Asharq Alawsat newspaper, the largest circulating Arabic language daily, has several articles that attempt to turn the focus away from the individual terrorists operating in Iraq to those who recruit and facilitate them.
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, former Editor-in-Chief of the paper and now General Manager of Al-Arabiya TV, has an article in today’s issue, What’s in a Number. In it, he notes that the Saudis are feeling a bit relieved that “only” 300 young Saudis have been active in Iraq. They thought there might have been as many as 2,000.
On a political level, however, one hundred fighters are enough to wreck havoc in any society as al Qaeda members and supporters are willing to die and wage a covert guerilla war and not one that can be located and neutralized. They seek refuge in civilian areas, surrounded by women and children, and hide their weapons in mosques; they dress the same as others and are indistinguishable from the rest of the population.
Three hundred is a significant number is we are to include those who were thwarted en route to Iraq and those killed in the ever-escalating number of terrorist attacks around the country. In order to understand the implication of this figure, we need to first consider how these Saudi youths were recruited, as well others from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Sudan and other Arab countries sucked into a cycle of violence…
But the real problem, he says, is how these youths get started:
Preachers of hate and supporters of extremist political views, mixed with religious elements, are usually accompanied by younger men seeking jihad (holy struggle) and wanting to obey God by bombing mosques, religious establishments, and military installations. How are we to penalize the actors but allow the instigators to walk of free and continue molding other extremists? How can we blame our youth for the crimes they commit after hearing of occupiers and infidels and promised a place in paradise?If justice were to prevail, fighters will be recognized as mere foot soldiers and the ideologues, preachers, financiers and lawyers held responsible fort heir actions. The danger from the terrorist leadership is evident in the escalating number of attacks in Iraq and the continued brainwashing of young Arab men. If our young men are successfully mobilized to fight, as they were in Afghanistan, two decades, ago, and in Kashmir and Chechnya, these fighters will return to their home countries and apply the only skills they know.
Mshari Al-Zaydi, a Saudi journalist who focuses on Islamic movements and Islamic fundamentalism, has an article, Who Burnt Ahmed. In it, he takes a look at the young Saudi, Ahmed Al-Shaye, who survived an explosion in a fuel truck he was given to drive. While Al-Shaye admits to becoming a terrorist, he denies accepting the role of a suicide bomber. He claims that he was asked to drive the vehicle to a location where he was to be met by someone. Once there, however, the truck exploded around him. He survived with 70% of his body covered with burns. Al-Zaydi comments:
It was sad and quite tragic to see pictures of Ahmed Al-Shaye, on Al Majd, Islamic television station earlier this week.Al-Shaye is young man who grew up in an ordinary Saudi family, and therefore it is hard to believe why he drove a container full of fuel and explosives with the intention of destroying the Jordanian embassy in Iraq last December…
Al-Zaydi continues, asking again,
Who entraps these young men? Is it the media who deceived Al-Shaye, through the images it portrays? Or is it the preacher who wonders between us like a hidden disease with epidemic proportions, promising the holy struggle against crusades while calling for the Islamic Jihad, which captures these young men?Who manipulates these naive innocent emotions through political means? Is it a state, a regime or a party, which believes in the fundamentalism adopted by Al-Qaeda?
Is this evidence not sufficient for the Arab media, including some Saudi audio and visual media, to stop the instigation of terrorism and provocation; forging stories about the reality in Iraq? Is it not time to have a sense of responsibility so that no other Ahmed Al-Shaye will be burnt and no other Al-Fahiqi will fall between the gaps?
There are some writers and newspapers who feed this revolutionary feeling implicitly and cunningly. You can read many columns that constantly revolve around terrorist instigations and hatred. Then someone will ask, how do these appear among us?
These attitudes only serve as seeds in the field of narrow mindedness and fanaticism. They interpret all political events as a war between the Cross and Zionism on one side and Islam on the other.
But what if the son of one of these writers or journalists sacrificed his life, and was burnt alive or was arrested in Jordan? Would they continue to repeat such provoking calls or write articles flowing with the spirit of Bin Laden?
In all honesty how many of those who play with fire really are burned like Al-Shaye? This is the question we need to ask ourselves when we consider what our younger generations are reading and watching today – how many more Ahmed’s are there out there?
Tariq Alhomayed, the current Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Alawsat believes he has some answers. In his op-ed, They Are All Drugged:
I felt compelled to respond to news, published on our front page, that a teenager was forced against his will to bomb a Shi’a mosque in Iraq. The attack failed as the young man fled the scene; he later admitted to being forced to carry out this mission after being kidnapped, badly beaten and drugged by terrorists. A US military report confirmed his version of events.He was not the only one; all terrorists are heavily sedated. They are drugged by a media, which gives credence to false stories, written according to its author’s mood, added to fabricate pictures and selected from an angle that serve the interest of terrorist groups, be it former Baath party members or Islamic extremists.
Truly, they have been drugged by speeches made in mosques, promises of beautiful virgins in paradise and statements signed by those with no knowledge of jihad except empty words and slogans. They have been tricked by leaders who continue to call for a definition of terrorism at a time when it is urgent to define resistance!
The murder of thousands of innocent civilians and soldiers in Iraq is terrorism. so is the case in Saudi Arabia.
Do read the linked articles. It’s clear that at least one major Arabic news medium understands what the issues truly are.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
September:22:2005 - 16:42
What hope do these young men have to change their lives in S.A. for the better? Think of Palestinians but in a gilded home: they are free to do everything but earn the right to gather human dignity by earning an honest living.
September:22:2005 - 18:39
I disagree. There are jobs worth doing that are not considered socially acceptable due to historic contingencies. An attitude change leading to the recognition that all work is valid would help solve a lot of problems, for the individual as well as the country.
It’s noteworthy, I believe, that Saudi women are willing to take jobs now being done by third-world expats, but male pride seems to prevent men from doing so.
September:23:2005 - 08:50
nice post john
September:23:2005 - 09:23
What is the disagreement, John? Your comments appear to confirm my opinion!
September:23:2005 - 16:29
Your comment seemed to suggest that young Saudis had no hope; I think they do, but need a little attitude adjustment to realize it.
September:26:2005 - 00:23
Monday’s Winds of War: 26 Sept 2005
Welcome! Our goal at Winds of Change.NET is to give you one power-packed briefing of insights, news and trends from the global War on Terror that leaves you stimulated, informed, and occasionally amused every Monday & Thursday. Monday’s Winds of War b…
September:26:2005 - 12:14
And how can that “attitude adjustment” be fostered? What options are available to us?
September:26:2005 - 12:31
The Religious Policeman reports on how “attitude” is fostered in young Saudi men, in this case a suicide bomber who survived his attack that killed two dozen Iraqis:
“…this guy deserves his own private jet. And then he gets a very nice hospital room, with his own telephone, a huge bunch of flowers, and his own show on TV.”
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_muttawa_archive.html#112759721926023301
September:26:2005 - 15:37
“Attitude adjustment” can’t be imposed from the outside. But the fact that Saudi women are eagerly taking jobs that were not–in the recent past–socially acceptable will put enormous pressure on the young men, I believe.
September:26:2005 - 15:39
I think the Saudi gov’t is playing a “good cop” role in this. By not immediately taking him to have his head removed, they’re telling other Saudis in Iraq that they need not fear grim punishment. The gov’t would rather reform than remove.
You–and the Religious Policeman–can argue that this isn’t an appropriate tactic, of course. But that old adage about the relative attractive power of sugar v. vinegar comes to mind.
September:26:2005 - 16:10
“Attitude adjustment” can’t be imposed from the outside.
Where did that platitude come from? What did the Moguls do to India? What do you think the Allies and Russians did to the Germans? Or what the U.S. is doing in Iraq today?
“Sugar vs. vinegar”? Yes, as long as they don’t soil their own nest, jihadis are given the sweet treatment, but pro-democracy or pro-peace advocates all have sour stories to tell.
John, can’t you see? Your “sugar vs. vinegar” argument only makes sense if you are considering Saudi interests, not American ones. To the Saudis it makes sense, because they are hammering in the lesson that it is O.K. to hunt infidels, Americans, and Iraqis – within the limits set by the regime. To the U.S. goal of democratic long-term peace and stability, and to those Arabs under Saudi rule who long for democracy, it makes no sense at all.
September:27:2005 - 04:16
My point is that in trying to see the situation solely through American eyes, we make mistakes. The Saudis have to recreate their own country–as the US has recreated itself over time–and that it’s not an easy task.
Yes, total devastation can be imposed from the outside, but that is not what the US seeks to accomplish. Instead, we seek to help–and encourage when necessary–the Saudis to make their own reforms. There are so many aspects of Saudi life that are out of phase with the West that we need to concentrate on what is most necessary. Right now, the US interest is in stopping terrorism. As long as the Saudis are effectively doing that–and by all reports, they are–then we’re not going to belabor them about every other aspect of their society that we don’t happen to like. We still keep the pressure on over human rights, religious freedom, trafficking in persons, and the like, but we’re not terribly interested in social re-engineering. Seeing how well we’ve managed that in our own country, I consider that both a good thing and smart.
Further, I simply don’t believe that the Saudis (that is, the Saudi government) are telling their citizens that it’s okay to kill infidels. The government has been condemning terror consistently, no matter who the victim. That some Saudis–even perhaps some Saudis in government–might believe that it’s okay is entirely possible, but it’s not government policy.
September:27:2005 - 22:29
“The Saudis have to recreate their own country”
“Yes, total devastation can be imposed from the outside”
“the US interest is in stopping terrorism. As long as the Saudis are effectively doing that–and by all reports, they are–then we’re not going to belabor them”
More platitudes. We’re not talking about “total devastation” here — we’re talking about the legal trial and probable execution of non-uniformed combatants in a war undeclared by their nation: murderers. And one can produce reports, like that of The Religious Policeman, that show the Saudis are really going through the motions to deter terrorism at home, not against the U.S., and to sympathize with the terrorists’ goals: even if it doesn’t explicitly endorse terrorist means, it certainly accepts terrorists’ results.
Therefore, by your tests, we should be “belabor[ing] them about every other aspect of their society that we don’t happen to like. We still keep the pressure on over human rights, religious freedom, trafficking in persons, and the like”. Certainly they test very poorly on all the items you’ve listed.
September:28:2005 - 08:51
Well, that’s certainly a point of view, but it’s not one I share.
You raised the situation of pre-Mogul India, post-WWII Germany, and I’ll add post-WWII Japan as places that were “re-done,” top-to-bottom. (The vote is still out on India, BTW.) When a country is utterly destroyed, from the infrastructure up, it’s possible to enforce change from outside. That doesn’t happen, that can’t happen when a country and its culture is still viable, though deeply troubled. People still identify themselves as “X” or “Y” and will fight to maintain that identity. But even victors in a war end up changing. Note how quickly Churchill was voted out–and a socialist government voted in–following VE Day.
You’re also talking about steps beyond which the USG is unwilling to go: execution following a trial. The war on terror is causing us to rethink out own laws about war because the very nature of the war has changed. Even US citizens caught fighting against the US are not being executed, summarily or following trials. To expect any third country to go further is wishful thinking, IMO.
If you read my previous comment, I point out the ways the USG is continuing to apply pressure on the KSA. It’s not just sitting back and ignoring what happens in the country. But neither is it criticizing every element of Saudi society that we don’t like very much. The US media does an adequate job on that front.
The USG applauds the Saudis for the good things they’re doing–from the war on terror to local elections to increased dialogue between Sunni and Shia communities. We criticize them publicly and directly for their record on human rights, religious freedom, trafficking, education reform, etc., as well as individual matters as they arise (e.g. abducted children). But we’re not contantly in their faces about every aspect of their attitudes toward dress, censorship, business practice, etc. I think we have the balance just about right.
September:28:2005 - 10:54
How would we know if the “balance” is wrong?
September:28:2005 - 20:43
Clearly, there’s no answer that will please everyone. I’m content with the pace of things at present, but that’s subject to change in the face of changing circumstances.