This isn’t really the opening post of a debate. But the topic seems far too serious for MPISM.
Today’s New York Times magazine has the best explanation I’ve ever read of the motivations and objectives of Al Qaeda. We’ve all heard a lot of noise over the last four years along the lines of “the hate our freedoms”, but this article digs deep into the movement’s historical origins, what it attempts to accomplish, and why it’s using the particular tactics it does to attack us. The truth is far more complicated and far more insidious.
In order to defeat your enemy, you first must know him.
I strongly recommend that everyone to read this article. It has profound implications for the future direction of the struggle against radical Islam.
It’s a good article, though it didn’t contain much that was knew. People have been rolling their eyes over the “they hate our freedoms” line almost since it was uttered. (Of course they probably do hate our crass materialistic culture, but so do many conservative religious leaders of all faiths. Hell, sometimes so do I.)
As far as it goes, though, I’m not sure what the implications are for counter-terror, or how agreeing with the article would affect a reasonable couter-terror strategy. The first Gulf war was a war of neccessity in response to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. The idea that Bin Laden and his followers could have evicted Saddam himself is ludicrous. The Saudi’s were wise to turn to the U.S. for aid, even though it did mean a long term U.S. military presence in the region. And we pretty much had to go in, whether or not this offended Bin Laden’s religious sensibilities.
Whether Bin Laden hates us because of our freedoms or our policies isn’t going to make much difference in the long run. The operations he and his followers carry out will be identical in either case. Understanding the mindset of Islamic terror is useful and interesting, but the terror will still be there to be fought. One does wish that we had competent leadership to fight it with. Ike, where are you when we need you?
Great article, although if you’d been reading analysis pieces for a few years already (especially in the New Yorker) it didn’t contain much new information. However, it also didn’t seem to offer any solutions to the problem.
Also it’s the only Magazine I vandalized by tearing off the front cover so I wouldn’t be flashing that bastard’s face on the subway as I read it. Not this morning in particular.
I read both of those articles, and heard the authors interviewed on the radio this morning. The most interesting assertion was that whenever one of Bin Laden’s “subordinates” is captured or killed, there’s always another one, or more, to replace them. They count on it. That’s one reason he calls it the “endless war.”
As to OP’s question: Neither Osama bin Laden, nor anyone else in Al Qaeda, has said they hate us because of our “freedom,” AFAIK. I think bin Laden made it clear that he was motivated by the presence of U.S. troops in holy places in Saudi Arabia. After invading Iraq, the U.S. decided it could pull out of Saudi Arabia (I’m not sure they’re all out right now), but then Iraq became a breeding ground for terrorism because of the occupation. As Danner pointed out, many if not most of those who are committing terrorist acts in the Middle East are not directly linked to Osama bin Laden, they just follow his lead in principle–the London bombings did not use particularly sophisticated techniques, and the bombers didn’t train in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
I remember reading an Islamic minister who said something like: “There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism. The people who commit those acts are not motivated by religion, but by political issues. We don’t call the IRA ‘Catholic Terrorists,’ do we?” (He had a point, but I’m sure that those who do bombings, if they had their way, would prefer religious states.)
Al Qaeda multipliy like rabbits…they can’t stand the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan. The article states that the leadership of these countries would not be able to exist as they are without the support of the US.
Does Al Qaeda really believe that the US and its allies in time will put their tails between their legs and stop supporting these regimes? I for one do not believe in the slightest that they will achieve that goal
They’re obviously not against authoritarianism itself, but it’s true that the terrorists we’re talking about don’t like the governments of any of the countries he mentioned. Some are too pro-West, some are too pro-Israel, some aren’t Muslim enough… I mean, you can’t please them in that sense.
It’s worth pointing out that some (all?) of the fears of an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia appears to have been doctored by the Bush (Sr.) Administration, as the Christian Science Monitor notes:
Was Saudi Arabia really being threatened by Iraq? Did Bush Sr. really have to station troops in the Holy Land? If not, does that mean that Al Qaeda – and the 9/11 attacks – could have been prevented had GWBush’s dad didn’t spook the Sauds with doctored evidence?
Yes, the “political” issue that they feel Western powers are encroaching on the Islamic fundamentalist way of life. We don’t call the IRA “Catholic Terrorists” but it is largely known that political differences between Catholics and Protestants is the root cause.
No, this is just a varient of “they hate us because of our freedoms”.
The political issue that has driven the rise of Al Qaeda is political repression. Most Arabs live under dictatorial regimes. The Western powers are hated not because of their religion, but for their role in propping up these regimes.
The opposition to these regimes has, unfortunately, coalesced around religious extremists. This puts the United States in a serious bind. While we might be sympathetic to seeing an Arab dictator replaced by a liberal, secular democratic opposition, its hard to have the same enthusaism for Al Qaeda’s theocrats. Iran may be more democratic now than it was under the Shah, but it’s people are not more free.
(We can draw parallels with what happened in the United States prior to the Civil War. Many of the Abolitionists were also religious fundamentalists. Some, like John Brown, resorted to violence. But it would be a mistake to view Abolitionism as a religious movement and not a political one.)
It’s a mistake to view this as a battle of ideologies. This was one of our major errors in Vietnam. We thought it was about Capitalism vs. Communism, but really it was about Nationalism and self-determination for the Vietnamese people.
So it sounds like the strategic goal of the US should be to encourage the spread of liberal democracy in the Middle East. Sounds like a great idea; such a shame nobody’s thought of it before.
Yes, actually it’s a fine idea. I almost gave props in my last post to the Bush administration for at least being right about what our goal should be. It’s a step up from “we don’t care what the Saudis do as long as the oil keeps flowing.”
Unfortunately the Iraq invasion isn’t spreading democracy. It’s destabilizing the region and paving the way for civil war, more terrorism, and chaos. The chief beneficiaries of our Iraq adventure will probably wind up being the mullahs of Iran … surely not what Bush intended. Good intentions are nice, but ultimately irrelevant if the overall plan is garbage.
Think about it: the governments of the middle-eat are ossified dictatorships. They aren’t going to break because we want them to, and they aren’t going to break just because people want democracy. People need a symbol, an act, something to rally behind, a ray of hope.
And that, in short, was the basic reason behind the entire Iraq war.
No. Even if Bush the first did in fact doctor evidence–and I don’t see why he would, the Saudis were plenty spooked already–the fact remains that Saddam did invade Kuwait, and we had to throw him out.
Yes. It’s not about making the world a big fundamentalist Muslim paradise. You can tell it is anger against dictatorial regimes propped up by the West based on the open, liberal, and democratic society created by Al Qaeda’s influence in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. From that, it’s clear they are not about repression and strict religious protocols, but all about avoiding political repression. Oh, if only the U.S. hadn’t been so involved in Afghanistan before 9/11, the Taliban and Al Qaeda could have really made it into the free and open secular society they’ve always wanted.
