If the map is correct, it looks like it could be bypassed by entering through Jordan or Kuwait. I wonder if the designers know about the Maginot Line [0] (extensive and costly fortifications on the Germany / France border, which the Germans simply bypassed by invading through Belgium)?
The Germans had an industrial powerhouse and a large population with a coherent, relatively united culture behind them, plus a solid dose of air power.
> Isn't ISIS supported by the Saudis to overthrow the Shiite government of Iraq?
I think it's fair to say that "the Saudis" isn't exactly a monolith in this regard. There's an uneasy alliance between the Wahabi clerisy (who in turn keep the people relatively content) and the house of Saud, who again aren't exactly monolithic, but some of whom have something that at times could be said to approach a reasonably liberal worldview (they, for sure, aren't devout Wahabis).
It would not be terribly surprising if some of the more Wahabi-aligned elements are involved in channeling funds and different kinds of support to ISIS (and the Taleban and Al Qaida, for that matter) while the other end knows that if ISIS gets free reign in Saudi Arabia, the foundation under their government can crumble very quickly.
I think it's probably fair to say the regime in SA and ISIS have different ideas of what the region should look like in the long term.
I doubt either side understood a temporary alignment of interests to be anything more than that. Perhaps not entirely unlike what you saw in the eighties with the U.S. and the Mujahideen. There's probably even more appropriate examples from the same conflict with Russia, Turkey, U.S. et al supporting various factions.
ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda and the Saudis have always been a major target of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden attacked Riyadh before New York.
The narrative pushed by many journalists that ISIS is a Saudi ally is a complete fiction and big slander against the Saudis, who are very aggressive against ISIS.. The two have been at war since ISIS began.
ISIS are more of a threat to the Saudi ruling elite than they are an ally. The Saudis essentially pay their population off with oil revenues to buy peace domestically. If oil prices start to dip, revenues dry up (although they have an admittedly large bankroll to fall back on, but it's not infinite). And if they can't buy peace, suddenly Saudi Arabia is fertile ground for radical militant-Islamic groups like ISIS.
In this context, it's interesting to consider the growth of US Shale Oil and the lifting of sanctions on Iran, who apparently have made an agreement with OPEC, on which the Saudis took a production hit just to get it over the line (iron clad, because it's not like anyone has ever defected from an OPEC cartel agreement...)
This simple answer to this is that the story line where ISIS and Saudi are friends is fabricated by the media.
In an openness spectrum, Saudi is a zero, and Isis is in the negatives. But they all look like they're a lower number to us so people just lumped them together. But even the saudis say ISIS are extremists.
ISIS is pretty much the only group in history to be hated by everybody, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah, although al-Qaeda's hatred largely stems from the fact that ISIS has enjoyed a modicum of success in their efforts.
It should be noted that al-Qaeda, while being an outgrowth of the Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia nurtures, has targeted Saudi Arabia ever since the Gulf War due to American-Saudi cooperation back then. All of the Middle Eastern regimes are considered desirable targets to al-Qaeda--this is the distinction between the "near enemy" and the "far enemy."
Yes, I did have a little chuckle to myself about this irony until I realised there were probably (in total) millions dead at this point because stupid people are allowed to run the world.
The sooner we divest from oil reliance the better; hopefully this awful Trump presidency will give the left a mandate to do this in 4 years.
> Despite the difficulty of access to westerners, the country is relatively open to fellow Muslim nations, particularly during the Haj season when pilgrims from across the world come to Mecca and Medina.
This is helpful as I assume this means that they'll be able to take in large numbers of refugees. It seems like Saudi Arabia is very intent on keeping themselves safe from attack, so it seems a geographically close safe-haven is an ideal situation for those that would otherwise have to brave trips to Europe or the Americas.
The Haj visas are only open for certain areas of the country - mostly the airport in Jeddah and then the pilgrim trail to Mecca and Medina. There's not much infrastructure there aside from very ritzy / high end hotels that've been being built at Mecca as well, so it'd be a bit tougher to take refugees. Getting them from their origin points to Jeddah as well would be difficult - by sea that's 1080km or so, assuming they're coming out of Jordan's tiny sliver of gulf access (which getting to is pretty rough on its own).
According to a report by Amnesty International, the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council offered zero formal resettlement slots to Syrians by the end of 2014.
Rights groups point out that those countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — with wealth amassed from oil, gas, and finance, collectively have far more resources than the two Arab states that have taken in the most Syrians: Jordan and Lebanon
Is the U.S. wall on the Mexican border going to be anywhere near this sophisticated? I had the impression it's going to be basically a single fence, enforced by a bulked up Border Patrol.
The focus of border security has been on stemming the flow of people through various “hot spots” – border crossings that can be secured. The idea of building a long barrier like Great Wall of China has never materialized due to both cost and the impracticality of securing rugged terrain that might include mountains and rivers. In addition, the American border includes vast areas of open space far from people and infrastructure such as power, which makes monitoring difficult, according to Dewar.
Faced with long borders and limited manpower, agencies have increasingly turned to technology to detect unauthorized intrusions. They include long-range fiber-optic sensor systems such as Senstar’s FiberPatrol system. These sensors can be deployed on a fence with just a single optical cable stretched up to 10 miles.
Buried RF cable sensors operate very much like radar and offer the advantage of being both out of sight and protected from the elements.
“People don’t know that it’s there,” says Dewar. “So they may know a system is there, but they don’t know exactly where it is and that makes it hard to defeat. It’s very tolerant to vegetation, so it works very well for borders.”
Both of these systems are able to pinpoint intrusions to within meters. If the system also is integrated with CCTV, central station monitors can point cameras in the right direction for further investigation. Border Patrol agents can then be dispatched quickly.
[+] [-] m-i-l|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
[+] [-] CapitalistCartr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vacri|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pawadu|9 years ago|reply
This statement seems backward to me. Isn't ISIS supported by the Saudis to overthrow the Shiite government of Iraq?
[+] [-] mseebach|9 years ago|reply
I think it's fair to say that "the Saudis" isn't exactly a monolith in this regard. There's an uneasy alliance between the Wahabi clerisy (who in turn keep the people relatively content) and the house of Saud, who again aren't exactly monolithic, but some of whom have something that at times could be said to approach a reasonably liberal worldview (they, for sure, aren't devout Wahabis).
It would not be terribly surprising if some of the more Wahabi-aligned elements are involved in channeling funds and different kinds of support to ISIS (and the Taleban and Al Qaida, for that matter) while the other end knows that if ISIS gets free reign in Saudi Arabia, the foundation under their government can crumble very quickly.
[+] [-] mkohlmyr|9 years ago|reply
I doubt either side understood a temporary alignment of interests to be anything more than that. Perhaps not entirely unlike what you saw in the eighties with the U.S. and the Mujahideen. There's probably even more appropriate examples from the same conflict with Russia, Turkey, U.S. et al supporting various factions.
[+] [-] tboyd47|9 years ago|reply
The narrative pushed by many journalists that ISIS is a Saudi ally is a complete fiction and big slander against the Saudis, who are very aggressive against ISIS.. The two have been at war since ISIS began.
[+] [-] spangry|9 years ago|reply
In this context, it's interesting to consider the growth of US Shale Oil and the lifting of sanctions on Iran, who apparently have made an agreement with OPEC, on which the Saudis took a production hit just to get it over the line (iron clad, because it's not like anyone has ever defected from an OPEC cartel agreement...)
War Tard is a great read on this: http://wartard.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-geopolitics-of-20... . It's a shame he seems to be posting at a rate of about once a year now...
[+] [-] tiatia|9 years ago|reply
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2015/01...
[+] [-] philtar|9 years ago|reply
In an openness spectrum, Saudi is a zero, and Isis is in the negatives. But they all look like they're a lower number to us so people just lumped them together. But even the saudis say ISIS are extremists.
[+] [-] jcranmer|9 years ago|reply
It should be noted that al-Qaeda, while being an outgrowth of the Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia nurtures, has targeted Saudi Arabia ever since the Gulf War due to American-Saudi cooperation back then. All of the Middle Eastern regimes are considered desirable targets to al-Qaeda--this is the distinction between the "near enemy" and the "far enemy."
[+] [-] lottin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MK999|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andy_ppp|9 years ago|reply
The sooner we divest from oil reliance the better; hopefully this awful Trump presidency will give the left a mandate to do this in 4 years.
[+] [-] HugoDaniel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umberway|9 years ago|reply
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/daily-c...
[+] [-] ferbivore|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dopamean|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjolk|9 years ago|reply
This is helpful as I assume this means that they'll be able to take in large numbers of refugees. It seems like Saudi Arabia is very intent on keeping themselves safe from attack, so it seems a geographically close safe-haven is an ideal situation for those that would otherwise have to brave trips to Europe or the Americas.
[+] [-] programmernews3|9 years ago|reply
http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/beautiful-urban-moments/mina-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina,_Saudi_Arabia
Despite the facility to do so, they take in no refugees. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/12/facts-figures...
[+] [-] benzofuran|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|9 years ago|reply
Up to this point, I thought SA was refusing to take any refugees from Syria. Has this changed recently?
http://time.com/4025187/arab-states-syrian-refugees/
According to a report by Amnesty International, the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council offered zero formal resettlement slots to Syrians by the end of 2014.
Rights groups point out that those countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — with wealth amassed from oil, gas, and finance, collectively have far more resources than the two Arab states that have taken in the most Syrians: Jordan and Lebanon
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjawssd|9 years ago|reply
Faced with long borders and limited manpower, agencies have increasingly turned to technology to detect unauthorized intrusions. They include long-range fiber-optic sensor systems such as Senstar’s FiberPatrol system. These sensors can be deployed on a fence with just a single optical cable stretched up to 10 miles.
Buried RF cable sensors operate very much like radar and offer the advantage of being both out of sight and protected from the elements.
“People don’t know that it’s there,” says Dewar. “So they may know a system is there, but they don’t know exactly where it is and that makes it hard to defeat. It’s very tolerant to vegetation, so it works very well for borders.”
Both of these systems are able to pinpoint intrusions to within meters. If the system also is integrated with CCTV, central station monitors can point cameras in the right direction for further investigation. Border Patrol agents can then be dispatched quickly.
src: https://us.sourcesecurity.com/news/articles/border-security-...
[+] [-] avh02|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]