salimma's Journal: Bombing attacks and the war

There have been two bombings of note in the past few days; the attack on Russian government buildings in northern Chechnya, and the more recent bombing in Riyadh in anticipation of US Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit.

As a humanist and not being a journalist, I do not keep track of bombing attacks, and plot their frequencies against time - it is just a ghastly thing to do 'for fun' - so I could not make an assessment as to the relative frequency of symbolic, grand attacks before and after the recent campaign in Iraq.

Granted, the conflict in Chechnya has nothing to do directly with the USA - though US criticism of Russian actions there certainly is much toned down post-9/11. The Saudi attack is rather surprising though, coming after the announced closing down of US military bases there, removing one of Osama's purported grievances against America (the main other being the Israel-Palestinian conflict).

Given the spread of radical Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, it is certainly interesting to observe US foreign policy in the medium term as the fall-out of the war continues. If Iraq was meant as a warning for other 'state sponsors of terrorism' behave, Saudi Arabia is in a very uncomfortable position; a close US ally (though relations are a bit strained at the moment), its pro-Western (but very traditionalist) government under siege from its populace that due to the lack of any popular representation is turning increasingly into radical Islamism.

Democratising the Middle East would mean the end of Saudi Arabia as it is today, yet that would be the outcome consistent with claimed US policy. Maintaining the status quo, probably desirable in the short-term (stability of oil supply and all) would weaken the last remaining justification for war (bringing democracy to the region) as a hoax.

A way out would be to stop meddling in Middle Eastern internal politics and let events take its course. Without the US-Britain intervention against then-Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran, the 1979 Islamic Revolution might have never come to pass, and arguably even with the revolution Iran is today a far more democratic place than it is under the Shah. Current US policy that Iraq could have any form of government its people want as long as it is not an Islamic Republic carries a lot of risk, in that the USA would be seen as even more of a colonialist power than it is at the moment.

Again citing Iran as an example: in Iran a woman's vote carries half the weight of a male's vote. Note that until the Fourth Republic in France women could not even vote, and in some cantons of Switzerland this persisted until the late 80s. Perhaps if American administrations do not believe they are the most knowledgeable when it comes to governance, the world would be a peaceful place.

A random snippet from a political dabbler's mind.