Who are the Foreign Fighters dying in Iraq?
An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — Saudi Arabia.
Among the suicide bombers was Ahmed al-Ghamdi, a one-time medical student and son of a Saudi diplomat. In December 2004, he climbed into a truck in Mosul and blew himself up.
On an Internet video, another Saudi says goodbye to his mother, then drives an ambulance full of explosives into a building.
They are among more than 400 militants from 21 countries whose deaths were celebrated on Islamic Web sites over the last two years.
"By far the nationality that comes up over and over again is Saudi Arabia," says Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News terrorism expert.
The NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of foreign insurgents came from Saudi Arabia, 13 percent from Syria, 9 percent from North Africa and 3 percent from Europe.
Or are we at war with them already and we just won't declare it officially?
I have contradicting thoughts on the matter.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I've been thinking as you that this is an interesting way to wage proxy war without damaging a strategic area and ally.
second, on the other hand, the Saudi government speaks with forked tongue. I see the "official" information they put out and their university info and it bugs the hell out of me that seems like they are actually, at least ideologically, supporting the actions of this "deadly but vocal" minority.
That is why I ask the question. Who is waging proxy war with whom?
DaKruser...excellent point and actually fleshes out my previous thoughts.
ReplyDeleteIn essence, if the KSA royals lose power, it will be to hardline muslims. As much as their are liberals in KSA, they are the minority. There is a vast middle ground in the KSA of highly religious people with opposing ideas on freedom who could be swung either way by the vocal jihadist violent overthrow folks or stay in the middle and support the royalists in KSA. They are less likely to support any liberal movement in KSA and that is apparent by the types of laws and voting that takes place.
If jihadists come to power, it is a sure bet that oil out flow will be contingent on the relationships they build that would not include many western states. Or, that they would have a ready base of revenue from the oil in order to build or support even more jihadist/extremist take overs of the region.
I don't know if this is a little paranoid fear on my part, but I would say that, by engaging the salafi extremists from all over, we necessarily attrit them from their original locale thus giving the local governments some respite from take over by the extremists and give the liberals and little more time to build their ability.
I think, in wars such as this, it is safe to assume that there is more than one strategy at work or at least more than one possible positive (or negative) outcome.
So, yes, maybe this is the proxy war from hell where we are fighting any and all comers from the region. We are stronger and more capable than any of the others. If we win here, as one person points out, it is going to very difficult for the salafi to raise their war flag in other countries. They won't be trusted.
The single most formidable reason the war in Iraq is a proxy war is Saudi Arabia is the Land of the Two Holy Cities. We cannot attack KSA without incurring the wrath of every Muslim on the planet no matter what the individual Muslim may think of Clan Saud.
ReplyDeleteIt's not specifically Clan Saud with whom we are figuratively at war, but with the Wahabist religious tradition that hates everything not Wahab. To remain in power the Wahabis need everything not Wahab.
As long as KSA has the oil and we have the dollars there will be this weird symbiosis between predator and prey; neither can afford to destroy the other without unacceptable loses in blood and/or wealth. So a long war of attrition is taking place.