Bin Laden’s Insight
09.10.07 - 03:28pm
One may think it strange that a greater insight into the nature and effects of the War on Terror is available from one paragraph contained in a proclamation by a terrorist leader apparently hiding in a cave in Pakistan than from the daily speeches of the so-called Leader of the Free World.
While George Bush continues to trumpet the deserts of Iraq as an essential battleground in an apocalyptic battle against evil forces threatening the western way of life, his apparent sworn enemy bin Laden gives it to us straight.
In his new video, released just days before the sixth anniversary of the terrorist atrocities of 9/11, the Al Qaeda leader points out that since that fateful day in 2001:
“Many of America’s policies have come under the influence of the Mujahideen, and that is by the grace of Allah, the Most High. And as a result, the people discovered the truth about it, its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically, even if our interests overlap with the interests of the major corporations and also with those of the neoconservatives, despite the differing intentions.”
While the slightly unusual last line is no doubt referring to the symbiotic nature of the relationship between bin Laden’s comrades and the most outspoken leaders of the War on Terror, the first part of the paragraph is of more significance.
He could hardly state it any more clearly. He’s not worried by the bold and aggressive reaction by the United States to the terrorist attacks of 2001, this is playing into his hands and those of his allies. America’s policies “have come under the influence of the Mujahideen”. He and his allies are pulling the strings.
He wants America to wage its War on Terror.
As it has done so its reputation across the world has worsened, its prestige has been broken, in pretty much every area of the world apart from so-called New Europe, as countless polls and surveys have demonstrated. As it pours ever more money into the sandpit of Iraq, America’s economy could be heading for a deep recession, with the world fretting over the global impact of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.
And yet even this astounding confluence of setbacks for the United States is, in actuality, far from being the greatest gain of the War on Terror for the loose band of extremists that is the mysterious Al Qaeda.
No, the real boon, one which is no doubt causing bin Laden to rub his hands together in a perverted glee, is that America’s (and Britain’s) war is creating the conditions for more and more and more terror.
That the War on Terror is the greatest of all recruitment tools for violent extremists has been pointed out by several commentators but let’s consider the situation in more detail.
It is pretty much a truism of any kind of “movement”, mass or otherwise, that at the centre are the true believers. This group, sometimes the founders, provides the intellectual expression of the movement, articulating its beliefs and motivations. In a group such as Al Qaeda these are the most malignant. Nothing but death, incarcaration or victory (whether by violence or eventual negotiation) is likely to stop these people. Just outside this you will find a hardcore of lieutenants who constitute the most radical and committed field commanders. Then, from this group outward there are hordes of foot soldiers, whose commitment to the cause comes in fine gradations and fluctuates depending on the influences which come to bear upon them from a number of different sources.
It is in the extent and commitment of this final group, the reserve of foot soldiers, that the War on Terror is having its greatest effect.
For any social, political and religious grouping you care to identify, in every nation on this planet, there are those who would not countenance certain life choices, certain actions, unless pushed into them by the most extraordinary circumstances. This effect has produced both the greatest acts of heroism and the most dreadful acts of villainy. But aside from such people, there are those, whether they are American or Saudi, Muslim, Christian or Jew, who are more prone to making a fateful move, those who are disaffected, desperate, angry, or those who are simply easily manipulated or influenced by charismatic figures offering a cause which provides a shape and direction to their life.
This last kind of person, of which there are far more than I think most of us would like to admit, are, in Muslim communities across the globe, albeit in far, far smaller numbers than is often portrayed, choosing to become, or drifting into, that reserve of foot soldiers willing to carry out the nefarious orders coming from the various centres of the diffuse terrorist entity called Al Qaeda.
And not only is the War on Terror providing a set of conditions which increases the likelihood of such moves into terrorism, once a person has made that move, the War on Terror is also likely to exacerbate the problem even further by pushing them towards the centre, a view already broadly articulated by Britain’s own Muslim community leaders.
I want to be very clear here. I have made the point before in other writings that I find it highly dubious that there could ever be a terrorist attack on civilians that had a sound moral justification, just as I stand, for moral reasons as well as practical ones, against the dreadful occupation of Iraq.
The point I am making in this article is not about justification. There can be no justification, for example, for the 7/7 attacks on ordinary people heading to work on the London transport network in 2005.
But if you do care about the lives of those people who died, and others like them, then it is simple irrationality to refuse to take into account facts that may help explain how they died and how we might make choices which could help prevent such terrible events in the future.
The War on Terror is creating the conditions whereby vulnerable, or in many cases downright despicable people, are going from relatively inconsequential life paths onto paths which lead to hate, murder and atrocity.
While we rightly damn and revile the likes of 7/7 bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan, and acknowledge that nobody bears the moral responsibility for his murders but he, we will never know how his life may have turned out without the War on Terror. And we can consider and care about this not for his sake but for the sake of those who died at his hand.
Osama bin Laden wants an apocalyptic clash of civilisations and we are giving it to him. In any confrontation the realisation that you are doing exactly what your enemy wants you to do gives you good reason to reconsider that course of action.
It is time to reconsider.
Postscript: With impeccable timing, I note with interest that, interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News this evening in Washington, CIA veteran Paul Pillar posed the question for himself: Are we generating more terrorists than we are killing or capturing? And answered it in the affirmative.
hmmm
America was attacked by extremists on 9/11 presumably because they disagreed with American foreign policies. This was before she invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.
What were America’s options following the 9/11 attacks? Turn the other cheek and wait for the next attack? Change their foreign policies and demonstrate a readiness to be bullied (whether right or wrong american foreign policy should be the result of the demographic process - if a President adopts a foreign policy the public disapproves of then they can vote him/her out of office at the next election).
You seem to be neglecting public opinion as an influencing factor.
“Osama bin Laden wants an apocalyptic clash of civilisations and we are giving it to him”
I disagree. We are witnessing a couple of high profile small wars, half a dozen such conflicts are underway somewhere in the world at any time and always have been. Apocalyptic is certainly the wrong word.
“America was attacked by extremists on 9/11 presumably because they disagreed with American foreign policies. This was before she invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.”
I would suggest that the situation is considerably more complicated than that but I do not see the sense in discussing that aspect since this article is specifically about present and future policy and the what we can expect the effects to be.
“What were America’s options following the 9/11 attacks? Turn the other cheek and wait for the next attack?”
That looks suspiciously like a straw man argument to me. I have not suggested ‘turning the other cheek’, nor would I. The question is not whether a nation takes action to arrest perpetrators and prevent future attacks but rather the manner it which goes about achieving those objectives.
“Change their foreign policies and demonstrate a readiness to be bullied”
Pursuing a destructive and disadvantageous policy in order to show that you cannot be ‘bullied’ has a strong likelihood of being literally irrational, in the sense that you are likely to be acting against your own interests.
“You seem to be neglecting public opinion as an influencing factor.”
Not at all. I think my view of the situation is a rational one and I am expressing it. If the public did or does support the policies in question then I believe that they were/are wrong to do so and would seek to persuade them to adopt a different view. On a practical level, I actually think it is naive to ignore the feedback relationship which exists between electorate and government in a western democracy. Governments do not simply disinterestedly assess the opinion of the electorate, they also seek to influence it and have powerful means of doing so.
“We are witnessing a couple of high profile small wars, half a dozen such conflicts are underway somewhere in the world at any time and always have been. Apocalyptic is certainly the wrong word.”
The article is about the nature of the War on Terror, of which these two “small wars” are a part.
Apocalyptic is not meant to refer to the global level of destruction currently being generated. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. It is supposed to describe the tone and framing of the conflict, which clearly does have an “us or them” structure, one which has been articulated by both the American political establishment and bin Laden and his cohorts and tellingly similar ways.
Unfortunately my lack of journalistic training leaves me ill-equipped to cross quills with you…but I’ll do my best.
Your article suggest that America is playing into bin Laden’s hands. To some extent that may be true but I think you’re giving bin Laden too much credit. One school of thought is that now the gloves are off America has the ability to get at it’s enemies far more effectively than they did before.
Is the war on terror recruiting more people to the banners of the forces of anti-Americanism? Don’t know. But I havn’t seen any 747s flying into American cities recently.
Most wars have an ‘us’ or ‘them’ element, always stressed by the political classes to stoke public opinion. If you’re looking for a conflict that better fits an apocolyptic tag try Darfur, you may even find a way to blame it all on America
“Your article suggest that America is playing into bin Laden’s hands. To some extent that may be true but I think you’re giving bin Laden too much credit.”
Actually I am pretty ambivalent about the extent and effectiveness of the pre-planning. However, even if it was not an initial aim, bin Laden’s subsequent proclamations indicate that he has recognised the realities of the situation.
“Is the war on terror recruiting more people to the banners of the forces of anti-Americanism? Don’t know. But I havn’t seen any 747s flying into American cities recently.”
Now that is a very interesting point because if we accept the numerous “foiled terrorist plots” such as the ricin plot, the liquid explosives on airlines, the US terrorist cells broken up, the airport bombing plot (and I have significant reservations about some of these) then this actually supports my argument. The reason is that if these are triumphs then they are triumphs of basic policing/intelligence work of a relatively standard kind. So while the War on Terror in its global militaristic form is generating more anger and more terror it is fairly normal law enforcement which is actually achieving something positive.
“If you’re looking for a conflict that better fits an apocolyptic tag try Darfur, you may even find a way to blame it all on America”
A cheap shot entirely unworthy of you, sir.
In actual fact that cheap shot and your e-mail got me thinking. The thing is that this article is quite specifically and openly *not* anti-American (if there is meaningful concept of such), the exact opposite in fact. My argument is specifically about what it is *in the interests of America* to do.
I mean my views on the ethical nature of the War on Terror are pretty well-known but I have specifically not included the effects on the many victims of the War on Terror in this article.