Jiddah attack

I haven't yet seen any informed speculation as to whether the attack on the American consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, is related to the recent "warning" tapes by Osama bin Laden (see also following post) and Ayman Zawahiri.

U.S. Consulate in Saudi Arabia Attacked by William Branigin Washington Post 12/06/04

Four locally hired consulate staffers and one contract security guard were killed in the attack, which also left four local employees injured, the official said. He said one American sustained minor "scrapes and bruises," apparently as the result of an evacuation of U.S. personnel.

It was not immediately clear who the attackers were, and there was confusion about the number of casualties.

Al-Qaida claims US consulate attack in Jedda by Faisal Bodi, Al-Jazeera 12/07/04

The Saudi wing of al-Qaida claimed responsibility for an attack on the US consulate in the Saudi city of Jedda in which at least eight people died on Monday.

"The squadron of the martyr Abu Anas al-Shami carried out the blessed Falluja attack by storming one of the bastions of the crusaders in the Arabian Peninsula and penetrated the American consulate in Jedda," al-Qaida Organisation in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement posted on the Ansar al-Sunna website.

The statement's authenticity could not be verified but the organisation has often used the same website to make announcements.

Bush in his public comments on the subject, at a press conference with the visiting interim Iraqi president Ghazi Yawar, made it an issue of The Terrorists as though the US were dealing with a single enemy in Iraq and in the Saudi Arabian attacks.  (The purported statement from Al Qaeda quoted by Al Jazeera also made a similarclaim.)

The attacks in Saudi Arabia remind us that the terrorists are still on the move. They're interested in affecting the will of free countries. They want us to leave Saudi Arabia. They want us to leave Iraq. They want us to grow timid and weary in the face of their willingness to kill randomly and kill innocent people. And that's why these elections in Iraq are very important.

You remember all the dire threats prior to the elections in Afghanistan. People said, if you vote in Afghanistan, you'll be killed. But the desire of people to vote overwhelmed the capacity of the terrorists. And this is the same message we're getting here in Iraq -- that people are willing to blow up people by the use of car bombs will do anything they can to stop democracy, and there is a reason why -- because a free society in Iraq will be a major defeat for the terrorists.

And I think that the capacity of these killers to stop an election would send a wrong signal to the world, and send a wrong signal to the Iraqi people, themselves. And the President has said that people want to vote, and I believe they ought to have a chance to vote. And we'll do everything we can, working with the Iraqis, to make the election sites as secure as possible. That's why the commanders on the ground have asked for additional troops -- to help with the election process. And I granted them that request, Mr. President. And our commanders, working with Ambassador Negroponte and the Iraqi security forces, believe they can do a lot to make these polling places secure. You can never guarantee a hundred percent security.

But Iraqi people have a chance to say to the world, we choose democracy over terrorism. And that's going to be defining moment in that country.

Actually, in the statement just quoted, Bush said next to nothing about the attack in Saudi Arabia. He immediately jumped the subject to Iraq and the elections there.

This German-language commentary, though it doesn't refer specifically to Bush's comments, suggests that seeing this as an extension of the Iraq War would be a mistake: Nährboden der Gewalt by Karl Grobe Frankfurter Rundschau 07.12.2004.

Das US-Generalkonsulat in Dschidda wird vonBewaffneten gestürmt; der Ölpreis zieht sofort ein wenig an. Die Bedeutung des Angriffs auf eine der bestbewachten Besatzungsmacht, sondern ein Gewaltakt in einem Staat, der immer noch als einer besten Freunde der USA angesehen wird.

[The US general consulate in Jiddah was stormed by armed men; the oil price immediately went up a bit.  The meaning of the attack on one of the best-guarded diplomatic installation in the Near East is thereby clear.  It certainly wasn’t an armed action against an occupying power, but rather a violent act in a state that is even now still looked upon as one of the best friends of the USA.]

Grobe goes on to discuss the conditions in Saudi Arabia which provide support for the Islamist and jidadist messages, including the very restricted participation in the political system and the corruption and decadence of the ruling royal family.  And he concludes:

Die routinemäßige Erklärung, natürlich stecke wieder Al Qaeda dahinter, erklärt gar nichts; weil sie sich nämlich der Erkenntnis entzieht, auf welchem Boden die gewalttätigen Gruppen gewachsen sind und in welchem Verhältnis sie zur allgemeinen Opposition stehen. Bleibt die Bush-Regierung bei der einfachen Verurteilung stehen und stellt sie ihre Nahostpolitik nicht auf eine völlig andere Grundlage, so riskiert sie nicht den Verlust des Zugangs zu den Ölquellen, sondern eine allgemeine Konfrontation, die nicht nur Nordamerika betrifft.

[The routine declaration that, of course, Al Qaeda was again behind it, explains nothing; because it draws back from the recognition of the ground whereupon the violent groups have grown and in what relationship that stand to the general opposition [within Saudi Arabia].  If the Bush government doesn’t get beyond simple condemnation and doesn’t put it’s Near Eastern policies on a completely different basis, it will risk not [just] the loss of access to the sources of oil, but a general confrontation that will affect not only North America.]

The coverage in the Munich Süddeutsche Zeitung also emphasized the significance of the fact that the latest attack struck a heavily-guarded American governmental installation in Saudi Arabia: Die Saat des Osama bin Laden geht auf von Wolfgang Koydl 06.12.2004.  Noting that a jihadist takeover in Saudi Arabia would be a very dangerous development for the United States, Koydl writes:

Der Angriff auf das amerikanische Konsulat in der saudischen Hafenstadt Dschidda hat solchen düsteren Visionen neue Nahrung gegeben. Denn es ist ein offenes Geheimnis, dass der Terror-Drahtzieher Osama bin Laden in seiner saudischen Heimat populärer ist als jeder andere Mann.

Freie Wahlen, das scheint sicher zu sein, würde Amerikas Nemesis aus dem Nahen Osten jedenfalls spielend gewinnen.

[The attack on the American consulate in the Saudi seaport city Jiddah has given new nourishment to such dark visions.  Because it is an open secret that the terror string-puller Osama bin Laden is more popular in his Saudi homeland than any other man.

Free elections, it appears to be certain, would won handily by America’s nemesis from the Near East.]

He goes on to describe the US-Saudi relationship and points out how it illustrates the risk the US faces in the Middle East in that any loosening of the authoritarian political structures that by all accounts are a major grievance that attracts people to Islamist parties and groups might also led to a rapid overturning of some governments and the coming to power of militantly anti-American regimes.  (Since Saudi Arabia already promotes anti-American sentiment to a significant extent, maybe we should say even more militantly anti-American.)