I’ve been a little curious about this for some time. While the name “Osama bin Laden” was known to me pre-2000, it was as one of a large number of groups and people. Looking at the way Al Qaeda is structured, it seems to me that America/Bush has greatly multiplied the actual amount of involvement bin Laden had with 9/11. I mean, face it, terrorist organizations aren’t exactly known for keeping strict record sheets and all, and one radical may be part of multiple organizations, but it just seems to me that this plotting is going on by multiple people at a lower level being spurred on by rich and vocal supporters like bin Laden.
So, has bin Laden been blown out of proportion by the United States in its goal to look for an enemy to fight? It is disconcerting fighting shadowy organizations that live internationally and vanish almost overnight. So did we purposely paint bin Laden as a bigger target than he is/was? To have the feeling that there is a tangible enemy that can be killed or captured? To justify military action in the region he is suspected of being in?
And then to have the administration suddenly turn around and say, “nah, we didn’t want him anyway”? Does this support or contradict my question(s)?
I figure we just created a folk hero for radical terrorists.
I heard it said several times that the goofy looking Bin Laden was little more that a figurehead, and it was in fact the doctor, his second in command, and leader of the organization they merged with, who was the intellect behind Al Queda – when it existed. Which I don’t think it does anymore in any meaningful way. These days it’s a mirage or an idea and an ideologue; Islamism. I believe it has been a grave mistake to focus so much on Bin Laden. Islamism is the enemy. Al Queda was merely one of its vessels.
You need to see the program mentioned in this thread
One of the ideas in it was that there was no idea of a single functioning organisation called “Al Queda” – until American prosecutors (in the wake of the first attack on the WTC IIRC) went looking for something that would fit existing laws that had been drawn up to deal with crime organisations like the Mafia.
I loved the contrasting of an “expert” showing a graphic depicting Bin Laden’s huge multi-layered well equipped “Dr Evil” lair in the mountains of Afghanistan with the actual caves that were found,
One possibility is that “Islamism” (I’m okay with this as a shorthand for extremist political and terrorist activity committed in the name of Islam, though I’m sure we’ll hear that those terrorists “just happen to be Muslims,” or “aren’t real Muslims anyhow”), or even Islam, is the problem, but the U.S. government can’t (in today’s political climate) say so, so they pick one uniquely-evil super-baddy as a symbolic enemy; and hey, he happens to be Arab/Muslim, but it’s not like we’re singling out all religious or political Muslims, just the handful of madmen.
I suspect there’s some of this going on. It’s a problem, because when the “madman” is eliminated but the pathologies endemic to his social milieu (i.e., Arab tribalism and religious strife) aren’t, people are left dismayed and distrustful of government.
It’s funny – I think in the past governments have done the opposite – tarred a whole people for a pathology that was distinctly traceable to one madman, or a small group of people – such as Hitler or Tojo and their inner circles.
People need a good villain to get psyched up. Generic “evil madmen” work okay in the movies, less well in real life where you can’t leave after two hours. Diffuse “enemies” such as “global terrorism” or “international crime rings” don’t work very well even in the movies (think of all the lame post-Cold-War spy movies trying to get you all worked up about drug dealers or eco-terrorists instead of hulking Soviet goons). Unfortunately, if it wasn’t always, our polity has become a melodrama.
Osama was chosen as the leader, or ‘boogeyman’, of the radical Islamic movement mainly because he was successful in driving the USSR out of Afghanistan, and helped ousted the USSR’s puppet government there.
If he was successful in driving out one superpower, he must be, and has proven to be, very dangerous against the other superpower. Therefore, his status as public enemy number one was not ‘blown out of proportion’. He might be a figurehead to these groups that announce themselves to be subsidiaries to al-Qaeda, but he is a living inspiration for these groups to multiply and flourish.
My understanding was that Osama was the front man (due to his popular image as a wealthy Saudi who went to Afghanistan to help out against the Soviets) and financial arm of the loose coalition of terrorist groups we now call Al Queda. My guess is that he was probably privy to the strategic planning, and even had influence there, but that he wasn’t the mastermind…certainly not on the tactical side of actually planning operations out.
The program Captain B mentioned, BBC’s “the Power of Nightmares” is a must-see for this issue, especially for those tired of overstatement and ad hominems in political documentaries. Look out for it on BBC America or the like.
It’s conclusions were that Binladen was, if anything, merely the Quartermaster for a handful (possibly less than fifty) of foreign terrorists who had independently conceived of different plans, who would go to him only for funding. The name “Al Qaeda” was never used by anyone before January 2001, when a supposed informer was prompted by the FBI to testify that Binladen headed an enormous, global organisation.
Al Qaeda barely even existed then, and it certainly doesn’t any more. Jemaah Islamiah, the group responsible for the Bali Bomb, had no link with Al Qaeda. The Madrid bomb was planted by a group called Islamic Combatants of Morocco (GICM), who exchanged drugs for mining explosives. Again, these are hardly the actions of a global terrorist organisation.
These groups are isolated handfuls of psychopaths. Only one of them, somewhere in the world, needs to put some cheap explosives in a public place once a year and the Al Qaeda illusion is complete.
The CIA and the Military have always portrayed any threat as much bigger than it actually was. They always got a load of money because of that. So why should AQ and terrorism be any different ? Politically why elect Bush if terrorism ain’t nothing much ? So the threat most certainly has been inflated.
Osama as a figurehead ? Its possible… he can’t be involved in everything AQ does. He certainly has the credentials of a fighter and symbol of Islam. Anyway having to much central control is the best way to kill AQ. If little information is spread… then the smaller the chances of US surveillance picking something useful up. (if they have time to translate it…)
As for Al Qaeda it has been dispersed… but its know how and funding systems have simply become a franchise. McDonalds of terrorism. Small groups of outraged muslims can now not only use the “AQ logo” but probably get some technical and moral support from those dispersed members of AQ. Marketing for the cause is provided by Bush and Co.
Even if bin Laden is a figurehead, many look up to him and will follow his word. Since he has the financial means to make such dastardly deeds reality, he is an enemy worth destroying. If we cut down the big-wigs, figureheads or not, we’ll leave them (Al-Quaid, etc.) greatly weakened. Along with this, it’s not we’re just hunting bin Laden. We’ve gotten many in the high-ranks of Al-Quaida. - Jinx
Saw that - it was excellent. it’s important people realise that the programme is not arguing there is no Islamic terrorist threat. On the contrary - it says it is a real, continuing and growing threat.
The trouble is that both sides have reason to foster the Al-Q ‘James Bond’ octopus tentacles view of Al Q when the real threat is the actual ‘idea’ of Islamic Jihad and the receptive audience it finds across all the Arab street.
We are fighting our own image of Al Q & not understanding or countering the real terrorist threat. Instead we, by invading Iraq, continuing to be one-sided over Palestinian self-determination etc etc etc, confirm the misperceptions fuelling Islamic fundamentalism and alienating potential friends.
Of course they want to fight it, since that wins elections. The question is whether they are interested in decreasing global instances of terrorism given that the number of attacks, which had gradually tailed off in the 1990’s and should surely have peaked in 2001, has vastly increased since 2001 such that 2003 was a 20 year peak, and 2004 will be even worse.
