Nightspots in Bali softest and easiest target of terror

Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian News Service, London

For a month, while their political masters have been increasingly obsessed by Saddam Hussein, western intelligence agencies have warned of planned terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda or, more likely, other Islamist extremist groups with similar objectives and outlook.

They have warned in particular about the likelihood of attacks on such American and British targets as bases and embassies -- targets, in other words, which represent the governmental or military presence of major western countries in the Muslim world. Commercial targets, equally symbolic, were also in their sight.

The awful message of the bombing of the Bali nightclub is that Islamist extremists appear to have changed their tactics with horrific implications. Bali may be a Hindu region dominated by western tourists in the world's largest Muslim country, but the nightclub was the easiest and softest of targets.

U.S. officials early this year said that five suspected members of the al-Qaeda network had arrived in Indonesia from Yemen in July 2001 planning to blow up the American embassy in Jakarta. They said the men were allowed to get out of the country after they realized they had been discovered.

More recently, the U.S. had expressed concern about the failure of President Megawati Soekarnoputri's government -- caught between Washington, on whom Indonesia relies for aid, and opposition in the country to U.S. policy, including the war in Afghanistan -- to face up to the threat of Islamist extremism. The U.S. has contrasted the attitude of the Indonesian government with the Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore, which have taken a far more robust approach.

Western intelligence sources on Sunday pointed the finger of responsibility for the Bali attack on Jamaah Islamiyah, an extreme group whose leaders are said to have met Ayman al- Zawahiri, the 50-year-old Egyptian regarded as al-Qaeda's deputy leader, in Indonesia two years ago.

Whoever was responsible for the attack, al-Qaeda and its supporters have not been defeated. Just a week ago, a French oil tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen, not far away from the October 2000 attack on the American destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden.

Since Sept. 11 last year, Pakistani-based extremist groups have attacked a Christian church frequented by western diplomats, and a bus carrying French technicians working in Karachi's military port.

Intelligence sources have revealed a foiled plot this summer by al-Qaeda agents to bomb U.S. or British warships in the Straits of Gibraltar, and a possible attack on British military bases in Cyprus. And early this year, the Singapore authorities foiled an elaborate plot by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists to blow up western embassies, American warships, the offices of U.S. companies and a bus carrying American soldiers.

But while western intelligence agencies have been trying to track the movements of al-Qaeda sympathizers and warned of the certainty of further terrorists attacks, their governments have been preoccupied by quite another matter -- Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

Al-Qaeda -- a word which in Arabic can mean a base but also a model or principle -- has lost its base in Afghanistan; Osama bin Laden is either dead or in hiding, it doesn't matter. That has been the prevailing attitude in Washington, and also in many parts of the British government. The Taliban and al-Qaeda have been quashed in Afghanistan, now let's take on the next target, Iraq.

For security and intelligence agencies with their ear closer to the ground, it is not so simple. Al-Qaeda is not a traditional terrorist organization with a disciplined hierarchy like the IRA. It is used, misleadingly, as shorthand for any Islamist extremist group. It is more like a movement, almost amoeba-like, with varying degrees of support and contacts with other groups throughout much of the Muslim world, including Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Indonesia, and elsewhere in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. But not among Palestinians, a generally secular people; and certainly not in Baghdad, home of the most secular country in the Middle East, Israel included.

Short-sighted politicians in Washington, notably Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. defense secretary, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, are putting it about that there are links between al- Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They have been trying desperately to come up with evidence to prove it, a task which they have singularly failed to achieve. But in trying they have diverted the resources of their intelligence agencies, including the CIA, and, worse, they are trying to manipulate intelligence-gathering for political ends.

No one in any competent position in the British government believes there is any link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. They do not want this said publicly for fear, it seems, of upsetting the Bush administration. Bush, meanwhile, having dealt with Afghanistan, wants to get on with the task of toppling Saddam, claiming it is part of the war on terror.

To begin with, Afghanistan is not dealt with. It remains unstable. Asked the other day what the U.S. approach was to rebuilding nationhood and to the struggle for hearts and minds -- one of the key ingredients of the war against terror, according to British ministers, a senior British official replied: "The Americans are on another planet."

This frustration with the Bush administration is expressed publicly by former president Bill Clinton and his vice-president, Al Gore. Tony Blair and his ministers are now silent about the dangers of fighting a war on two fronts, against Saddam and against terrorism.

Yet before they were told by Bush, in his domestic political interest, that the time had come to concentrate on Saddam, British ministers made eminently sensible speeches about the need to confront terrorism inspired by Islamist extremism not only by good intelligence work but also by tackling the causes. Terrorism may never end, but at least there are ways to limit it other than throwing around one's military might.

It will now be even more difficult for Bush to justify an invasion and occupation of Iraq, which is only likely to encourage further recruits to the cause of Islamist extremism. Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, was right recently when he warned in a little-noticed speech of the twin dangers of terrorism and failing states. But these dangers were overlooked in Indonesia, as hundreds of innocent victims have now found to their cost.