HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Saudi Bombing: A Calculated Act
With
a Political Message
by
William O. Beeman
May
19, 2003
President
Bush characterized the May 12 suicide bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as being
carried out by “killers whose only faith is hate.” In fact, the devastating
attack was a calculated, political act that was probably not orchestrated by al
Qaeda and not directed primarily against the United States.
A
thorough understanding of the incident -- a repeat of a similar attack that
took place in 1995 -- might help the United States to act in a responsible and
measured manner.
Both
the recent bombings and the 1995 attack were made against the same target. This
was the Vinnell Corp., a Fairfax, Va., company recently acquired by
Northrop-Grumman that trains the 80,000 member Saudi Arabian National Guard
under the supervision of the U.S. Army.
Why
Vinnell?
The
Vinnell operation represents everything that is wrong with the U.S.-Saudi
relationship in the eyes of anti-monarchist revolutionaries. The corporation,
which employs ex-military and CIA personnel, has close connections with a
series of U.S. administrations, including the current one. It has had a
contractual relationship to train the Saudi Arabian National Guard since 1975.
The corporation was instrumental in the American “Twin Pillars” strategy,
whereby both the Saudi Arabian regime and the Shah of Iran would serve as U.S.
surrogates in the Gulf region to protect American interests against the
possible incursion of the Soviet Union.
Even
before the first Gulf War, when the United States established a formal military
presence in Saudi Arabia, Vinnell was a “stealth” military presence in the
Kingdom. It was seen as a military colonizing force. The Saudi Arabian National
Guard, by extension, was seen as a de-facto American military force.
Additionally,
the Guard has the specific duty of protecting the Saudi Royal Family, which the
revolutionaries see as corrupt. Without the National Guard, the family would be
weakened, perhaps to the point of dissolution.
Thus,
since the Vinnell operation looks to revolutionaries like a body of United
States-sponsored mercenaries shoring up the National Guard, and by extension,
the royal family, striking the Vinnell operation is a logical strategy to
damage the Saudi regime.
There
is another reason for attacking Vinnell. The dissidents know that the United
States has agreed to withdraw the 5,000 troops stationed at the Saudi Arabian
Prince Sultan Air Force Base. However, the withdrawal would not cover the
Vinnell contract employees, who presumably will stay in Saudi Arabia and keep
propping up the regime. Since the revolutionaries want all Americans out of
Saudi Arabia, they are looking to the ouster of this group as well as the
troops based at the Prince Sultan base.
Furthermore,
the compound that was bombed was a relatively easy target. It was not as
heavily defended as an embassy or ministry.
This
is not the first attack involving Vinnell. In 1995, the terrorists attacked the
Saudi National Guard Headquarters, where the Guard was trained by Vinnell. The
bomb killed six people and injured many more. Among the dead were five U.S.
citizens, including two soldiers. Two Saudi opposition groups took
responsibility for the blast, the Tigers of the Gulf and the Islamic Movement
for Change. Both have previously criticized the ruling Saudi monarchy and U.S.
military presence.
The
facts of this earlier attack call into question the theory that the al Qaeda
operation was responsible for the May 12 bombing. Ali al-Ahmed, executive
director of the Washington-based Saudi Institute for Development and Studies,
said on the PBS NewsHour of May 13 that this was a “home-grown operation” that
borrowed ideas from al Qaeda but was not directed by Osama bin Laden.
Americans
have become used to thinking of al Qaeda as the primary terrorist opponent of
the United States. The Bush administration has encouraged a public view of al
Qaeda as a highly organized group with omnipotent, worldwide reach. This has
led to a general view that every group espousing violent political change is an
emanation of Osama bin Laden’s machinations. The view is inaccurate. Insofar as
it has a structure at all, al Qaeda is a group of loosely affiliated cells,
many of which have no knowledge of the operations of the others.
Groups
opposed to the Saudi regime have been in continual existence for decades,
predating bin Laden’s activities. As soon as their leaders are arrested or
killed, they regroup and renew their attack. It is more likely that al Qaeda, a
relatively new organization, sprung from these earlier groups, rather than the
other way around.
Currently
the United States is wedded to a bipolar, black-and-white view of the world. On
one side are the United States and its friends. On the other are the dark
forces of terrorism.
So
strong is this formulation, and so self-centered the American worldview, that
Washington no longer seems able to entertain the thought that there might be
revolutionary groups that have entirely local reasons for their actions. This
tragic attack might well have taken place if the United States had not had a presence
in Saudi Arabia. However, the existence of a quasi-military command force in
the form of the Vinnell Corp. virtually guaranteed that Americans would be
caught in the cross fire of what was arguably a local revolutionary action.
William O. Beeman teaches anthropology and is
director of Middle East Studies at Brown University. He has lived and conducted
research in the region for over 30 years. He is author of Language, Status
and Power in Iran, and two forthcoming books: Double Demons: Cultural
Impediments to U.S.-Iranian Understanding, and Iraq: State in Search of
a Nation. Email: William_beeman@brown.edu.
This article may be freely distributed for any non-commercial purpose. For commercial
use, please contact the writer or Pacific
News Service.