Thursday, August 25, 2005

Al Qaeda - Primary Enemy

Al Qaeda is a militant offshoot of the salafist school of supremacist Islam that is sponsored through wahhabist madrassas and immans. Invoking unstoppable "Perfect Storm" and incurable "Cancer" analogies overstates the invincibility of the Al Qaeda threat. And the notion that it is in alliance with our political foes on the left just like the old school Commies, tries to almost normalise it as a part of the everyday world . It is neither unstoppable or normal.

Al Qaeda grows as the militant subset of those schooled in salafism. Salafism is branch of Islam that bestows superiority on its believers over all others. It is a supremacist branch of Islam and requires strict adherance to a set of practices. Normally its followers are few as the rules of the sect make it difficult to follow and very difficult to make money in its practice. So in normal practice it would be a destitute religion.

Unfortunately one sect of salafism is wahhabism, this is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. Due to an abundance of oil the Sauds have no need to be nice to other people to make money, they can and do enforce the practice of wahhabist salafism. They also fund free schools in wahhabism worldwide and send out immans to preach wannabism worldwide. So there are many more salafists than ever before and with more salafists we get more militant salafists. And these militant salafists have money enough to mount an inetrnational campaign.

Al Qaeda is a root and branch affair - wahhabist root, salafist trunk and Al Qaeda branch. If the world ever wants to get rid of Al Qaeda all it needs to do is get rid of the Saudi wahhabist root and watch the tree wither and die.

Why do the Sauds spread this salafism?

Wahhabism as a religion teaches respect and comraderie (umma) between the wahhabist rulers and their wahhabist subjects. It extolls the virtue of correct wahhabist practice above all else and denigrates all other beliefs. The comradeship allows the Sauds to misrule Arabia as comrades of the people and the denigration makes it possible to direct rebellion against outsiders and not the regime. Al Qaeda when it operates in the Kingdom is not a classic rebellion, it does not target any of the princes or any of the vital oil infrastructure by which the princes rule - rather Al Qaeda attacks foreign workers.

The Sauds also benefit by Al Qaeda caused instability driving up the price of oil. (Hat Tip: wretchard & doug at Belmont Club.)

Why does the world let them?

The world does not, the House of Saud is protected by the USA and the UK alone. Probably for oil - as oil is very, very, very important. They can of course, openly justify protection for the Sauds by ties of honour and friendship dating back to the WW2 and the Cold War.

And there are other enemies.

This is my interpretation of the Al Qaeda phenomena. It was born out of a reply I posted in the Belmont Club .


At 27/8/05 2:08 AM , Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Yes, it is important to remember that we, here in the USA, provide Saudi Arabia with defense against foreign threats. Picking up from the UK left off, we protect Saudi Arabia from invasion.

What would happen if we stopped? What would happen if we declare Saudi Arabia the enemy and vowed not to come to its defense? It’s hard to know these things exactly for there are two main possibilities: 1. Saudi Arabia, being defenseless, is invaded. 2. Saudi Arabia seeks protection from others.

Who would invade Saudi Arabia? There are two oil-poor countries that I can think of: Egypt and Jordan. The Jordan royal family believes they are the rightful protectors of Mecca.

Who would protect Saudi Arabia? Perhaps France, Germany, Russia or China. France is my best bet. After losing Iraq they’d like influence.

What does it mean for us? A Jordanian take-over of Western Arabia brings a moderate influence to Islam and allows us to carve up the east into Kuwait-size states.

France, as a protector, brings them into the war on terror.

Oil? The economics of oil remains the same as long as Saudi Arabia produces.

At 27/8/05 10:49 AM , Blogger unaha-closp said...

USA can still protect Arabia and all that oil, just need to stop protecting the Sauds. Arabia has enough people in it that tolerate the Sauds at best that any take over would be internal.

At 28/8/05 7:46 PM , Anonymous B.Poster said...

I'm not sure that it is entirely true that the house of Saud is protected by the USA and the UK alone. Saudi Arabia has increased its economic and military alliance with China. I agree with the basic premise that the US and its allies will need to put more pressure on the House of Saud.

At 29/8/05 12:33 AM , Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I don't think reform of Saudi Arabia is possible. Strict Salafi Islam is what they believe and the people have never heard anything else.

I'd like to know more about China's involvement. China is one of the biggest consumers of oil but we don't hear much about their involvement.

At 29/8/05 10:03 AM , Blogger unaha-closp said...

China does not have a military alliance with Saudi, China merely sells industrial equipment and buys oil.

At 29/8/05 2:17 PM , Anonymous B.Poster said...


There may be some controversy on how strong the ties are between China and Saudi Arabia.

The following article at
provides some more information on this. This includes military hardware and is speculated nuclear technology. Other infomration I have come accross suggests that the Chinese may be helping Saudi Arabia develop the ability to make nuclear weapons. Again, how close this relationship is may be a matter of controversy but it seems it does exist. I think the US and its allies have not put enough pressure on the Sauds. If the US and its allies apply to much pressure at the wrong time to the Sauds, this may drive them into a closer alliance with China. This has the potential to be even more dangerous for the US and its allies than the current situation. The US and its allies should apply more pressure to the Sauds and the pressure needs to be applied, in an intellegent manner. Many thanks for the excellent posts. Please keep them coming!!

At 29/8/05 2:41 PM , Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

The article merely speculates that China will supply Saudi Arabia with nukes if we don't protect Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the fear of communist influence and the desire to secure Arab and Iranian oil for the West for strategic purposes led to the backing of many regimes that ultimately backfired in the long-run. We can’t allow ourselves to be blackmailed by any regime that says it will buy nukes from China if we don’t do what it wants.

It’s time to take our chances and cut our ties with Saudi Arabia including ending our defense relationship of that country.

At 29/8/05 4:41 PM , Blogger unaha-closp said...

Yes what Jason_Pappas said, but maybe instead of withdrawing completely it would be better to back another tribe against the Sauds or a few captains in the military or even a few democratic idealists in country.

At 30/8/05 5:09 AM , Anonymous B.Poster said...


I agree whole heartedly. The US grown dependent on foreign oil. This is becasue the domestic oil industry has been mismanagemanaged for decades. Both major political parties are to blame for this and unfortunately not enough has been done to date to rectify this situation. I would suggest we work to wean ourselves off of middle east oil entirely. With higher oil prices and the problems we are having with the Islamic Extremists now, it would be a good time to get started towards energy independence. Given all of this, we may finall get some political support for this. The politicians will respond to pressure, if it is applied.

Even in the best case scenario, I'm not sure we will be able to achieve energy independence overnight. It is time for us to start to work on this!!

At 31/8/05 8:42 AM , Anonymous Elmers Brother said...

The problem is getting companies to invest in finding alternative sources when it can be extremely expensive develop and may not work. I think we would do well to start to build some refineries (something we haven't done for 30 years) and to get use the latest technology to get the oil from places like Alaska, the California coast and the Gulf of Mexico. We just have to get past the environmentalist wackos.

At 31/8/05 10:41 AM , Blogger unaha-closp said...

Oil is readily avaialable from Canadian oil sands, Alaska and all those other places. The only problem is it costs more to produce than Gulf crude. Adding these new sources of supply will drive down the price of oil, the risk is that it will drive it down to a point where it is impossible to make money on the new source.

At 31/8/05 6:34 PM , Anonymous Elmers Brother said...

There is 30 years of oil in Alaska. Why not tap into these resources? The recent hurricane is a perfect example. It shut down some refineries...again if we had continued to build them and drill in our own back yard we would be less dependent on foreign oil.

At 31/8/05 9:34 PM , Blogger unaha-closp said...

One reason is it costs more to drill in Alaska. Making money out of Alaska will require a definite market for the crude and at the moment there is no shortage of cheaper supply. Building a new American refineries could increase the market for crude, increase demand. You are right need a new refinery or two.

At 3/9/05 3:06 AM , Blogger GNN Staff Writer said...

Thank you for your rational post. Your site is refreshing and informative.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home