I'm still getting settled into DC, and apologize for not having had time to publish my usual Winds of War coverage. It should hopefully resume shortly. In the meantime, allow me to console you all with a little look back at last weekend's events at the Oasis luxury compound in al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
It ain't pretty.
I already covered the general story of the attack and subsequent hostage seige earlier this week, but the ever-valuable Alphabet City has now taken it upon himself to go through the bloody particulars.
This was a foul-up of massive porportions and a major victory for al-Qaeda on a number of points. While we still don't have a clear idea of what exactly happened during the al-Khobar attack or even how many of the attackers got away, from the looks of things the network is now aiming to appeal more towards "street sentiment" than any elaborate backdoor dealings with the princes.
According to the Religious Policeman:
I'd like to be able to say that the overwhelming majority of my fellow Saudis totally condemn this terrorism. Sadly, that is just not true. There is a substantial minority, if not verging on a majority, who applaud any action that discomfits a royal family whom they perceive to be "unreliable" in religious terms, and to be too friendly with the US. So they support any action against them, regardless of who dies. And I see this support for the terrorists all around me, both in furtive conversations and more overt celebrations, the smiling jokes among friends, the victory fist punched in the air.
So while it would be nice to see Madrid-style mass demonstrations in the streets of Riyadh, Jeddah, Dammam, Makkah, Madinah, condemning this terrorism in all its manifestations, forget it, it's not going to happen. We have other priorities. Hitler was obsessed with the racial purity of Greater Germany. We are obsessed with the religious purity of the Arabian Peninsula.
The view that al-Qaeda has ceased troubling itself in dealing with the Saudi royals and instead begun actively moving against them has at least some evidence to back it up. Certainly the creation of the al-Haramain Brigades might well lead one to this conclusion, but then how is one to read the condemnations of Sheikh Abu Omar al-Seif, a member of the organization's ruling council, who called on al-Qaeda members to carry out attacks against Americans in Iraq rather than against domestic Saudi targets?
These aren't the only ways of looking at the situation either. Debka, for whatever it's worth, claims that the attacks were part of an elaborate succession duel between Crown Prince Abdullah and Interior Minister Prince Nayef. While this is all intriguing and may even be true, in my experience Saudology is even more complicated than Kremlinology. Based on my own crude understanding of Saudi internal dynamics, the way things work inside the Kingdom are best described as being somewhat analogous to 1984 or the often-lethal politics of the French court at Versailles.
To further muddy the waters, Michael Ledeen (full disclosure: my boss here at AEI) weighs in with the following:
"The globalization of terrorism is an undoubted success for bin Laden. It is sufficiently serious and frightening to induce (Saudi) Prince Abdullah — according to credible secret sources — to negotiate with bin Laden a secret agreement to prevent the fall of the monarchy, based on their common hated of America and Israel." According to Allam[Magdi Allam, the assistant editor of the Italian paper Corriere della Sera], that agreement explains Abdullah's statement, following the May 1 terror attack, blaming "Zionism" for terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Other sources tell Allam the same thing I have heard, namely that the Saudi royal family has prepared a detailed plan to run abroad if the situation gets much worse, and that knowledge of the royal family's intentions is a major component in the recent rise in the price of oil. Meanwhile, the Saudis are buying insurance by supporting the terrorists in Iraq.
And, from the looks of things, the royals' insurance policy has served as a force multiplier for the very people now killing American troops in Iraq. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Finally, we have a brief biography of Abdul Aziz al-Muqrin, the top al-Qaeda leader in Saudi Arabia. While this bio is somewhat different from others I've seen before now, it nevertheless offers one interesting little piece of information that seems to have caught the eyes of Alphabet City as well: in any sane society, al-Muqrin would still be in jail instead of out murdering Americans.
In 1997 Al-Muqrin was fighting against Ethiopa in the Ogaden province when he was captured by Ethiopian authorities and extradited to Saudi Arabia at the Kingdom's request. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. In the summer of 2001, having served half his sentence, the Interior Ministry released Muqrin for having memorized the Koran.
Had he served the full jail term, al-Muqrin would not have been released until 2005.
Saudi Arabia is an extremely difficult area with regard to US policy for a whole host of reasons ranging from religious to economic to political in nature. No one should regard it as otherwise, but when we do regard the Kingdom it is best that we do so while shedding some of our naivete.
Wasn't it "Red Ken" the mayor of London who said not too long ago "each moorning I wake up hoping to see the bodies of the entire ibn Saud family swinging from the lamposts.", or words to that effect?
Even if Iraq was as calm as Sweden, we'd still have to have 135K troops there, just in case all hell breaks loose in Saudi Arabia.
Anyway, I remember reading something on MEMRI about some source claiming some link to Al Qaeda. The source talked about forthcoming terror attacks and a likely American response of seizing Saudi oil facilities. I think MEMRI discounted its authenticity, on grounds it didn't sound like Bin Laden. (Methinks there can be many nasty voices who don't sound like Bin Laden....)
Seems that that wouldn't at all be in Al Qaeda's interests, since that would take away their cash-cow. But, rationality doesn't seem to mix with apocalyptic world views does it?
Yeah, Saudi Arabia is probably one of the trickiest countries to deal with, because what can you do really? Even if you ignore the oil aspect. Can you imagine what would happen if we ever went to war with Saudi Arabia? "INFIDELS INVADE MECCA". Yeah, that'll turn out well. Saudi Arabia has the west pretty much up against the wall... we have no choice but to be allies with them.
Adam, while you have a point, there is another way to look at it: if you nuke Mecca with a dirty bomb, you have just killed one of the 5 pillers of Islamic practice. Not ideal, but I agree with Ralph Peters that in the long run we are only going to beat these guys by killing a lot of them. It doesn't have to be all, as the history of the assasins proves, but it doesn't mean it will only be a few either. Definitely interesting times.
Another, totally different idea would be to invade SA in order to secure access to Mecca for Shi'ites. Maybe Iraq could request our help in that regard. Given the view that Wahabbi's take of Shi'a and even other Sunni Muslims, this can work. Don't forget that the Islamic world has been over-run before, by the pre-Islamic Turkish tribes and by the Mongols among others.
Is there any link between the Al-Haramain Foundation and the Al-Haramain Brigades? And what does the name mean? It looks like it means "the forbidden" (halal = religiously allowed, haram = religiously forbidden)...
Here's my guess. The mosque in Mecca containing the Kaaba is Masjid al-Haram, the "forbidden mosque". I assume that what's forbidden is the entry of unbelievers. "Al-Haramain" probably refers to this mosque, and the broader concept of a space only containing believers. My guess is that there's no organizational connection.
Quote:
'In any sane society, al-Muqrin would still be in jail instead of out murdering Americans.
He was sentenced to eight years in prison. In the summer of 2001, having served half his sentence, the Interior Ministry released Muqrin for having memorized the Koran.
Had he served the full jail term, al-Muqrin would not have been released until 2005.'
At least in the Netherlands, and I assume most western countries, prisoners - including murderers - are also released early if they behave properly during their jail term. But I'll grant that the virtually guaranteed 33% reduction in prison term raises questions about the sanity of the judical system.
Oscar, Shiites already have access to Mecca. The Saudis get about 100,000 pilgrims each year from Iran alone.
Nuking Mecca, entirely apart from the horrendous loss of civilian life that would occur in the process, would do no more to stop al-Qaeda than US military operations in An Najaf have deterred Iran, contra Juan Cole and others who were predicting the apocalypse (again, at least in Cole's case) if the US entered the city.
Mitch:
Al-Haramain refers to the holy mosques of Mecca and Medina.
Daran:
If this weren't a regular occurence within the Saudi judicial system, I might be inclined to agree with you.
Dan: The article you linked does not specify why al-Muqrin was sentenced to 4 years in prison. The sentence might be much lower than he would have gotten in the west, but release after 2 years is comparable to western practises (even if the excuse is lame by our standards).
That being said, I completely agree that Saudi Arabia is a very disfunctional state. Given the lack of popular support and internal struggles I don't think the Saudi government can crack down on the terrorists. But ignoring the problem or working with the terrorists will only further undermine the house of Saud.
Unfortunately, it looks like there is no credible moderate alternative to the house of Saud.
Daran:
Al-Muqrin was in jail for belonging to al-Ittihaad al-Islamiyyah, the main al-Qaeda affiliate in Somalia. This is normally not a crime in the Kingdom (belonging to a terrorist organization), but he got involved with MIRA and other radical anti-royalist groups upon his return, so the authorities created a trumped-up charge with which to jail him.
Dan - thanks for that, that really clears things up. I see now that when Bin Laden says "land of the two holy mosques", he's actually saying "Bilad al-Haramain".
I've often wondered about this issue of Islamic religious investment in certain pieces of real estate. That is, the irreplaceable holyness of the Kabah, the well of Zam-Zam, and the al Aksa mosque among other places . The Jews obviously found a way to survive without The Temple. Christianity has no irreplaceable ties to any place, maybe Bethlehem, but that's not irreplaceable. Even Catholicism could survive without the Vatican, though not without the Pope. But how can there be a Hajj if there is no Kabah? What would happen to Islam if these places were erased from the face of the Earth?
who are the leaders of al haramain brigade and why doesnt the internet have any information on this group??