Baer, Robert. Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude. New York: Random House, 2003.

Date: 11 January 2004

Commentary: This book offers a somewhat disappointing departure from Baer's approach in his first book ("See No Evil"). In his first book, Bare offered first-hand accounts of his experience as a CIA case officer, and commentary directly related to that experience. In this second work, which is more of an analysis than a report, Bare pulls background information from various sources, draws conclusions, and speculates regarding the motives, actions, and policies of government insiders, Saudi princes, and Islamic activists. Much of the information is better presented in the works of other authors. Baer does supplement his analysis with tales of his encounters with Islamic activists and arms dealers, but these accounts (although interesting) are generally peripheral to his analyses and do not provide strong support for his conclusions.

Robert Baer begins with a critical description of the oil lobby and a corrupt House of Saud in disarray and on the verge of collapse. He then describes the militant Islamic Brotherhood, their role in Syria and Saudi Arabia, and as customers of Russian arms dealers.

Baer describes a Saudi effort to use Islamic fundamentalism to gain a strategic foothold in central Asia, which offers alternatives to Saudi oil. He describes the use of Saudi backed organizations (such as the International Islamic Relief Organization) to support mosques in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, attacks by Saudi backed Sayef on Russians in Tajikistan, and Saudi backing of Chechnyan rebels.

He provides a nice description of the Saudi family and their relationships with our government officials and other Islamic leaders in the gulf region. The primary themes throughout the book are (1) the corruption and pending implosion of the Saudi regime, and (2) the accusation that Washington ignores and tacitly approves of the regime to maintain stable oil supplies (while officials are in office) and to receive payoffs from the Saudi oil lobby (after leaving office).

In his final recommendations, Bear calls for an end of the corrupt Saudi regime, which has deteriorated from a stable symbiotic marriage of the political leadership (Saudi family) and religious leadership (Wahhabi sect) into a powder keg of mistrust and manipulation. He calls first for the establishment of a rule of law via a new dictatorship and the explicit and active abolishment of jihad, followed eventually by an uprooting of corruption. As a means to establishing this U.S. backed dictatorship, Bare suggests a US military invasion and occupation of Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately, Baer suggests that support of the Saudi regime has been a miserable mistake, but his recommendations are perplexing. He suggests a US military takeover of Saudi Arabia to secure oil reserves and establish a US backed dictatorship, which will establish a rule of law and actively abolish jihad, with secondary concern given to uprooting corruption in the country, and tertiary concern to establishing democracy. I find Baer's recommendations almost unbelievable. Even putting aside American ideals of freedom and democracy, we know that US backed dictatorships lose stability, create problems and resentment for the US, and feed Islamic fundamentalism. What is more perplexing is that Baer himself criticizes America's use of such methods in parts of his book.

Of course, Baer's recommendations might have merit depending on the timeframe for change. If he is suggesting a long-term dictatorship (such as previously supported in Iran) or long-term occupation, then he is suggesting imperialism... a long-term disaster. However, if he is suggesting transitional steps, such as those we are currently taking in Iraq (which I support entirely), then he might be onto something. If we successfully develop Iraqi institutions for security, health, education, and commerce and leave Iraq with a stable and inclusive democratic government controlled entirely by Iraqis, then I believe and sincerely hope that the Iraqi people will enjoy a degree of self-actualization and become resilience to the fundamentalist call the attracts the poor, ignorant, and disenfranchised people of any culture and religion.

We see evidence (from the Magna Carta and the French and American revolutions to movements in China and Iran) that an educated and affluent populace seeks democratic freedom. In its absence, people will join any movement that gains momentum to content against the ruling authority. Thus, if we are going to assert influence, it should only be in support of democracy... not some oppressive authoritarian regime that is friendly to our short-term economic or strategic interests.

I have often heard or read the statement that "American-style" democracy (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) will not work in many other countries. Perhaps this is a distinction between "free & inclusive" democracy from theocratic or communist democracies. If the statement is true in some cases, then it is hopefully not entirely due to religious fervor and cultural distinctions from the West, but rather largely due to a consciousness focused on basic needs without exposure to and opportunity for higher social ideals, resulting in sheepish submission to self-imposed military or religious authorities. Therefore, should the Saudi regime collapse and the US assert its will for a replacement regime, we cannot merely send troops or setup a militant dictator to incarcerate terrorists and preachers of violence, but we must institute justice, health, and democratic self-rule... and eventually leave. Of course, this requires costly up-front steps the benefits of which are not immediately evident to many. Of course, many Americans do not believe that we should engage in nation building at all regardless of the potential benefits to the international community. Perhaps (hopefully) Iraq will provide an understandable demonstration and convincing model for the proactive installment of democratic self-rule.

This is not to say that a fat and happy populace will be full of western-friendly capitalists. Indeed, Baer and others point out that many of the 911 attackers came from the educated middle-class, including the leader (Muhammad Atta). There are obviously many possible factors that can lead to the creation of violent extremists for any cause. But we cannot perpetually secure oil reserves in other countries, and perpetually hunt down terrorists in those countries, without the stable and sincere support of those countries and their governing regimes.

J. Sprigg