Apparently there are 3rd tier American unis that can be … had for an understanding. Esp. if the right people arrange it.
Technical dissert, not softy. I can’t see a ME study major writing an analysis of KSA infrastructural development.
But polishing the English, that’s another role.
Slimy, the Gulf is the seat of slimy.
That is a scary article. With the resident experts agreeing with the overall gist, let me ask a few things. I am particularly interested in the support for Al-Qaeda in that country. The article seems to indicate two very different recruiting grounds:
(i) the unemployed but rich and restless youth, indoctrinated with Wahhabism/extremism.
(ii) those who hate the Royal family and its association with the US/West and are attracted by the anti-US rhetoric.
If those in (i) are the main receipients of “welfare” from the royal family, why would they find Al-Qaeda’s motives appealing?
With the middle-class imploding, who exactly are the people in (ii)? The article didn’t discuss any serious poverty issues that Saudi Arabia may be facing. But, I sure can understand how financial impotence can make Al-Qaeda’s recruitment easier.
IIRC, Mohd. Atta was poor, and had trouble finding a stable job before he became active in Al-Qaeda. I have also read here and there that most of the hijackers were from families which were financially OK or rich.
Lastly, who are the biggest financiers of Al-Qaeda? The article mentions instances of Saudi money going to the Taleban and some members linked to Al-Qaeda, but are they the biggest sponsors?
Any input will be appreciated.
AFAIK, yes.
They are hoping to stave off criticism that they’re not “religious” enough by subsidising Islamist extremists. Idiots.
Mohd. Atta is believed to be Egyptian. My mistake for insinuating otherwise. But, I would like to know if a growing sense of financial impotence is driving the Saudi youth to Al-Qaeda.
The article mentions liberal funding for bogus charities provided by one of Fahd’s sons. Of course, his motivations are to succeed King Fahd by currying favor with the extremists. There have also been allegations that the royal family “buys off” the extremist clerics by allowing them to preach and incite hatred as they like. I am stunned that the ruling family doesn’t realize that this will eventually bite their own beings (and if the recent terrorist attack is any indication, it already is turning out to be true).
But, is the royal family involved in directly and knowingly funding an international terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda? That seems like a very serious charge.
Well, maybe Collounsbury will drop in (I suspect he has better information and is certainly more of an Arabic scholar than I) but while we’re waiting I’ll take a stab at this.
The two different recruiting grounds aren’t really different. Most of the “unemployed youth” being recruited are far from rich. Many of them are in their 20s or older and still living with their parents as they can’t get a job, (nobody wants them, they have no skills) can’t get married, (no bride price) and don’t get enough money from their parents to lead the kind of life they see around them. This situation is obviously demoralizing.
In addition to this, they have been spoon-fed a religious education with a stiff dose of hatred and xenophobia mixed into it. Atop this is a general feeling that they are hated and despised, held in contempt, and that people are plotting against them. The CIA and Mossad are the favorite plotters, followed by a general “westerners.” This attitude is encouraged by the rulers to deflect criticism away from themselves and onto anyone else, anyone at all.
So, we have a young, single man with no job and no immediate prospects of a family who’s only success is in parroting religious teachings. He is being actively plotted against by Western and Jewish intelligence agencies, and the money his country receives from oil is being stolen in some mysterious manner by westerners, a belief his rulers reenforce. The guy has no control over his life. Even leaving his country wouldn’t help, there is little demand for Wahabi scholars elsewhere. Now, along comes an OBL type, successful in business, a warrior, someone to respect; promising a more equitable distribution of oil wealth, an Islamic holy land where all are taken care of. Basically, a paradise on earth. The young man has very little to lose at this point so he signs up.
As far as who are the largest sponsors of AQ, my guess would be Saudi Arabia but this is not something that is going to be proven. I do not believe that the royal family gives money directly to AQ, that would be suicidally stupid of them. I believe it is more the case that they give large quantities of money to Islamic charities which is then passed on to someone with a much more hard-line set of beliefs. The money may go through several sets of hands before it finally winds up with an arms dealer or paying rent on a safe-house. The royals may know or suspect where the money is going but it can’t be proven and that is the main thing.
In another post you asked:
**
The article mentions liberal funding for bogus charities provided by one of Fahd’s sons. Of course, his motivations are to succeed King Fahd by currying favor with the extremists. There have also been allegations that the royal family “buys off” the extremist clerics by allowing them to preach and incite hatred as they like. I am stunned that the ruling family doesn’t realize that this will eventually bite their own beings (and if the recent terrorist attack is any indication, it already is turning out to be true). **
So, why don’t the royals dumb the Wahabbi and pick a new sect? The royals can’t publicly disavow the Wahabi, they are stuck with them.
In my head, I equate the situation here to something I bumped into in Kentucky, part of the Bible belt. There, most of the counties are dry and have been since prohibition. It is legal to posess alcohol but not to manufacture or sell it. The laws are stupid and create a thriving black market. Everyone knows things would improve with more liberal laws but no politician has been willing to risk coming out in favor of repeal, the opposition would slaughter him at the polls for “coming out in favor of sin.”
Same thing here. The Wahabi claim to adhere the most closely to the strict word of the Quran and to disavow them would be perceived as rejecting some aspects of Islam, leading the country in a “less Islamic” or more Western direction. The Saudis have been taught since infancy that secular, Western states are more-or-less evil. Leading the country toward secularization would be tantamount to “coming out in favor of sin.”
So, the royals can’t publicly reject the Wahabi doctrines without cutting their own throats in the process. In fact, the royals have to encourage and promote these people. After all, they are spreading the “true” version of Islam and who could argue with that?.
This was long and not as well arranged as I would have liked but I hope it helps.
Regards.
Testy
Actually I can’t do much to add to Testy’s analysis. Seems more or less dead on with my understanding.
In the end, the Saud are in a Catch 22 and I don’t see what way out they have.
On al-Qaeda recruitment. These and similar orgs seem to get their activist core from the frustrated “lumpen-intelligentsia” as one analysis called them. Educated, perhaps from a modest "middle class family, frustrated aspirations… The truly impoverished lack many of the skills it takes to succeed at this, and are more in the role of demonstration fodder and the like.
Mind you, I want to stress terms like “middle class” in the Arab world context are deceptive. Don’t think US style middle class. Usually we’re refering to people whose buying power is fairly pitiful, but have white collar jobs or come from white collar families.
Structurally I find it a bit … distorting to refer to them as Middle Class as while technically accurate from a social pyramid point of view, it also seems to me to imply things to Westerners that are not sociologically the case in the Arab world.
How about improving the quality of education? How about reducing the gigantic welfare state? I can understand their motivations in “buying off” the extremist clerics but what do they have to lose by improving the quality of education and arming Saudi youth with the abilities to be competitive in oil and other businesses?
I can imagine how a burgeoning “middle-class” living off their parents and the state, while “equipping” themselves with a sloppy education creates a breeding ground for irrational hatred.
Thanks, Testy for taking the time. I know you recently experienced the brutal terrorist attacks and am glad you can find the time to contribute here.
Also interesting: don’t know if I posted this before, but I read one statistic saying 80% of mosques in America and the UK have wahabbi imams. This statistic from a (non-wahabbi) muslim. Will try to find again later.
Sure, but how? Easy to say, but how to pull off? Have to pull educ. out of the Wahhabite hard liners hands, which immediatley returns one to the political problem. And for all that, the returns on the change are well in the future. This ignores the fact, of course, that a society heavily indoctrinated does not easily do a volte-face
And what do the folks do then? Again, easy to say this, pulling it off w/o a revolution is quite another matter.
Power.
And sudden wrenching changes are grounds for exploding irrational hatreds.
The Saud have a deal with the devil. No easy or clear ways to unwind it.
In re the Wahhabite clerics issue in the West, I’ve seen this myself. The number is probably a just so number, insofar as how does one define a Wahhabite preacher/imam? But it is clearly w/ some basis as the Saud fund schools and the like and tend to try to push their POV. Even if it is not really successful (Wahhbism is too strict even for most run of the mill fundamentalists) it does tend to chill the air for the liberal.
Didn’t know where to post this, so I figured this was as good a place as any…word from my firm’s Government Affairs office is that the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh and the Consulates in Jeddah and Dhahran will close tomorrow, at least through the weekend and possibly longer, due to “imminent terrorist threats.” This info hasn’t been posted yet on the State Dept. or applicable Consulate/Embassy websites, or confirmed publicly to the best of my knowledge.
Never a dull moment in this line of work…oh well, at least none of my clients were scheduled to pay visits to any of those places in the near future. No word yet on what affected individuals are supposed to do, beyond remaining stuck in S.A. There’s nothing like being able to plan ahead, I tell you.
Well, your source was right. We got our usual Warden message this afternoon. They’ll be closed at least through Saturday. The tone of the message sounded a good deal more convincing than usual. I believe someone in there is convinced.
Multitudes of rumors flying about. Over the last two days Lucent has evac-ed all their Western staff on chartered flights.
As far as what we’re supposed to do; it boils down to “be careful.” The embassy sends these out on a regular basis, vary routes and times, suspect unexpected packages, the usual things. I would like the embassy to be a bit more proactive although when I think about it there is very little they can do.
Thanks and all the best.
Testy
Well, **Testy, ** good luck, and hang in there. Our Gov’t. Affairs people are pretty reliable and have some good contacts at State; in case you haven’t read my other posts, my firm does employment-based immigration law, so we have to stay up to speed on what consular offices are doing. You may not end up needing the consular staff to leave S.A., but our clients sure need them to enter the U.S., unless they can somehow convince a third country to process a visa for them, which is getting more and more difficult, especially if you’re from the “List of 26” countries whose nationals are subject to additional levels of security clearance before getting a visa.
Luckily, our office doesn’t deal with too many Saudis, or even other foreign nationals resident in S.A., but it’s sure been fun dealing with consulates in other Arab/Muslim countries, or with Consulates in non-Arab/Muslim countries who process visas for List of 26 nationals resident in their jurisdiction. I had some luck getting a German consulate to reconsider a ridiculous and hypocritical visa denial last year for an Iranian national who had lived in Germany since she was a child, but that sort of thing is getting less and less possible. I hate it, no matter how much I love a professional challenge. IMO blanket visa denial criteria like country of birth, barring additional intelligence info, make us no better morally than those who discriminate against Americans because they are American. And yet there is no official recourse for a visa denial other than behind-the-scenes diplomacy (i.e. begging).
I understand about getting into the US. A friend just went through an inquisition to get his Irish wife into the US. They’d been married for around 5-6 years and they still put her through her hell.
The INS needs to be restructured in a big way.
All the best.
Testy
Ah, I didn’t quite see the angle between improving education and having to confront the Wahhabite hard-liners.
But, the more I think about this, the only way to get out of this rut is to get away from Wahhabite extremism. Education improves, the youth are more competitive, feel empowered, get some purchasing power, terrorism will die out, and all of this can actually strengthen the royal family rule. I know it is easier said than done but the next ruler must come up with a way to weaken the Wahhabbite stranglehold over the young, and wean them away, all the while recognizing that it is ultimately in their benefit.
I can vizualise this as some sort of game where the right strategy has to be found. That negates the need for a revolution or a volte-face change in society. Any preliminary ideas?
Saudi legitimacy rests on maintaining Wahhabite teachings. The Ibn Saud rose to power on the backs of Wahhabism.
THe problem is, as noted above, the Ibn Saud do not have independent legitimacy, they’re interlopers w/o Sharifal support. Kicked out the Hashemites. They depend on the Wahhabi teachers for their support, and recall, for the past more or less century, the dominant doctrine in the Saudi area has been Wahhabi. They ARE the population.
Now, as in all things, there are those who go off the deep end and those who while tedious and wrong headed, are not entirely unreasonable.
It may be that the Saud could somehow ally themselves with someone, but among their problems, as testy has laid out, is that the Ibn Saud structure is corrupt internally. Reform also has to hit the family. How do they manage to simultaneous cultivate a more moderate set of Wahhabite ulema and also challenge entrenched privildeges and also the family.
No, none. The contradictions in the system are too many. It still has flex and I think will last another ten years, but I don’t see a way to actually reform it.
Well, they traditionally have had ( like the Hashemites in Jordan ) a certain regional level of support in the Nejd on a tribal basis. Remember they were chieftains/princes even before they converted to Wahhabism.
The Saudi National Guard, a sort of parallel army, traditionally is recruited from that ( at one time almost exclusively Bedouin ) group.
But it is probably true that at least some ( maybe much ) of this has been eaten away by the triple impact of of the entertwining of Wahhabism with that traditional bastion, half-assed modernity that has weakened tribal ties without either completely undermining nor adequately supplanting them, and the increasing ivory-tower isolation of the Royal family.
Othwerwise I agree with you completely.
<< It may be that the Saud could somehow ally themselves with someone, but among their problems, as testy has laid out, is that the Ibn Saud structure is corrupt internally. Reform also has to hit the family. >>
How about reform from the top? Crown Prince Abdullah is widely reported to be austere, and as per the Atlantic Monthly article, has called for democratic reforms and reining in the clergy.
True, true. I was focusing mostly on the idea of religious authority.
Excellent addition to my obs.
I would hazard the opinion given what I have heard in re issue re the Nat. Guard & recent events that we have the problem of weakened tribal ties w/o good substitutes.
As to Litosts suggestion in re reform from the top, well Catch 22 as noted prior. Family interests against it, tribal interests against it. You have a confluence of narrow interests gainst reform, but only diffuse support.
Think Tsarist Russia.