![]() |
|
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:
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 AMComments: 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:
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: |
Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a
Main home page 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 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 2008May 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 |