The exigency of insurgence

Anyone who assumes that the suicide bombers in Iraq war are Iraqi "insurgents" should read this LA Times editorial:

Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are coming from Saudi Arabia. The rise in Saudi bombers stems from a split within the Saudi jihadist movement, according to some Al Qaeda experts. One faction wants to attack the Al Saud monarchy directly, while another contends that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq should be the prime target. Because Al Qaeda views Saudi Arabia as its primary source of money for global jihad, it has concentrated on striking in Iraq.

The hundreds of accounts of Saudi suicide bombers in Iraq featured on websites provide some information about the bombers and foreign fighters who are playing an ever larger role in the insurgency. An online magazine, named Jihadweb, published a "road to Iraq" guide that advised recruits traveling through Syria to "wear jeans" and "use a portable music player" so they would appear more Western.

Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on terrorism, concluded that of the 154 foreign fighters killed in Iraq over a six-month period, 61% were Saudis, with Syrians and Kuwaitis together accounting for another 25%. But the jihadist websites claim that 70% of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi nationals.

This is not new stuff, but somehow it never managed to sink in. (There's more of the same in the Washington Post, in an article titled "'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis," as well as in the Counterterrorism Blog.

So why is it that most Americans (and I include conservative war supporters) still think that the Iraqis are die-hards who won't stop blowing themselves up? It's not as if this is a mainstream media conspiracy, as the facts have been clearly reported.

Perhaps it's just the noise factor. A steady drip drip drip similar to the type InstaPunk describes here:

All that matters is that it is repeated with uniform constancy: drip, drip, drip. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. George W. Bush is no good. Change the headlines, seem to change the subject. Abu Ghraib. European disdain. Tom Delay. Katrina. Deficits. Valerie Plame. Gas prices. Karl Rove. Death in Iraq. Angry mothers. NSA wiretaps. Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, the lede is always the same.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

"Iraqi insurgents. Iraqi insurgents. Iraqi insurgents" has that same drip drip drip quality which just kinda gets inside your brain and stays there. Plus, "Iraqi insurgents" is not only more alliterative than "Saudi jihadist border crossers," it's easier to write!

Ironic, because if we assume a partisan goal of making Bush look bad, the fact that the suicide bombers are mostly from Saudi Arabia might be considered a better overall fit -- at least for those who think like Michael Moore.

I guess it's never a good idea to ascribe to malice what can best be explained by laziness. Especially in the fog of reporting war -- or whatever Iraq is supposed to be. (Napoleon said something like that.)

MORE: In the interest of fuller and better accuracy, maybe I should have called them "undocumented suicidal Saudi jihadist border crossers." (Sorry!)

AND MORE: I might be misunderestimating the importance of alliteration in this equation too. I'm not much of a war-blogger, but stop to consider how this war started. Thousands of Americans were killed by a group of 19 suicide bombers -- 15 of whom were Saudis. Forgive my sibilance (and I know that Saudi sycophants will dismiss my thought as the hissings of a snake), but might it not be argued that we are at war with suicidal Saudis?

Or, more properly (if I may add to the sibilance while avoiding the hurt feelings caused by overuse of the Wahhabi word) suicidal Saudi Salafists?

I realize that Saudi Arabia has done a good job of denying any involvement with this war, and I understand the difficulties their rulers face. Considering that it is not in the economic interests of either the United States or Saudi Arabia to be at war, might the best strategy be simply to wage war against the suicidal Saudi Salafists? Might the U.S. be doing exactly that but be unable to admit it?

If so, the Iraq strategy makes a lot of sense.

(But I thought Bush was dumb!)

I'd go even further, and argue that the U.S. should stay in Iraq until there aren't any more suicidal Saudi Salafists.

(Yeah, I admit it. I like the hissing sound . . .)



I can hope, can't I?

(Enough war blogging for today. It's too complicated!)

posted by Eric on 05.20.06 at 09:04 AM

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits