| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Saudi militants in Lebanon and Iraq embarrass homeland |
| 2007-07-21 |
| Recent reports suggesting there are significant numbers of Saudis fighting alongside Islamist militant groups in Iraq and Lebanon have provoked embarrassment and soul-searching in Saudi Arabia. Iraq's National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said this week that Iraq had tried 160 Saudis for involvement in violence, and a report in a U.S. newspaper said 45 percent of foreigners fighting in Iraq were Saudis. Lebanese officials say dozens of Saudis are among militants of the Fatah al-Islam militant group which has been battling the army for two months in a Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon. The Saudi-owned Arabic press has countered the reports, citing officials who say the numbers are exaggerated in both Iraq and Lebanon. Columnists are once again wrestling with the issue of the Saudi role in global Islamist militancy, an issue which first came up after the September 11 attacks in 2001 where 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi nationals. "The question raised since the 9/11 terrorist attacks is whether Saudis, once known as the most peace-loving people, are aware that they have become an international problem?" wrote Abdel-Rahman al-Rashed in Asharq al-Awsat newspaper this week. "Why Saudis, we may ask? Because they are mentally and politically prepared to act like time bombs that can be manipulated by regimes with dangerous political agendas." Saudi Arabia has blamed Iran for stoking radical sentiment in the region, through backing its allies Syria, Iraqi Shi'ite groups, Lebanese group Hezbollah and Palestinian group Hamas. Saudis, in turn, have joined Arabs fighting in the ranks of al Qaeda in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Estimates on the numbers have varied from hundreds to thousands. "Why is the Iraqi government exaggerating the number of Saudis, while denying any role of Iranians in the violence?" Abdelaziz al-Suwaid wrote in al-Hayat newspaper on Thursday, blaming non-Arab Shi'ite Iran for stoking violence. Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz recently asked Saudi clerics to do more to stop Saudis going to fight in Iraq, saying they were being exploited as suicide bombers. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state which rules according to an austere school of Sunni Islam called Wahhabism. Many Saudi clerics regard Shi'ites as heretics though no prominent clerics have publicly called on Saudis to fight in Iraq. "The authorities can't fail to be embarrassed ... but as to what the real numbers are, it's difficult to judge," said Neil Partrick of the International Crisis Group. "The Saudi position in general is that they have spent a lot of money on their direct border with Iraq, and they see themselves as having actively pursued radical messages and fatwas (edicts) issued by Saudi clerics," he said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #21 Thanks, lotp. I knew the Saudis were upset with the president because he doesn't unthinkingly adopt his father's likes and dislikes, making him a bad son in their eyes, but I'd forgotten the details. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-21 21:12 |
| #20 I think you badly misunderstand how Arabs would respond to killing the senior Saudi princes. Not nearly as badly as we should have reacted to fifteen Saudis flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers. Nowhere did I say that we had to take credit for such actions. Our espionage agencies have the ability to make these killings look like terrorist attacks. With al Qaeda having declared war even on Saudi Arabia, all bets are off and no holds barred. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-21 20:04 |
| #19 TW, one of the ways Bush pushed the Saudis was to refuse to declassify the 9/11 report language about Saudi involvement in the attacks. That might not seem like a big move, but it was public pushback against a Saudi PR campaign that tried to hide royal family funding for jihadi movements. The Saudis made a big deal of publicly asking for the report to be declassified and were embarrassed and angered when he refused. He also made no move whatsoever to discourage the 9/11 families' lawsuit against some Saudi royals. The Saudis even tried a counter lawsuit claiming they suffered psychological distress as a result of the pressure .... Given their complicity in overt attacks on US troops in Iraq and their increased funding of salafist mosques, those actions by Bush in 2002 may seem small. But they made big waves in the middle east at the time, as I recall. Bush Sr. was pretty upset, if stories were accurate. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-21 19:45 |
| #18 Perhaps we're overlooking prior strategic advice: "If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it." Dwight D. Eisenhower As for capacity to weather ugly economic consequences, is there any question about how the ME would end up? |
| Posted by: Zebulon Sholuting5706 2007-07-21 19:21 |
| #17 (Although, remember that Bush DID push them a couple years ago, causing near heart-failure among the 'realists' and leftists.) Remind me please? I don't remember that one. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-21 18:04 |
| #16 heh |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-07-21 17:26 |
| #15 Where do I advocate "sweeping actions with potentially huge side effects"? Others here are the ones who want to see Riyadh nuked or what have you. That said, some sort of genuinely punitive measures need to be put in place. Excellent. You've got it down pat. |
| Posted by: Himmler the WonderTyper 2007-07-21 17:16 |
| #14 I think you badly misunderstand how Arabs would respond to killing the senior Saudi princes. But perhaps I'm wrong. My personal experience with Saudis and other Arabs was in a business context and occurred a while back. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-21 16:02 |
| #13 Many of the younger royals are more, not less, wahabist and anti-West. Nothing like a few cases of swift onset lead poisoning to give them pause for some reconsideration. The younger set cannot possibly have the same depth of contacts and cell structure access. The very basis of their high context societal power structure guarantees this. I believe it is Nayaff that periodically wanders off on desert sojurns. He would be a sitting duck while he does that. Our reticence over killing these enemies is more political than due to any lack of ability. One thing is certain: America does not have the financial resources to continue prosecuting the Global War on Terror at this same level for another generation, as you predict this conflict will last. Reducing our conventional military role without utilizing covert strategies will only lessen national security and that is entirely unacceptable. All of this points towards eliminating the main players in global terrorism. Refusal to do so only increases the butcher's bill for the West and even more so for the Muslims. I wish there was time to get off the oil teat or begin halting food exports to the MME (Muslim Middle East) as a punitive measure but either one of those options is hopelessly lethargic. We need speedy results and will simply have to risk some uncertain outcomes in the name of undercutting logistical and financial support for terrorism. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-21 15:34 |
| #12 Easier said than done, Zen. Remember, the top royals play a deeper game of political and physical assasination than our spooks can gernerally envision, much less master. Nayaff is still around and still controls all of the kingdom's interior security forces -- and he's the senior wahabist in the family. Moreover, I'm not at all sure the results would be what you think. Many of the younger royals are more, not less, wahabist and anti-West. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-21 14:56 |
| #11 I share the deep frustration re: what the wahabists are doing, and a deep understanding of their danger to us. I do not doubt that. But I also know that anyone in power in DC or London or elsewhere is not as free as a blog commentator to decide on sweeping actions with potentially huge side effects. Where do I advocate "sweeping actions with potentially huge side effects"? Others here are the ones who want to see Riyadh nuked or what have you. That said, some sort of genuinely punitive measures need to be put in place. One of the only productive paths is the targeted assassinations of Prince Sultan Ibn Abdulaziz, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz and Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz. Throw in Prince Turki al Faisal for good measure and the Saudi Royals' zeal for supporting terrorism would take an abrupt nosedive. The disappearance of these three key Sunni terrorist players would not topple the House of Saud nor destabilize the Kingdom. It would send an unmistakable message that America will not tolerate deceit and sponsorship of terrorism, especially by our putative allies. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-21 13:56 |
| #10 The distinction is useful because it helps to explain why those in power hesitate to take on the Saudis directly. (Although, remember that Bush DID push them a couple years ago, causing near heart-failure among the 'realists' and leftists.) The Saudis most leaders meet are the cynical, corrupt ones. The Saudis who are most funding and abetting jihad are those like Nayyaf, who are not especially corrupt but ARE fanatical and operate behind the scenes in the kingdom. I share the deep frustration re: what the wahabists are doing, and a deep understanding of their danger to us. But I also know that anyone in power in DC or London or elsewhere is not as free as a blog commentator to decide on sweeping actions with potentially huge side effects. Taking on the currently largest source of oil would destroy the global economy. Count on that - the Saudis are quite capable of riding out a couple years of oil embargo, even if it required harsh measures to control the resulting unrest in those less rich than the royals. We're in far less robust a condition, both because of our global dependencies and because any leader who tried would be thrown out of power / neutered quickly by those whose pocketbooks were hit. May come to that, if we can't gen up alternative sources of power and / or stabilize Iraq. But I understand why Bush or anyone else in DC would pause before committing us that way. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-21 13:33 |
| #9 I think it's a little more complicated than that. PART of the Saudi royal family is embarassed if only because they like to project a worldly air and continue to rack up the riches. They're happy to have Islamicists attack the west but only to the degree that it doesn't affect their oil sales and their financial holdings elsewhere. However, the other part of the royal family are true Salafists/Wahabists and are directly funding and promoting this shit. What worthwhile distinction is there to be made between those who directly sponsor terrorism and those who knowingly turn a blind eye to it? Both are equally responsible. Both are our worst enemies. It is precisely our government's willingness to make such an unmerited distinction that has prevented proper prosecution of the Global War on Terror. The situation is much like 20 years ago when a convicted bank robber who netted $5,000 would get ten to twenty years of hard time while a corrupt CEO who embezzled $500,000 would receive probation. Our law holds culpable and punishes those who are accomplices to a crime, be it before or after the fact. The Saudis are both, yet our traitor elite refuses to act. We are being betrayed by those sworn to defend us and our young soldiers are dying for it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-21 13:09 |
| #8 damn, you beat me to that one steve... i already had copied it to my clipboard, then read the comments. |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2007-07-21 12:53 |
| #7 Saudis, once known as the most peace-loving people... Uh, when was this exactly? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-07-21 12:26 |
| #6 Too, this reduces the number of defective sons they have to find wives for. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-21 11:59 |
| #5 The Saudis have a very tightly controlled border to the north; they are letting their problem-children out but not back in. They're quite willing to put up with the 'embarrassment' because it's an more than adequate trade-off towards having domestic stability. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-07-21 11:56 |
| #4 I think it's a little more complicated than that. PART of the Saudi royal family is embarassed if only because they like to project a worldly air and continue to rack up the riches. They're happy to have Islamicists attack the west but only to the degree that it doesn't affect their oil sales and their financial holdings elsewhere. However, the other part of the royal family are true Salafists/Wahabists and are directly funding and promoting this shit. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-21 08:33 |
| #3 from a young age saudis are taught to hate sponsored and funded by the government no less!!!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2007-07-21 08:17 |
| #2 Embarass the Saudis? The House of Saud's dark side is financing most Islamoterror, and the leaders of the kingdom do nothing about it. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-21 01:07 |
| #1 Saudi militants in Lebanon and Iraq embarrass homeland Only because they're being caught alive. The Saudis have no shame. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-21 00:30 |