Saudi Arabia’s Role In “Islamist Violence” Reportedly Remains Strong
The New York Sun reports that the role of Saudi Arabia in exporting “Islamist violence” remains stronger than ever:
Six years after visiting its brand of terror on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia has become a world-class exporter of Islamist violence.
The toll is grisly: Well over 3,000 Saudi citizens roaming the world — and just as many schemers are actively involved at home — are managing terrorist networks and planning and executing suicide bombings and jihadist attacks that span the globe:
And it gives a long list of examples. Here are the first three:
• More than 30% of the insurgents fighting the Lebanese army at the siege of the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp, which claimed a toll of well over 300 during the past three months, were Saudi fighters.
• Between 20 and 30 Saudis intending to be suicide bombers cross into Iraq every single day. Several thousand more are there fighting, tasked with killing Americans and the aShiite Muslims they view as apostates.
• The ranks of Al Qaeda have been fattened in the past three years, once again with Saudi recruits. More than 1,000 Saudis are currently training in a Qaeda camp in Syria, which itself is the subject of contentious negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the Syrians, who still refuse to arrest them or shut down the camp. Young Saudi men are also training in Al Qaeda camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.
And this their point that is the mosts significant….and troubling:
• The main funding source for every radical Islamist movement in the world today, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas, has Saudi origins, and their funders include the country’s billionaire businessmen and its royal family.
And then it adds this:
ABC’s “World News Tonight,” anchored by Charles Gibson, got it right on the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks with an impressive segment documenting how Islamist terror begins — and ends — with Saudi Arabia, its people, and its government.
It conjured an Orwellian image of a conveyor belt with human bombs placed on it running out of the House of Saud and reaching around the globe. Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas supplied ideological content, and wings of the Saudi ruling establishment stoked the fire of its infernal machine.
If this is correct (and it is certainly a detailed article with specifics, versus just a lot of ranting), it again underscores how the United States — and the Bush administration in particular with its rhetoric about “you’re with us or against us” in the war on terrorism — faces a dilemma.
It needs Saudi Arabia and considers the country among its staunchest and most valued Middle East allies. But by many accounts it is a key “feeder” and breeding ground of the terrorism problem that the United States battles on man fronts and that the administration is now using to justify the war in Iraq.
Does it work just treating the disease’s symptoms? Or do you also have to treat the disease’s source? And how do you do that?
13 Responses to “Saudi Arabia’s Role In “Islamist Violence” Reportedly Remains Strong”
[...] to Joe, who wonders: “Does it work just treating the disease’s symptoms? Or do you also have to treat the [...]
Apparently, the US has taken on the role of policing the ME and its terroritsts singlehandedly, by using a patchwork of risky alliances and by military force.
Now it looks like we’re about to up the ante by making the military force a permanent ficxture in Iraq.
It’s hard to think of a worse way to go about dealing with any related problem.
Great comment, Doma. How many Americans realize that Saudi Arabia is fomenting as much of the interference in Iraq as Iran is? Our government seems to be adept at manufacturing enemies for us to go to war with through select intelligence leaks and favored media sources, but understands little or nothing about the true nature of the region. If we look at attempted occupations of Middle eastern countries throughout history, it becomes readily apparent that the attempts just slowly bled the occupying country dry.
Now we are supposed to believe that we will have a longterm relationship with Iraq- meaning longterm occupation. But won’t we become like the Soviets, French and British- all of whom failed after lengthy, expensive wars?
It seems much smarter to try to contain the threat through international intelligence networks and by freezing their assets.
and all the while the Saud family is smiling while holding daggers behind their backs…and the Bush family having close ties to the Saudi Oil family….coinkidink?
It all comes back to Saudi Arabia…
Important topic. As always, it seems even more complex than the treatment in the article. It seems the critical aspect as far as national policy goes is of Saudi as a source of funding of radical Islamist groups, especially as the funding comes from those affiliated with the royal family and others in the oligharcy. How do we go about solving this issue?
It will be important to distinguish “radical Islamic groups” from one another. For instance, if there is tons of money going to Al Qaeda, then I would support a rather hardline approach, as Al Qaeda is a direct enemy of our national interests. The article, however, also mentions the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. As you can tell just on the posts here between Jeb Koogler and others, the exact radical nature of the Brotherhood is less clear. Is the Brotherhood truly against American interests so strongly that we would want to deal a crushing hand against Saudi to stop their funding, when we need their assistance in other matters of equal importance?
And then the article mentions Hamas. I agree this is a radical Islamist group, but the issue of Palestine and Israel are viewed very differently by even supporters of the U.S. in the Middle East than they are viewed here. I am not saying the Americans should turn a blind eye to the funding of Hamas whose primary tactic is killing civilians. I am saying that the way you persuade / stop the Saudis from funding Hamas might be very different than the way you stop them from funding Al Qaeda. Perhaps instead of slamming Saudis for funding Hamas, it might be more productive to try to get them to fund Fatah instead — possibly.
The point is just that motivations for funding these groups, as well as how they relate to American interests, varies, and so our strategies should vary as well.
I agree with you pacatrue that the solutions to this problem are as varied as the number of organizations that operate in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, this is a solution that smacks of nuances, and for an administration that seemingly prefers black and white. . . well, let’s just say I’m not holding my breath for them to do a careful analysis.
But were Bush & Co just scapegoating Iraq and Iran so that no one would look too closely at their Saudi pals? It seems like the countries that really present the biggest threats are S.A and Pakistan.
The Royal family has done less than Musharaff to crack down on extremism.
Perhaps Walt and Mearsheimer will write a book about the saudi lobby’s dangerous influence on American Middle East policy.
How about not funding any terrorist groups, period. It’s ludicrious that you are suggesting we choose between which terrorist groups to favor.
I find it puzzling that this issue would be addressed by asking how the US can solve this problem. We Just can’t force other gevernements to do what we say, so i’ts time to stop pretending we can just arrange all the world to our liking. Our single-handed meddling has bckfired more than once.
A more fruitful way to look at it would be to ask how the US can contribute to solving this problem. What is really needed:is a regional (and even better, a global) strategy for dealing with terrorism.
In the ME especially, ii’s going to take co-operation between governments. I understand that the Saudis and Syria are negotiating, and Petraeus claims that as a result, the number of juhadis coming from SA across Syria’s border into Iraq has been reduced (I don’t know if it’s true).
We have to realize, also, that we can’t line up the regines in black and white columns It’s complicated.
The Saudis are in a strange position, because while some finance terrorists, the stability of the caountry is also threatened by them. I think all the neighboring countries realize that a chaotic Iraq threatens them as well. Syria, for example. has to deal with all the Iraqis arriving in search of shelter.
There are very complicated dynamics within each country and between the countries. It’s much too complicated to imagine that the US can come in and, by itself, persuade individual regimes to do this or that. What The US can do is to urge, assist and consult, but it’s a regional problem and it can only be solved by the region’s powers.
I essentially agree with domajot. My phrase “solve the problem” meant just do what we can to fight for national interest in whatever the best ways are.
LL, the U.S. and European Union fund Fatah. Technically, we find the Palestinian Authority more, I suppose, but only when run by Fatah.
Saudi Arabia is the main breeding ground for Terror. The Bush family buisness relationship turns a blind eye to Saudi involvment in world wide terror. Read the book “Paramedic to the Prince” written by an American Paramedic the was on the medical team of King Abdullah. This book gives you an insight into Saudi Arbia like no other ever written.
[...] Nikki wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]