redemptions.  Besides the obvious spiritual and moral redemption celebrated during this season by Christians and Jews, life often calls for redemptions of other kinds: from the physical illness of disease or the fiscal illness of financial calamity, from aimlessly wandering an emotional wasteland devoid of love or hope, from the terror of physical abuse or from the demons of compulsion and addiction.  At some point in our lives nearly all of us need to reclaim that portion of our value, our self worth and dignity forfeited through omission, commission, time or circumstances.  We need to be made whole again; we need a season of re-birth.

Easter, Passover, and coincidentally Spring, combine into a season of multi-layered messages not easily secularized by commercialization.  Chocolate bunnies, colored eggs and bright pastels offer lighthearted alternatives to much deeper messages far too potent and introspective to be avoided, and cycles of life too obvious to be ignored.  Whether we believe in divine intervention or nature’s cyclic perfection this is the season to remember, reflect, and renew…a season for redemption.

It is a time to remember the physical and emotional scars of the past, and wear them without shame as evidence of courage in the face of adversity and reminders of forgiveness.  It is time to reflect on the truths life has taught us: that hatred divides, greed consumes, selfishness isolates, and deceit destroys, and that we must rid ourselves, and our world, of their influence.  It is a time to renew and replenish our supply of faith, hope, trust, love and peace, and freely share these with those who find themselves lacking.   

This is the season of new beginnings, fresh starts and second chances; a time when the wise reject emptiness and choose fulfillment; a time to allow ourselves a moment of redemption.

Russian complaints about US handling of the war in Afghanistan are not well publicized.  Evidently the US has avoided dealing with Afghanistan’s poppy farmers who happen to produce almost 90% of the world’s opium poppies, and therefore almost 90% of the world’s heroin supply.  Because of the war unusually heavy drug traffic is making its way through Russia who claims to have experienced a tremendous upsurge in drug smuggling, drug related crimes and addicts.  The US contends that wiping out the poppy business will turn the farmers into insurgents who will financially support the Taliban, or anyone else who allows them to peacefully ply their trade.  So, for the sake of neutralizing the Taliban the US is turning a blind eye to the drug trade and Russia doesn’t like it.  The result is a complicated moral and ethical dilemma:  end the drug trade and possibly strengthen the Taliban, or win the war and deal with the drug trade later.  Either alternative is costly in terms of lives and resources, and our former arch-enemy appears to me teaching us something about moral high-ground.  How would you resolve the problem?

Support systems that used to provide the moral compass to decide such issues have lost relevance in a world where there are few absolutes.  Churches who for centuries have been the keepers of Western society’s moral and ethical conscience have too often been silenced by scandals of their own or find themselves preaching to declining numbers in societies who have become comfortable with moral relativism.  Universities that once required philosophy courses in ethics and metaphysics of every graduate are now the exception.  The rule of law, underpinned by secular humanism as a philosophical basis for decisions affecting every aspect of life, has replaced any higher accountability.  In short, the “straight and narrow” path of life with deeply rooted guideposts that pointed our way has become a freeway where the drive to get ahead has weakened value systems and lane-changing to suit personal ends is permitted, if not encouraged.  But at this higher speed life’s decisions have become even more complex challenging our values at every turn and testing our moral and ethical reflexes.

As science and technology have gradually unraveled many, but not all of life’s mysteries, polarization on life and death issues has increased.  Research manipulating the very essence of life continues to redefine the boundaries of human existence and dignity.  Business ethics are challenged by unbridled greed that condones the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many, affecting lives in every corner of our planet.  In an age where mind-boggling quantities of information is at our finger tips how do we develop the personal “conscience” that separates good from bad for us, our family, our community or our world?  To whom or what are we ultimataely accountable?  How do we distill the immutable principles that define our character and form our integrity, and what dependable mechanisms teach these values to our children?

We must make certain the image facing us in the mirror each morning has 20/20 vision.  If not, turning a blind eye to the challenges facing our world and shaping its future becomes our only recourse.

A snippet in our local newspaper about too many invasive heart tests with two few positive results has given way to a broader A/P piece (Lindsey Tanner) that suggests even President Obama is getting too many diagnostic tests, as evidenced by his recent virtual colonoscopy and prostate cancer screening.  The article highlights unnecessary diagnostic increases created by the “defensive” medicine practiced in America to avoid malpractice suits and the greater appetite for care generated by an informed public seeking the latest in advanced technology.  But as Dr. RIta Redberg, editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine and a cardiologist herself points out, “more care is not necessarily better care”, though “people have come to equate medical tests with good care and prevention”.  The article goes on to say that some doctors and advocacy groups do not subscribe to the “less is more” philosophy and believe that saving even a few lives is worth the cost of screening thousands.  I wonder…

After a lifetime in healthcare I’ve seen a great deal of practice styles and systems.  I’ve seen what defensive care does to medical practice in America, and I’ve also seen practice in countries where the threat of lawsuits is minimal and “negligence” more specifically defined.  Along the way I’ve encountered the “tinkerers” who keep diagnosing until they find a reason to prescribe something, those with “better ideas” who simply can’t abide the treatment prescribed by another physician, and those who seem to think surgery is always the only option.  My own physician ordered a $2200 endoscopy for me because I “should” have it at my age…I respectfully declined and took the cruise instead.

In fairness, I’ve seen all kinds of patients too: those that want a “specialist” for everything, others with prescriptions from every doctor within a ten mile radius, and those who simply have nothing better to do than visit the doctor or their local Emergency Room.  Advocacy groups sometimes encourage decades long diagnostic behaviors, such as routine mammograms, only to later decide the radiation exposure is itself a serious risk.  There’s also “alternative medicine” with everything from aroma-therapy to cupping (similar to the “bleeding” techniques used in previous centuries), not to mention the well-advertised “over-the-counter” trade for every conceivable ache and pain. Where does healthcare begin and where does it end?  Where should it end?  What is enough?  And when it comes to health, where happens to our common sense?

Many of us use medical diagnostics as a gauge.  We want to know if lifestyle elements like smoking, cholesterol, salt, alcohol, sun and a host of other not-so-healthy practices are catching up with us, to see if it’s time to make the lifestyle changes and implement the preventions we know make sense and we know we need.  If the tests come back within reasonable limits we know we can live on the edge just a little longer.  Then one day there’s the chest pain, the lump, or the “spot” on the diagnostic image and suddenly we’ve had our conversion experience.  Then no cost is too great for a medical miracle.

Until a health crisis occurs people tend not to change, but healthcare must change.  While research and technology have made incredible advances in diagnosis and treatment, everything has it’s limits and the limit is cost.  Roughly 40% of an American’s lifetime healthcare expenditure occurs during the last six months of life, most of it spent on “last resort” treatment.  Healthcare does need an overhaul, but it begins with individuals taking responsibility for their own health, facing consequences of lifestyle and behaviors, and adopting realistic expectations for end-of-life care.  At some point it’s up to the individual to say “enough”.

The face is, cost is a healthcare driver that can no longer be ignored.  We cannot make believe there are no limits to the technology a society can afford, and we cannot keep developing solutions with unrealistic price tags.  All the latest, most innovative diagnostics and treatments are to no avail if they are so costly that they are reserved for only the most affluent, those with the best insurance, or those in a privileged society.  True healthcare innovation must be simple, quick and affordable…available to everyone, not just those born within fortunate geopolitical boundaries.  Most important, healthcare innovation must refocus from end-of-life treatment to early prediction and early prevention when counter measures are cheap and effective.

No, more healthcare is not necessarily better healthcare.  There comes a point when enough is enough.

Becoming reacquainted with America after so many years abroad is sometimes a daunting challenge.  Finding ways to bridge a seventeen year time-warp isn’t always easy and frequently results in a certain amount of incredulous head-shaking; that “I can’t believe this is really happening” gesture intended to dispel a dream and verify reality.  Over the past months I’ve had a few of these head-shake moments, most related to television.

Admittedly, I’ve never been a television-watcher.  Other than the occasional spectacle such as the Olympic Games, a significant natural disaster or benchmark political upheaval, I’ve never been comfortable idling in front of the TV’s mindless chatter or being absorbed into programming that cues when I’m supposed to laugh.  Television is, however, a reflection of the culture and so I’ve recently watched some in the hope of scaling the years I’ve been away and catching up on my homeland.  The results have been amazing.

I’m not sure television programming merits the time and effort it takes to write a blog, but the commercials certainly do.  While television programming hasn’t dramatically changed over the years advertising has, and it depicts some intriguing cultural shifts.

Local programming remains littered with the amateurish ads for car dealers and furniture stores, but national advertising is pre-occupied with drugs.  Recently, within the course of a one hour program, I viewed no less than five separate ads for five different medications, each admonishing us viewers to “talk to our doctor” and find out if they’re “right for us”.  And these ads aren’t just on certain programs, they’re on every prime-time program and the list of maladies and medications they hawk seems endless.  I quickly forgot about the actual programming because the medication ads had me on the edge of my chair wondering if I needed it or wanted the “better life” it offered.

Each begins the same; a troubled look, anxious demeanor, furrowed brow, deep sighs of concern.  Symptoms flash across the screen in time to a peaceful melody in the background.  Once the stage is set, the important part is next.  A monotone voice suddenly, dramatically drones on at a rapid pace about side-effects, contraindications, possible drug interactions, danger signs and serious warnings, in a manner similar to the interest rate disclaimers at the end of a credit card ad.   Just as I discover I’m holding my breath and I’m about to close my eyes in terror, the soothing voice returns once again.  Now the screen is filled with smiling faces playing in the park, walking hand-in-hand without a care in the world, while in the background a last warm and tender admonition encourages me to “ask my doctor”.  Thus, a better life through chemistry is available to everyone.

Frankly, I’m at a loss for words to describe my utter distaste for such blatant pandering to human emotion and fear.  These despicable vignettes prey upon our worse fears and insecurities, seemingly providing slick and easy answers to serious, and in many cases chronic, health problems.  Some ads unabashedly target the aged who are most susceptible to the subtle fears they raise or the false hope they imply.  Worse, they undermine medical practice by imparting superficial and incomplete knowledge to uninformed patients who then question the competence and integrity of physicians who refuse to prescribe them.  Patient education is a good thing; pharmaceutical salesmanship thinly disguised as valuable health information is not.

Even more disconcerting is the cost of these ads, both the development and airing.  Most are well presented with obviously professional actors and attractive settings, and they run during prime-time in some of the costliest advertising slots.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons medications in the US are dramatically more expensive than just about anywhere else in the world and a primary contributor to our unconscionable healthcare costs.  While pharmaceutical companies justify higher US medication prices with the cost of research and drug approval protocols, I’m not a believer, particularly when I see purposeless, exorbitant advertising solely for the purpose of creating brand recognition.

In my view pharmaceutical commercials for prescription medications should not be permitted on television, at any time under any circumstances as they are not products patients themselves can purchase and they create hidden consumer costs.  If there ever was a contraindication for medications, prime time TV is it.

It appears my recent blog titled “Excess Baggage” (February 18, 2010) concerning the airlines relentless determination to penalize passengers who happen to be outside an industry-imposed physical norm was prophetic.  One line in my posting specifically referred to the plight of tall passengers: “Fortunately, the lofty have yet to be demonized by irritable airline staff, most probably by suffering in silence, but in light of recent events I fear we too are in jeopardy”.  How quickly things change in the airline industry!  Could they have read my blog?

The other day Continental airlines announced that on March 17 they will begin charging a premium of up to $59 per flight segment  for “exit row” seats, with other carriers such as Northwest and U.S. Airways currently implementing similar programs.  According to Jim Compton, Continental’s chief marketing officer, “Seats with additional legroom are higher-value seats, and we want to offer them to customers who recognize that value”.  Translation:  Penalize tall people who can’t fit into the debilitating legroom that has gradually become industry standard.

I can remember the whines and grumbles that theme-park ride limitations elicited from my kids when they couldn’t quite measure up to Mickey’s outstretched arm, but the safety implications were clear and the discipline uniform.  Theme parks wouldn’t surcharge kids who didn’t meet the requirements or allow them to ride for an extra few bucks.  Height restrictions have been a strictly enforced practice that made sense and parents complied, often coupling the event with a teachable moment about personal safety and appropriate conduct.  But what are the airlines teaching us?  They’re teaching us that personal safety and comfort aren’t for everyone.

Gradually, airlines are creating new revenue sources by deciding “ideal” physical characteristics and discriminating against passengers who don’t meet them.  Since there is no inherent safety issue involved, airlines are creating new revenue streams on the backs, legs and bottoms of passengers who can’t manage a 3 hour flight in a fetal position.  Carefully positioned as an “offer”, insinuating passengers have a “choice”, airlines carefully deflect potential lawsuits from passengers developing DVT from sitting too long in cramped positions.  In fact their purported “choice” is actually a penalty in disguise; an additional fee for the same range of movement as other passengers the airlines have defined as “normal” are permitted.

I fail to see why airlines are free to implement these “back of the bus” discriminatory tactics based on physical stature, particularly since it is the airlines themselves that have subjectively, arbitrarily and consistently reduced seat and legroom on aircraft over many years.  It is doubtful that any other transportation industry such as railroads, rapid transit, busses, ferries or taxicabs would get away with surcharges based on stature.  Why are airlines exempt?

On the other hand, perhaps the airlines are demonstrating ground breaking vision and initiative by taking the physically “challenged” to task.  Maybe they embody the “one size fits all” culture America has labored so long to achieve, and their exclusionary practices will be trend-setting for a host of other industries that will eventually “right-size” America. 

The airlines have made one point perfectly clear:  size does matter.

The last thing I want to do is write another blog about healthcare.  I’m tired of being asked what I think about the healthcare proposals, the latest inquisition coming from own primary care physician who was less than delighted with my response.  Having visited more hospitals around the world than I care to count, and having investigated many healthcare delivery systems, I can simply state that Americans who think they have the world’s only good healthcare system are deluded…it just isn’t so.  But our healthcare system isn’t the topic of this column.

I wonder how or why President Obama decided to stake the success of his presidency on healthcare.  Whatever his administration has or hasn’t accomplished during the past 13 months is completely obscured by the fruitless and endless debate over healthcare.  Nothing else the president has done, or intends to do, is even on the radar at this point…and the Republicans love it.

For some reason President Obama has chosen to draw his line in the sand with the healthcare bill.  Perhaps Hillary Clinton should have taken the president aside and given him a little free advice.  More than anyone, Mrs. Clinton knows the toxic nature of the healthcare debate.  No topic engenders as much fear, intransigence, and inept grandstanding as healthcare.  A political life can survive lying, cheating, adultery, mismanagement, and just about anything else…but not the healthcare debate.

By failing to dismount what is now a dead horse, President Obama has given the opposition manifold opportunities to entrench healthcare as symbolic of his failed administration, at the distraction of any other initiatives or accomplishments, permitting them to characterize him as a quixotic juggernaut bent on providing health insurance to 30 million Americans while nearly that many are unemployed, the economy is in a shambles, and foreclosures continue at unprecendented rates.

Despite the president’s admirable State of the Union address that prioritized issues of epic consequence and accurately positioned his daunting inheritance from the Bush administration, his follow-up has been to move healthcare back to the front pages, providing yet another opportunity for Republicans to rally.  Whether the president likes it or not, he is polishing the Republican sword that will pierce the heart of his presidency.

If things keep going as they are, the mid-term elections will definitely result in Democratic losses.  Even now it’s obvious that some are already abandoning what they perceive to be a sinking ship, and will continue their flight as the failure of the administration’s key program becomes more and more obvious.

However, the greatest injustice and unfortunate loss in all of this is that the extremist right-wing views and “spoiler” mentality that has come to characterize the Republican party is reaping political gains while they get away with political murder.  Their unabashed antagonism and self-serving cynicism is going unnoticed, if not rewarded, at the expense of the fresh start and new hope that characterized the last election.

Time is running out.  The President has two years before the election process starts all over again.  If he is to deliver any of the hoped-for change he promised, it’s time to fight the battles he can win.  Healthcare legislation may be important to him but it just isn’t resonating with the American people.

With the Olympics nearing conclusion, I was listening to a report of the medal tally by country.  The commentator mentioned that Canada had the highest gold medal count, but was quick to add, almost clumsily and apologestically, that the US still had the highest overall number of medals.  The obvious inference was, “good for Canada, but we’re still better”.

What if America were less than the best?  If one morning we awoke to discover there was another “super power” usurping our position as world watchdog, or similarly, we found ourselves on an equal military footing with other nations, could we handle it?

Let’s suppose we didn’t win the most Olympic medals, or that our economy wasn’t the largest on earth.  Imagine, for a moment, that there were other economies just as productive as ours, equal or better standards of living in other places, and healthcare of equivalent quality but cheaper. 

I know it sounds ridiculous, but let’s imagine a day when our children weren’t the worlds smartest and our system of education merely comparable to others. It would follow then that our scientists and researchers would have equally capable peers in other countries, that the arts could flourish just as well in other lands and that literature would thrive in languages other than ours.

What would we do and how would we react if we discovered we weren’t the best at everything?  Do we have the fortitude and inner strength it takes to sustain our national pride from anywhere other than first place?  Do we have enough trust and confidence in one another’s effort and commitment to face a world in which America isn’t number one?

I sometimes wonder if we aren’t still, in some subliminal way, tied to our Pilgrim roots.  Our country was founded on pursuit of a better life, on more freedoms, on establishing the new and different.  Could this legacy have destined our national psyche to measure failure as anything less than being the best?  Can we acknowledge, respect and share in the success of others, or do their achievements make us uneasy and uncomfortable?  It may be time to face the reality that in many areas there are others just as good, that life in today’s world isn’t just counting the number of medals we’ve won, and that America has no hegemony on success.  Being the best at anything is a human opportunity, not the entitlement of a particular nation.

Measuring success only in terms of being the “best” is a zero-sum game: it’s a costly, unending pursuit that feeds paranoia and distrust more than it achieves results .  As other countries emerge and the world order changes, America must demonstrate the leadership to acknowledge that “best efforts” can be just as rewarding and valuable as being the “best”, and that success can also be defined as the ability and self-confidence to fully appreciate what has already been accomplished.  Understanding when we have “enough” can be more fulfilling than the endless pursuit for more.

Acknowledging satisfaction with our accomplishments isn’t complacency or failure; it’s maturity as a nation and an example of greatness.  Our adolescent quest for bigger, better, faster and more must be replaced by responsible adulthood that places greater value on harmony and responsibility.  In setting this example America’s greatest and most successful era as a nation is yet to be lived.

For the first time in many years I’ve had an opportunity watch the Winter Olympics on television…and it’s been a thoroughly enjoyable experience for many reasons.

I am well aware that the Olympics, as a whole, receive a great deal of criticism.  The selection process has suffered from credibility problems at various times.  Cities selected often make enormous investments and incur staggering debts years beyond the games.  Athletes themselves have come under scrutiny for everything from performance enhancing drugs to professional endorsements.  In short, there’s hardly a facet of the Olympics that hasn’t been maligned in some way at some time.  But put all that aside for just a moment…

The dedication and commitment of the athletes is remarkable and the performances they deliver are simply astounding.  Fractions of seconds frequently separate medal winners from others, none of whom can be considered “losers” in terms of skill, endurance or artistry.  Outstanding training and competence sometimes masque the difficulty and danger associated with many of the activities, as evidenced by the unfortunate luge accident this year.  The competitive camaraderie of the Olympians characterizes a human bond beyond national borders and a collegial spirit that invigorates our hope for the future.  

Unfortunately, some unfairly criticize the Olympians as pampered and from a privileged class, their lives, often from early childhood, spent in relentless and demanding training at the expense of normal socialization and development.  But there are countless compelling stories of personal challenges and of Olympians who have overcome addictions and devastating injuries, and just like the rest of us, stories of familial hardship and loss.  Many struggle financially and work multiple jobs to make ends meet while they chase the dream of world class competition.  Many deserve our admiration as positive role models not only in sport, but in life itself.

Out of character, I must also compliment the media on outstanding coverage.  The seamless reporting, including high-definition images from scores of event venues in a number of different locations is astounding, as is compiling so much activity into interesting programming, and augmenting the entertainment factor with tasteful interviews and balanced discussion.  In short, the broadcasting has been extremely well done.

Last but not least, our northern neighbors deserve recognition for tastefully hosting the Olympics in a conscientious, considerate and sensitive manner.  The Canadians have demonstrated that their God-given gift of stunning landscapes and natural splendor hasn’t been wasted, but is under the guardianship of a people who appreciate what they have and exude the warmth and willingness to welcome the world to enjoy it with them.   Canada, vous avez complété votre partie pour faire le monde mieux pour nous tout.  Merci beaucoup!

I remain awed and humbled by the depth of human commitment and perseverance obvious in the Winter Olympic Games, my belief and confidence in the positive side of human nature reinvigorated.

More than eight years since the 9/11 terrorist attack a gaping hole remains in the center of New York City with no sign of closing any time soon.  A perspective article by Harold Sirkin (Boston Consulting Group) blames politicization, a “naysayer” mentality, decisions by committee, and bureaucracy.  Plans laced with political agendas are first proposed, then evaluated as to why they won’t work, forwarded to committees who try to please everyone, and then implemented through a mind-numbing process.  The result:  don’t expect the hole to be filled in until sometime between 2014 and 2018.  Mr. Sirkin and his group see the indecision and delay in restoring ground zero as symbolic of America’s drift into mediocrity, “shackled” by its bias towards talk instead of action.  I think the hole goes deeper, to the heart of modern western culture.

There’s no question politicization, negativity and committee ineffectiveness are the hallmarks of bureaucratic institutions.  Like a cultural cancer they insidiously multiply in the lesions where leadership, responsibility, ownership and discipline once thrived.  Gradually these characteristics have eroded if not altogether disappeared from our culture, in favor of a nondescript, lowest common denominator pluralism.

Leadership has been displaced by our insatiable desire to “fit-in” or be “OK”, compromising our personal independence and integrity in favor of public opinion polls and consumer surveys.  The discipline of “thinking” has been diminished to scanning information prepared by others and going with the majority opinion, as opposed to deciding for ourselves. Personal ownership vacillates with public opinion; our cultural ethos a victim of too much compromise.

Organized religion used to provide a moral compass but the simplicity of the “absolutes” it provided has been lost, if not forfeited, replaced by moral relativity and amorphous ethical principles.  Life’s grey areas have expanded to accommodate majorities of people fearful of making hard personal decisions and sticking by them; the “black and white” absolutes of life have been relegated to thin margins on the border of sensibility and the edge of conscience.

Discipline is never fun or easy.  Letting life just “happen” is easier than making decisions and living with them. Displacing our personal responsibility onto a committee or onto society in general gives us a free pass to avoid the consequences.  If our marriage fails, kids turn to drugs, our world crumbles and our career dead-ends it’s always because of something beyond our control…it’s never our responsibility; there’s always something wrong with our institutions or with society, but there’s never anything wrong with us.

In fairness, avoiding decisions and sidestepping accountability is one of the only coping mechanisms remaining in a complex world drowning in opinions but having little in the way of useful facts to help us face tomorrow.  There’s a support group for every failure but little encouragement for success.  Avoiding decisions may help us cope with the fear of failing, but it also helps us cope with the fear of success…of sticking our neck out or being too far ahead of the crowd.

The ground zero hole is still in New York because committees don’t lead or make decisions, people do.  Similarly, the holes that exist in our society are there because people aren’t willing to take accountability for themselves.  As hard as we might try to water-down accountability, avoid leadership, or shirk responsibility, we can never avoid the consequences of our action or inaction.  What we need is the courage to lead and be accountable, to take ownership and accept responsibility, to confront our fear of failing as well as our fear of success.

I noted the media reports on Hillary Clinton’s meetings with Saudi Arabia’s Prince Saud Al Faisal this last week with a great deal of interest, particularly Secretary Clinton’s comments about Iran’s decline into a military dictatorship and the Prince’s doubts about international sanctions as a “workable” solution to Iran’s nuclear buildup.  Ten years in the Kingdom taught me to pay close attention to these carefully choreographed and scripted exchanges.  I don’t pretend to be a diplomat, but the craftily worded statements are an easily deciphered code for increased American involvement.

The Saudis are masters at getting others to do their dirty work, as evidenced by the more than 7M expatriates in the Kingdom engaged in jobs Saudis don’t want to do.  They are equally adept at getting other nations, mainly the US, to protect their interests and wage their wars, while they publicly talk of limiting western intervention in Islamic affairs and privately fear President Obama’s strategy of engagement with Iran.  Despite lofty exchanges at the diplomatic level, the conventional wisdom on the street is much different and highlights the Saudi cultural proclivity for avoiding conflict at all costs.

Saudis were happy with the results of the first Gulf War that taught Saddam Hussein a lesson, protected amassed wealth in Kuwait and Saudi, and cost them virtually nothing beyond “in-kind” support for America…another code phrase for holding our coats while we fought the neighborhood bully.  The second war, however, is a different situation.

Quietly, Saudis on the street received the second Iraq war with far less enthusiasm.  While they hated and feared Saddam, they realized he fulfilled two important functions:  keeping control of a deeply sectarian country and keeping Iran at bay.  They vocalize concerns that continued western involvement only fuels fundamentalist fervor and increases Iran’s influence in the region, not a good thing for anyone, especially not the Saudis.  Some distance between Saudi and the US on “religious” grounds is a good political move for their relations with other Islamic countries, but when it comes to dealing with international problems the Saudis prefer to “walk softly and carry a big stick”, and the big stick is us. 

As a result, it’s only natural the Saudis are now hinting that there’s a new bully in the neighborhood, this one a lot more technologically savvy, well funded, and posing even bigger threats.  Worse, compared to Saddam’s lust for power and personal comfort, Iran’s drivers are ideological and bent on destruction of the “Evil Empire” (that’s us), and view the royals on the Arabian peninsula as collaborators in western immorality.  We all know the Iran problem dates back to pre-Jimmy Carter and our failed strategy to support the Shah, but the difference now is that Iran’s enormous oil revenues support religious fundamentalism rather than a pampered potentate.  Clearly the Saudis don’t want their oil rich desert to become Iran’s nuclear weapons testing ground or get in the middle of their Jihad against the west.

Time has proven that international sanctions mean nothing to rogue states and the Saudis know it.  In order to gain US support for the fights they want to sidestep, the Saudi royals barter their same tired, insipid support for the “Mid-East Peace Process” that so far has netted nothing, and drag out the same old half-hearted support for ending the violence between Israel and the Palestinians.  Past US administrations, some with personal interests in “Big Oil”, have bought in to the ruse fearful of having the world’s petroleum supply in the hands of fanatics. 

So far the Saudi strategy has proven effective.  While the US has incurred horrendous losses in human life and mounting debt in Iraq, the Saudis retain their position of neutrality that minimizes internal terrorist threats against them by not lifting an obvious finger against their Islamic brethren.

Let’s see if this administration is smart enough to see the Saudi behavior for what it is…getting someone else to do the dirty work.