Jihad International

In the unlikely event that you amuse yourself by reading the minutes of the weekly cabinet meeting held by Saudi royals, you might have come across the following intriguing detail from a recent session: Regarding terrorism, the Cabinet affirmed that dealing in terrorism, misleading youth into terrorism, sowing sectarian discord and destabilizing societies are destined to fail because they are contrary to peoples’ desire for security, stability and development.

One admires the Saudis’ cheerful conviction. But a less sanguine observer might feel compelled to note that it is radically at odds with a certain reality -- namely that, nearly six years after 15 Saudis took part in the 9-11 attacks, Saudi Arabia remains a leading exporter of international terrorism. Earlier this month, for instance, Newsweek published a list breaking down the nationalities of suicide bombers in Iraq. Of the 139 names on the list, no fewer than 53 were of Saudi origin. From this one might justifiably conclude that, pace King Abdullah and his court, the desire of their countrymen for “security, stability and development” has been much exaggerated.
In fairness, the Saudi government is no position to consider the terrorism issue objectively. Take the case of Soliman al-Buthi. A former director of the Al-Haramain Islamic charity in Ashland, Oregon, al-Buthi is now fugitive living in Riyadh. Behind the change of address is the fact that al-Buthi has been indicted by the U.S. government for his role in a money-laundering operation in which he is alleged to have directed more that $150,000 to mujahideen in Chechnya. In 2004, the Treasury Department named him a “specially designated global terrorist,” alleging direct ties between Al-Haramain and al-Qaeda. But al-Buthi is more than a terrorist suspect. He is also a ranking government official, having recently been promoted by the Saudi government to the post of health department director. “My government knows me very well,” al-Buthi has said. And that, of course, is the problem.

It is not a new problem. Critics of the Bush administrations have long doubted that it was getting a return on its investment in close relations with the kingdom. The active role of Saudi jihadists in Iraq, as well as the government’s brazen sheltering of terrorist suspects like al-Buthi, are two of many reasons to think that it is not.
Before the administration’s critics declare victory, it is worth noting that the Newsweek list also reveals something that they will find less congenial. Among the suicide bombers in Iraq, many hail from Europe. For instance, as many suicide bombers on the list come from Italy as from Syria. Terrorists have also found their way to Iraq from Belgium, Britain, and France. That certainly suggests that the “global war on terror,” that supposedly discredited construct favored by the Bush administration, has something to recommend it after all.

Particularly among Democratic presidential contenders, this is an unpopular thing to say. Loosing vice presidential nominee John Edwards has offered little in the way of foreign policy substance in his current campaign, but he has been adamant about one thing: the war on terror is a meaningless slogan. In a new essay for Foreign Affairs outlining his preferred approach, Edwards opts for the perfectly inane “struggle against extremism “ while insisting, absurdly, that by describing the current conflict as a war the Bush administration has “reinforced the jihadists' narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world and that there is a ‘clash of civilizations’ pitting the West against Islam.” Forget military confrontation. Instead, according to Edwards, the key to victory is “reengaging with the peoples of the world.” Perhaps the kindest thing that can be said about this analysis is that it is not inferior to the vision put forth by Saudi Arabia.

A cognate line of argument, which enjoys wide currency in Democratic ranks, holds that Iraq is a diversion from the “real” war on terror in Afghanistan. “The war on terror is in Afghanistan,” has become the default mantra of top Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. But the facts are decidedly unkind to this view. Look at the Newsweek list and you see that jihadists from across the Middle East -- whether from Egypt of Jordan, Turkey or Tunisia -- consider Iraq the main battlefield, and act accordingly. The fact that senior Democrats are determined to look the other way for partisan advantage hardly recommends their leadership abilities. As for the appeal to focus military energy on Afghanistan, it is severely compromised by the fact that Democrats, succumbing to pressure form anti-war groups like Code Pink, are readying to declare defeat there as well.

The Democrats’ frustration is understandable. Who has time to wage a war on terror when you’re busy stuffing Congressional spending bills full of million-dollar earmarks? Better instead to believe that the threat of Islamic terrorism will recede on its own and that, were it not for the Bush administration, the world would be a secure place. After all, it works so well for Saudi Arabia.