Fouad al-Farhan

It seems the Saudi government has arrested their country's most popular blogger. This site -- Free Fouad -- has been set up to support him. In policy terms, it seems to me that the conversation tends to veer from the idea of supporting "our bastards" in countries like Saudi Arabia to the idea of trying to transform them into democracies. The latter would be nice, but doesn't really seem possible. That still leaves us, however, with the possibility of not being so deeply in bed with these kind of regimes.

Comments

"Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, responding to repeated requests for comment with a brief cellphone text message."

Saudi securocrats, like Matt, find talking on the phone just so yesterday.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/whats_a_phone_for.php

I wonder what al-Turki's myspace page is like.

Posted by otto | January 2, 2008 9:27 AM

At least here you 'only' get called un-patriotic or get slimed for criticizing the government. So far. This is the equivalent of our NSA and tele-com spying. It is still amazing to me that 19 of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi and we invaded Iraq, who had NO terrorists, and are still allied with the dictatorial monarchy.

Posted by nellieh | January 2, 2008 9:42 AM

I have one word for you nellieh: Oil

Posted by David | January 2, 2008 9:52 AM

Do we really want democracy in Saudi Arabia? By all accounts the electorate would be far more socially conservative and religiously hardline than "our bastards".

I've yet to come across any data that indicates that an empowered Saudi electorate would feel any need to make the country any less theocratic and more civil based.

Posted by michael farris | January 2, 2008 10:51 AM

"By all accounts the electorate would be far more socially conservative and religiously hardline than "our bastards"."

So what?

"I've yet to come across any data that indicates that an empowered Saudi electorate would feel any need to make the country any less theocratic and more civil based."

Again, so what?

The point is that they're run by corrupt monarchies who WE support. If they were run by corrupt theocracies that we DIDN'T support, nobody would care.

It's not our job to "make them more democratic". It's our job not to support corrupt governments against their own people. This is how you get non-state actors wanting to drive planes into OUR buildings.

Which was Matt's point. He said democracy was nice, but what was important was not to be identified with assholes.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 2:12 AM