Gulf states were sending troops into the troubled island state of Bahrain on Monday in a move Shi'ite opponents of the Saudi-allied, Sunni Muslim rulers of the Gulf kingdom said would be a declaration of war.
Bahrain, which lies off the coast of Saudi Arabia, called in forces from its Sunni neighbours to put down unrest by its Shi'ite Muslim majority after protesters overwhelmed police and blocked roads in a resurgence of mass protests seen last month. ...
Analysts and diplomats say the largest contingent in any Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) force would likely come from Saudi Arabia, already worried an uprising by Bahrain's Shi'ites would embolden restive Shi'ites in its own Eastern Province, the center of the oil industry.
I'm a realist on Bahrain, I'm afraid. Our 5th Fleet base is too important to risk. This is one place I am too worried about Iranian capacity to exploit unrest that I'd rather push for stability first and reform later.
Besides, as I've noted at least a couple times, it doesn't matter if we play good cop and back reforms or even revolt--the Saudis will not risk a Shia take-over of Bahrain lest the example spread to the sizable Shia community in Saudi Arabia's eastern oil-producing province. This GCC effort is really a Saudi effort. I imagine non-Saudi forces will be fairly token and mainly involved as a show of multi-lateralism.
But who can blame the Saudis? The world is standing by and watching that thug ruler Khaddafi put down a revolt. Why shouldn't the Saudis use force to back a far less odious government that is their ally when it is in their national interest to do so?
Even if we had no national interest in seeing a Libyan revolt succeed (and I disagree with this since we surely have a national interest in seeing Khaddafi overthrown), we have a national interest in moving Arab states toward freedom and away from autocracy, despotism, and the poverty that results from both. Letting Khaddafi win means that no means are off the table for a ruler to suppress a revolt.
Not that I think we should intervene with ground forces. I think the Europeans should take the lead, with our forces in supporting roles only--we're busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other than the British, the Europeans are not busy at all. Europe can handle Libya and have national interests in Libya itself that should motivate them more than us in just the narrow judgment of what to do about Libya. We could also help covertly, as I've already mentioned.
Heck, after Europe largely stiffed us on helping us in Iraq (although Italy did step up, I'll say) they're lucky to get any help at all from us in this crisis. But after complaining about our unilateralism, the world is getting the chance to see how they can lead a response to a crisis on their own. As long as we're speaking of collateral damage, I mean.
UPDATE: Stratfor has an interesting alert on the Saudi move:
The Iranians are accustomed to being able to use their covert capabilities to shape the political realities in countries. They did this effectively in Iraq and are doing it in Afghanistan. They regarded this as low risk and high reward. The Saudis, recognizing that this posed a fundamental risk to their regime and consulting with the Americans, have led a coalition force into Bahrain to halt the uprising and save the regime. Pressed by covert forces, they were forced into an overt action they were clearly reluctant to take.
We are now off the map, so to speak. The question is how the Iranians respond, and there is every reason to think that they do not know. They probably did not expect a direct military move by the Saudis, given that the Saudis prefer to act more quietly themselves. The Iranians wanted to destabilize without triggering a strong response, but they were sufficiently successful in using local issues that the Saudis felt they had no choice in the matter. It is Iran’s move.
Of course, if Iran openly moves to counter the Saudis, the Saudis can make this an Arab-Persian fight which would undermine the Shias and compel them to scale back their demands. Interesting, too, is that we essentially green-lighted the Saudi move.
You'd think that Bahrain and Libya could be two point in a US policy on the unrest in the Arab world: do it with our support and you win; do it against our wishes and you lose. That might even prompt actors to conform their actions to court our opinion, eh?
