A few lessons might be learned from the recent bombings of westerners in Saudi Arabia. Two groups are likely to be affected by the fallout from the bombs. First, the Saudi government and second, the Bush administration.

The US seems to be criticizing, in politely worded statements, the Saudis for their foot-dragging on fighting terrorists in their kingdom. Today, we heard from Condoleeza Rice. American newspapers across the US have run stories today about the failure of the Saudis to heed requests for more security at the bombed sites. We will be hearing louder and more strident demands on the Saudis from US conservatives who have been critical of the Saudis in the past. Their gripe has been that the Saudis have done little to help the investigation of the 9/11 attacks, the bombing of the Khobar towers, and the USS Cole. Many accuse the Saudis of harboring al Qaeda and Taliban.

The connection between the Saudis and the Wahhabi movement, a movement of Islamic fundamentalism on the Arabian Peninsula, goes back to the founding of the Saudi monarchy. There is a tacit agreement upon which the Saudi monarchy rests. That is, the Wahhabi clerics will give legitimacy to the House of Saud as rulers of the Arabian peninsula and the Saudis will protect and support Wahhabi causes. It seemed like an innocuous agreement until recently. The Saudis have been supporting a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the world. Sausi support is funded by oil money. The Saudis have built mosques and schools (madrasas) throughout the Islamic world and in the United States and western Europe as well. But this largess does not come without strings. These mosques and schools are staffed by Wahhabi clerics of the type one associates with Saudi fundamentalism. It is out of the radical wing of Islamic fundamentalism that al Qaeda and the Taliban were created during the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation. The US supported the Saudi funding of these organizations in the 1980's because they were fighting against communism. Our support has come back to bite us in the ass.

The other group that will probably be affected by the fallout from the bombing in Riyadh will be the Bush administration. The BBC has an article summarizing the response of American newspapers to the bombing. The Bush administration does not fare well. Many are accusing Bush of failing in the war against terror. Many argue that, while Bush was trumpeting his victory in Iraq as a victory against terrorism, the real terrorists were at work planning new strikes.

The Los Angeles Times seems most critical of the Bush adminstration, with criticism extending far beyond the Riyadh bombings. "Is President Bush's victory in Iraq coming undone like a cheap cowboy boot?" The "unraveling stitches" include failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, setbacks in reconstruction in Iraq, replacing the leaders of the reconstruction agency in Iraq, failure to pressure Israel to accept the Road Map for peace, accusations that the White House was involved in a cover-up of the events of 9/11, and the terror bombings in Riyadh. On that score, they wrote that, "the recent terror bombing in Saudi Arabia will only accelerate the decline of American influence there. The U.S. had already announced a withdrawal of troops from the kingdom; now, a similar exodus of American civilians is likely. So what will happen when Saudi Arabia, home to a quarter of the world's oil, as well as the spiritual capitals of Islam, is let adrift in the shifting sands of Islamopolitics?" Overall, it looks like a failed policy in the Middle East and against terrorism in general and Bush is getting the blame for it.

The generally conservative Wall Street Journal criticized the Saudis as well as successive US administrations. Of the Saudis, they wrote, "Thus far, the kingdom's ruling princes have found it more urgent to protect their own cushy status quo than to look too closely at what is preached in the country's mosques and religious schools." Of the American government, it had this to say, "Monday's murderous attacks provide an opportunity... for the US to signal that the status quo is unacceptably dangerous."

Liberal columnist Maureen Dowd writes in the New York Times that, "Buried in the rubble of Riyadh are some of the Bush administration's basic assumptions: that al-Qaeda was finished, that invading Iraq would bring regional stability and that a show of American superpower against Saddam would cow terrorists."

USA Today compares the intelligence failures of the Riyadh bombing to the intelligence failures of 9/11. "As was the case before 9/11, it had picked up hints of a coming attack but could not pinpoint when or where."

The Washington Post seems to believe that the Saudi government has received a wake-up call and that the bombing will cause them to take the war on terrorism much more seriously. Up to now, they have refused to admit that there is a problem in their kingdom. Many Saudis even refuse to admit that any of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Hopefully, it will be a wake-up call. As the Wall Street Journal wrote, the status quo is dangerous, for the Saudis, the Bush administration, and Americans all over the world.