Saudi "Qaeda" leader calls for guerrilla warfare

This is more important than you might think.
Things are getting wobbly in the Saudi utopia.

The US can take another hit like 911 and come back with minimal damage to our economy. On the other hand if Saudi Arabia goes up in flames, the main source of world oil quits exporting and oil prices goes through the roof.

Bush would like to say that the next terror attack will in the US, but if I was bin Laden I would be sending all of my resources into Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Iraq for it increases the costs of the US occupation, Saudi Arabia for if the House of Saud goes, the US goes into an economic disaster caused by high oil prices.

Bin Laden picked his target carefully for 9/11. He wanted the World Trade Center for a good bit of world wide trading went on in that building. Furthermore if the WTC had fallen sideways, much of area around the WTC would have been destroyed (and with it a lot of the financial activities of the US). Bin Laden had also attacked military targets before (Remember the USS Cole). Thus the attack on the Pentagon is an attack on the US Military, but his attack on the WTC was an attack on the US Economy NOT the US Military. Bin Laden is knows he can defeat us if he defeats our economy.

Bush is not a bright, but he does not want to admit that the House of Saud is doomed AND HE HAD TIED UP SO MUCH OF THE US FORCES IN IRAQ THAT IF THE HOUSE OF SAUD FALLS THERE WILL BE LITTLE THE US CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Prior to the Invasion of Iraq, if the House of Saud had fallen, the US would have sent in the Forces we later used to Invade Iraq. Now those forces are committed to occupying Iraq and therefore can not be use to secure the oil fields of Arabia. Bin Laden knows this and also knows that a long as we our facing opposition in Iraq we can not pull our forces out to use them in Arabia (We would also need the Iraqi Oil). Thus if the US pulls it forces out of Iraq to take the Arabian Oil Fields, Iraq will fall to Bin Laden. If we fail to send out Troops to Arabia, Bin Laden Wins. This is one of the costs of using troops, once you commit them you can NOT use them elsewhere. Under Clinton we THREATEN the use of Troops but never used them. Thus we could use the threat against any potential enemy, we no longer have that ability.

Now we could call up the rest of the Reserves to help the forces now on duty, but it would take 2-3 months to get them to the Gulf AND DURING THAT TIME OIL WILL BE OVER $5.00 a GALLON (If it does not go above $10.00 a gallon). The more troops and equipment we ship to the Mideast, the more fuel we will buy. This increase demand with the decrease in supply will force the price through the roof.

My prediction, if the House of Saud Falls before the Election, Bush will try to act like he thinks Theodore Roosevelt would have acted, Calling out the Reserves and shipping the Forces to Take Arabia. Price of Gasoline will go over $10.00 a gallon since Bush will not care how much it costs to fight his war, he will fight it. The US Economy will collapse under this dual strain (There is a better than 50% chance that the price will go over $20 a gallon as the US buys more and more oil for its military activities in Iraq and Arabia).

A "happier" scenario would be if Kerry is elected and than the house of Saud falls. Kerry supported the was in Iraq but understands that if the House of Saud falls, the Middle East goes into Civil War. Kerry will not like it, but he will ORDER the US Military to stand down, pull out of Iraq and mothball every non-nuclear Capital Ship we have. The Air Force will be told to do 10% of the patrols they have been doing. All of this to cut back oil usage and with it demand. They is not much else he can do short-term to reduce oil usage in the US, but the high price of oil will force people to cut back. We still would be in a recession, but prices stabilizing at about $5.00 a gallon. At that price the economy can survive, not happily, but survivable. Under what I think will happen under Bush will destroy the US (And that is Bin Laden's plan, destruction of the US, not just an US Withdraw).

Thus the Terror Warning is to shift people's eyes back home to the USA and away from Saudi Arabia where the real concern exists for attacks by bin Laden.

With regards to the WTC, It had a whole lot of NYS govmt offices, and a lot of back-office type facilities. The world financial center across the street or say Citicorp or a skyscraper adjacent to the stock exchange would have done a lot more damage to world trade. If the main objective was destruction and economic damage then use your 2 planes against 2 of these higher-value targets in different economy-intensive areas. One plane and fallen tower would have messed up the WTC complex nearly as much as 2 fallen towers did. I think their prominence on the skyline and the name 'World Trade' had more to do with taking both down than actual trade impact.

I doubt that the towers could have been coaxed into falling more than 10 degrees off of vertical. They were built with vertical compressive strength and horizontal and torsional wind-load strength imparted via tensile strength. Bend them too far and the tension members snap and it collapses straight down, doesn't tip over like a tree.

With regard to Saudi, I think many different outcomes would be possible depending on who takes over. If it's some rich Saudis with global investments then the oil keeps flowing or their investments crash. If it's poor Saudi's then the oil income is their wealth, and oil flows though it may slow down and let prices go much higher. I think long term the Saudi's would be better pumping one third as fast at 10X the price, except the rich Saudi's who have so much investment in oversees economies. Well also excepting the fact that you would be in so many crosshairs if you tried to let oil rise 10x.

I'd love to see how much of our oil consumption comes from the navy, air force, airlines etc. I wonder if all that overseas fuel usage even shows up as U.S. Usage as opposed to the country where they fuel up or some 'other' category. I can just see carrier escorts being towed around by the nuclear carrier instead of their own power to conserve fuel. Dust off the mothballed Los Angeles attack subs to replace oil-fueled destroyers and frigates as escorts. But if it doesn't happen overnight like your Saudi scenario, then is it still coming? Does the U.S. tone down it's military operations to re-direct fuel to peaceful uses? Or does it increase military fuel usage to intimidate the world into giving us more fuel more cheaply? Do we prop up airlines to save thousands of airline and aerospace jobs? Or do we let fuel costs shrink those businesses and use that fuel more efficiently elsewhere?

Regarding troop shortages, I worry that a war fought in a low-troops scenario just gets more bloody and indiscriminate. Brutal use of force that's cheap on labor like cluster bombs and artillery and a kill-em-all attitude as a means to fight a 80,000 troop war with just 30,000 troops, using more naval and air force power since it's mainly the army/marines which are stretched now.

can you say "asset"? I bet the Pakistani ISI is the go-between.