This Sunday Times article is sobering, if not unexpected. Al-Qaeda infiltrating Iraq, joining forces with disgruntled Baathist regimists or military figures, plotting terror against coalition forces.
And while the idea of that terror becoming a significant and long term problem in Iraq is chilling, my reaction to the article was at first skepticism of the scope of this effort. For one thing their evidence of a new wave of more "sophisticated" attacks consists mainly of one large truck bombing. And it's not as if it's news that there are established links between the Saddam regime and Islamic terror groups, specifically Al-Qaeda.
I guess direct involvement of Al-Qaeda in ongoing attacks on U.S. troops, if true, is newsworthy. But do the media have to pretend we are just learning of these ties?
Bremer and the military people are all over it, and Bush has harped on it for two years now. It's as if the media are catching on ever so slowly.
The U.S. confirms it believes al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator, said the military had found strong links between al-Qaeda, other Iraqi groups and guerrilla attacks that have so far killed 55 U.S. soldiers since Mr. Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1.
Our 150,000-strong troop presence represents vulnerability, but also control. Yes, we've got a lot of Americans hung out to dry over there, subject to attacks by these thugs, but if the Sunday Times is citing U.S. Military sources for their information, then I'm comforted that Bremer and Rumsfield are on top of their "training camp" at Razaza.
The fact that these jihadists are arriving in Iraq from Saudi Arabia is gasoline on the fire of our incinerating relationship with the Saudis. Two excellent fresh features in the new Weekly Standard get into our changing relationship with Saudi Arabia. Max Singer's "The Saudi Oil Weapon is Overrated" explodes myths about our energy dependence on the Saudis.
And the indispenable Stephen Schwartz traces the two years since 9/11 from the Saudi perspective, and says either major changes in the regime, or "regime change" itself are unavoidable. Here's one excerpt, but read it all: The Dysfunctional House of Saud .
The first task before the administration remains what it was on September 12: to obtain a full and transparent accounting of Saudi involvement in 9/11, no matter how high it reaches into ruling circles. Inevitably, this means focusing on Prince Nayef--the leading figure most infected with Wahhabi hatred of the West, according to Saudi dissidents, and the minister responsible for the terror-funding charities, to which he has contributed generously. Following full disclosure, we must insist that the Saudi regime turn off the tap on money flowing to the Wahhabi religious bureaucracy and maze of state-affiliated organizations--especially their international operations--and thus separate the government of Saudi Arabia from its extremist ideological legacy. We'll know we're on the right track if Saudi Arabia's withdrawal from global troublemaking leads to an opening up of Saudi society, not to a final hunkering down behind closed doors.Posted by dan at August 10, 2003 10:58 PM