Wednesday, August 20, 2003

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (1)


Thoughts on the UN attack

There's a lot of blogosphere speculation about the "who?" and the "why?" of the bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad -- see Matthew Yglesias, David Adesnik, Glenn Reynolds, Juan Cole, and -- in a heartbreaking post -- Salam Pax.

As I've said before, such speculation often leads commentators to fit overly neat narratives into messy realities. However, this New York Times news analysis of the bombing, which has a paragraph that just startled me:

No one claimed responsibility for the attack. But it seems clear that any improvement in the standard of living of Iraqis is viewed by opponents of the occupation as a victory for the United States and its efforts to create a stable, democratic Iraq.

So the question is, what group is nihilistic enough to see victory in the mass immiseration of fellow Arabs and the destruction of international supportagencies?

While the B'aathists are contemptible, while in power they were always clever enough to play the United Nations off the U.S. and Great Britain. This attack has the feel of someone incapable of making such distinctions yet willing to hit soft targets. In other words, an Al Qaeda subsidiary. So, my money's on Ansar al-Islam.

UPDATE: William Dyer is less than pleased with the Times coverage of the bombing (link via InstaPundit).

posted by Dan on 08.20.03 at 11:22 AM




Comments:

I wish I remembered who said it -- but I heard the comment last night that there are a number of players who have no interest in a strong, integrated, democratic, "liberal" Iraq. Among them:


  • Saudi Arabia
  • Syria
  • Iran

to which I might add Turkey, Egypt and (stretching things a bit) Lybia and the Sudan.

The point is this: ask "who benefits"?

posted by: Charlie on 08.20.03 at 11:22 AM [permalink]



Glenn has a new link to Tim Blair, who is picking Al Qaeda - they don't like the UN because of East Timor, and the partition of Palestine in 1947.

I guess Ansar-al Islam counts.

posted by: Tom Maguire on 08.20.03 at 11:22 AM [permalink]



I tend to agree. The Ba'athist-related insurgency has shown little imagination or organization, and seems intent on making American troops paranoid and trigger-happy. Hitting the UN just doesn't seem like it fits anything they're trying to do, which when you get down to it is some fairly pragmatic old-time nationalism.

The UN as a target, though, fits a group with "vision", thus some kind of al-Qaeda offshoot. They have a wider goal of driving a wedge between Islam and the West. Making the UN wary and less involved has to serve those interests.

There are scenarios you can spin that fit the other side better: this implies that the American institutions in Baghdad are just as vulnerable; the UN is hated because of the sanctions (likely favorite of the Indymedia wing); the UN's presence is critical to US success. But it seems a stretch.

To al Qaeda, a UN "world government" is just as much apostasy as it is to certain bunker mentalities in the US. It's not Islam; it's dominated by the West, who are enemies of Islam; its global helpfulness is the naivete of those who believe Da'wa with Muslims is an "exchange of views". Its internationalism sucks the air out of the goal of restoration of the Caliphate, seducing away good Muslims.

It just seems more of a *sorta* benefitting scenario vs. a *positively* benefitting one.

posted by: Dan Hartung on 08.20.03 at 11:22 AM [permalink]



If the reports about the bomb components used are accurate - a cache of old shells, rockets, grenades etc - then these could only have come from a Saddam-era arms dump, which points to at least some Saddam loyalist involvement.

Arguably they could have been bought on the local black market, but that buying such a quantity of materiel would have been risky.

posted by: Martin Adamson on 08.20.03 at 11:22 AM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?





Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a untenured tenured perspective

Main home page
Main blog page
About Me
Search My Blog
Favorite Blogs
Book Recommendations
Books of the Month (Summer 2008)






Reviews of DanielDrezner.com:

"Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic

"Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan

"Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh

"One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com

"Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com

"Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni

"Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald

"Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers


Contact me at:
ddrezner@gmail.com
(But click here to read my e-mail policy)









Search the Site


Try advanced site search









Favorite Blogs

TNR's Open University
Jacob Levy
Glenn Reynolds
Andrew Sullivan
Mickey Kaus
Virginia Postrel
The Volokh Conspiracy
Josh Marshall
Crooked Timber
OxBlog
Real Clear Politics
Kevin Drum
Across the Aisle
Economist's Free Exchange
TNR's The Plank
NRO's The Corner
TAP's Tapped
America Abroad
Duck of Minerva
Opinio Juris
Brad DeLong

Jeff Jarvis
Mystery Pollster
Mark Kleiman
Meryl Yourish
Megan McArdle
Marginal Revolution
Michael Munger
Chris Lawrence
Matthew Yglesias
Hit and Run
Cold Spring Shops
Stephen Green
Outside the Beltway
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Laura McKenna (11D)
Elected Swineherd
Phil Carter
Joe Gandelman
Winds of Change
Andrew Samwick
Greg Mankiw
Dani Rodrik
Roger L. Simon
Tom Maguire
Greg Djerejian
The American Scene
Post Global
Democracy Arsenal




Recent articles online

"Foreign Policy Goes Glam."
The National Interest, November/December 2007

"Rise of the Hipster Statesmen."
Newsweek International, November 1, 2007

"The New New World Order."
Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007

"Mind the Gap."
The National Interest, January/February 2007

"The Grandest Strategy Of Them All."
Washington Post, December 17, 2006

U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair
Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006.

Complete online article archive




Blog Archives

June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002

Academia
Area studies
Book club
culture
economics
fence-sitting
from Blogger
globalization
homeland security
international relations
law
Mediasphere
My very important posts
New Republic
outsourcing
personal
politics
Sports
The blog paper
the blogosphere
thesis ideas
Trade and Development
U.S. foreign policy
website maintenance

See full archives listing




Recent Entries

Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton
It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you
So.... are the Clintons morons?
The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog
Monica Crowley's jet black pot
Al Qaeda is losing
Speaking of karma....
The blog post that writes itself
What made me laugh today
Where should Hillary go?




Site Credits