Battle Lines

Al-Qaeda or another of its ilk has drawn battle lines in Riyadh. By attacking civilian housing during a visit by Colin Powell to the Saudi capital, they've upped the stakes in this war. Their reasoning is sound if it's war they want. By attacking when Powell is in town, they make his visits more of a potential liability to other Muslim countries (virtually all of which are less equipped to stop terror than Saudi Arabia). They also clearly align Powell with the princes, since Powell is going to be with or right after them on Saudi (state-controlled) TV, by necessity, and this will further polarize Arab society, which is a goal of terrorists, who want to see revolutions occur in pro-Western, oil-rich states.

For the U.S.'s part this is not a strategic loss. This will reinforce the administration's rhetoric, helping them identify us with Saudi Arabia and Israel as cosufferers fighting a global war against unified terror. This is of course a fallacy, since the suicide bombings in Israel are entirely separate from the al-Qaeda type, but that can't be explained in a clear way to most Americans. It's also not clear to this American, at least, that us being more involved in the Middle East is a good thing. Unlike many who lambasted Bush's uninvolvement in the Palestinian-Israeli and other Middle Eastern conflicts for his first two years, I'm agnostic about it - it may have been for the best. I don't think, for instance, that Clinton's years of heavy meddling accomplished a whole lot. On the other hand, I'm glad to see the Road Map and the involvement of the Quartet, and if the U.S. is committed to bringing peace and a two-state solution, then I'm glad that Bush is involved. But that doesn't mean I'm glad he's involved in the rest of the region, for which he keeps hinting at having some master plan. And master plans for the Middle East scare me. (The people who come to mind are Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Muammar Qaddafi, Gamal Abdel Nasser).