Saudi insurgents are leading attacks against the British in Basra
Mary Madigan
Via the Telegraph*
Foreign terrorists, led by fighters from Saudi Arabia, are behind an upsurge in attacks against British troops in Basra, military sources said yesterday...The fact that Saudi 'fighters' are responsible for terrorist attacks in Iraq has been reported, by the Washington Post and by MSNBC...The Saudi influence on terrorism in Shia-dominated Basra has not been previously reported but has caused concern among military commanders because of their training, technology and finance.
Although the majority of Saudi Arabians are Sunni, the minority Shia have taken part in terrorist attacks.
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, admitted that a recent surge in violence was a cause of "major concern". Dozens of soldiers have been targeted by advanced "improvised explosive devices" (IED) that the Army has been unable to disable or jam.
Morale is also being affected by the continual danger, with older soldiers saying the apprehension is similar to that experienced on the streets of Northern Ireland in the 70s and early 80s.
"People are dying and morale is being affected by it," said an officer operating in Iraq.
"The perception is that attacks are becoming more lethal and better targeted and the delivery process is more effective. There is a definite sense that we are still making progress but because there is no real defence against IEDs people are feeling a bit glummer."
Commanders are concerned that Saudi and other foreign fighters are co-ordinating the attacks in a "consensual environment", in which the locals will not tell the military where roadside bombs have been planted. "The concern is that support for our presence is going down," a defence source said.
There is also a strong belief, particularly among the Americans, that Iran is continuing to ferry bombs to Baghdad via Basra.
According to MSNBC's report, Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, President of the Supreme Judicial Council (Chief Justice) with a rank of a minister, member of Council of Senior Clerics, (the highest religious body in the country) appointed by King Abdullah said last October:
"If someone knows that he is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is free to do so," ...Under the Saudi judicial system, Saleh Al Luhaidan's word is law.He warns Iraq is risky because "evil satellites and drone aircraft" watch the borders. But he says going is religiously permissible."
* Link thanks to Jihadwatch
Either way it's not acceptable and the Iraqi foreign minister and prime minister should both be objecting, and asking for our help in so objecting.
Curious though: do you think they have? He said this last October. Was there any response from the appropriate parties?
He was speaking as a member of the Saudi government. From the article:
"This statement shows the real face of the Saudi government," says Saudi dissident Ali Al-Ahmed of the Saudi Institute, based in Washington.
Al-Ahmed says that while Saudi officials — including Sheik Luhaidan — publicly oppose jihad in Iraq, privately some send a different message.
"He is telling Saudis it's OK to go to Iraq and kill Americans and Iraqis and they won’t be punished for doing that," says Al-Ahmed...
...Luhaidan confirmed those were his words, saying in Arabic, "Yes, this is my voice."
But the sheik said what he really meant was that it's not worth it for young Saudis to go to Iraq and that the Iraqis are capable of fighting on their own.
Since there have been so many Saudi insurgents in Iraq, either he's lying or they all simultaneously 'misinterpreted' his message.
Either way it's not acceptable and the Iraqi foreign minister and prime minister should both be objecting, and asking for our help in so objecting
The relationship between the Saudi government and the US government is extremely close. They are our "most important allies" in the Middle East, after all. Our government has sacrificed American interests in favor of Saudi interests.
If our government had to choose between Saudi interests and Iraqi interests, who would they choose? I'm sure the Iraqi government doesn't want to find out.
U.S. Congressmen, Senators, judges, and even cabinet officials sometimes say things that aren't supported by the government as a whole. I need to see more evidence that this was an official Saudi government official issuing an official Saudi government edict before I can take this as anything but one person who said something and then felt the need to backpedal when he was confronted on it.
He said this while talking in a mosque. The video doesn't show the circumstances of the occasion, i.e., whether he was preaching or speaking with a group.
What he said is obnoxious and is not Saudi policy. I think, and I'm sure Mary agrees, that he should be stripped of his job title. There are, perhaps, political reasons why he can't be fired summarily. For instance, because he represents a major group of hardliners who need to be keep in the equation in order to be changed.
If our government had to choose between Saudi interests and Iraqi interests, and both were equally egregious or justifiable, who do you think they would they choose?
He needs to keep the equation in order to be changed? What does that mean?
The hardline conservatives need to have a place in the discussion, even if they're wrong. Especially when they're wrong. They cannot be simply ignored, as if they and their opinions were worthless.
That why, while the gov't increases it acceptance of Sufis, opens dialogue with the Shi'a, or takes the religious police down a peg, they need to show the zealots that their voices are still important. That's why Al-Luhaidan isn't summarily fired.
Yes, it's politics. But it's necessary politics.