Dr. Anthony Cordesman is one of America’s leading experts on Saudi Arabia. He holds the Arleigh Burke Chair for Strategy and is the Co-Director of MIddle East Studies for the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, DC.
He’s recently written a brief paper on Saudi Arabia and the Struggle Against Terrorism that you should take a look at. The report is a four-page PDF document.
In his piece, Cordesman notes that the Saudis have made significant progress in their fight againt terrorism. He notes, too, that as in the US, “jointness” of operations between differing governmental agencies, while not perfect, has improved dramatically. He specifically talks about last week’s anti-terror efforts that led to the killing of three of Saudi Arabia’s “Most Wanted” and the capture of others.
The Saudi-US Relations Information Service is running a two-part interview with Cordesman. In it, he addresses issues like the efforts of some Saudis to recruit jihadists to fight in Iraq. You can find Part 1 of the interview here. I’ll post a link to Part 2 next week, as soon as it’s available.
I strongly recommend you take a few minutes to read these pieces if you’re interested in just what the Saudis are doing to fight terrorism. Much of it goes unreported or underreported in the American media. You might be surprised by what you learn.
[This story is cross-posted at Blogger News Network.]
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
00:08,
Crossroads Arabia » Saudi Anti-Terror Efforts
John Burgess has just posted a hopeful piece on a new Anthony Cordesman paper (and interview) on Saudi anti-terror efforts. Progress in KSA is definitely looking better than the media reports are indicating. Recommended:
I strongly recommend you tak…
16:08,
I am glad SA is doing more to fight terrorism in that nation. But doesn’t it continue to support Wahhibism around the world, including the U.S., in schools and mosques?
18:46,
Wahhabism is the official interpretation of Islam in Saudi Arabia, so of course it’s going to both support that interpretation as well as its prosyletizing mission. (Do note, though, that the Saudis are currently making efforts to encorporate two different schools of Shi’a Islam, as well as Sufis, into political and social life.)
The issue, I think, is the difference between what some call “Wahhabism” and what’s actually preached and practiced. As I’ve noted earlier, many simply use the term “Wahhabi” to name a form of Islam that is different from what they practice at home, whether or not it’s actually Wahhabism. The New Yorker, for example, reported back in 1992:
Wahhabism, in my opinion, does have problems when it comes to dealing with a modernizing world. But those problems are those of any sect of any religion that seeks to avoid “contamination” by outside influences. Most Saudi Wahhabis are no more offensive in their daily practices and beliefs than Mennonites or the Amish.
But because this interpretation can be coupled with a very narrow world view, together with a xenophobia derived from an exceptionally harsh existence in pre-oil Arabia, there is an enhanced possibility of misinterpretation that leads to radicalism and violence.
You might be interested in reading Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad, by Natana Delong-Bas, of Georgetown University. The book is pretty stiff going as it’s really written for academic audiences, but it’s pretty clear in noting that many practices that are termed “Wahhabi” not only don’t have anything to do with what Abdul Wahhab was preaching, but are actually opposite of what he considered desirable in a Muslim state.