I’ll Comment on OBL Expert, not OBL
I won’t go into conspiracy theories and questions of the legitimacy of Osama bin Laden’s death right now (they dumped him in the sea to avoid making a shrine, and Saudi Arabia didn’t want to take him – makes sense). I’ll accept that the circulated photo, allegedly peddled by Pakistan as well, is probably a fake, and the international media should be more skeptical (the U.S. didn’t release it or comment on it, mind you).
He’s dead, there are other targets to go in the war against Al Qaeda, Afghanistan is still unstable and full of major problems (as is Pakistan), more revenge attacks and reprisals will come from Tehrk-e-Taliban will happen, splinter cells and smaller, AQ-influenced networks will continue to work in isolation, and on it goes. AQ is down but not out (in fact, will get nastier in the short-term). Funding and central organization (between all international groups united by the ideology) are disrupted temporarily, but we are not automatically safer (I’m not, especially with all the unrelated problems in Karachi concerning the continually bloody fighting and infighting of ruling party MQM). But the symbolic value of the symbolic of his assassination is there.
I’d rather shift my attention to Afghanistan and OBL analyst, and former CIA chief, Michael Scheuer. This is a man, mind you, who believes that the U.S. requires another major terrorist incident (with nukes even) as a means to awaken the population to demand that the government protect them. And that we should have used the “full force” of our military (read: nukes and more ground troops) in subsequent wars around the world after WWII. And while I agree that the U.S. should get tougher with Israel and its internal policies (e.g. settlement expansion), as it is a huge funder of this state, he seems to go further and head into the “blame Israeli lobbies” territory for all of our foreign policy woes. I can only conclude that his worldview, while seemingly leftist at times in its critique of certain neoconservative policy, is really far right. Certainly, it is anti-humanitarian (except for extreme obliteration of other countries, he cautions military intervention to prevent genocides, and advocates letting the chips fall where they may in international events, even if it means an ally is attacked and asks for help).
But I’ll give the man credit where credit is due as well.
I think Scheuer is bullshitting us if he wants us to believe Bin Laden made a clear distinction between U.S. foreign policy and the nature of its domestic society. He wants us to believe that Al Qaeda is a “legitimate resistance” merely protecting the interests of Muslims and has no aim other than defensive jihad in their home countries (he is devout Salafist/Wahhabi, it’s true, but that’s not all of Islam or even most of it). Then again, this guy is unapologetic about his involvement in Operation Cyclone, so can we really trust his judgment? If he had his way, the U.S. would bomb the shit out of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, possibly with nukes, if another 9/11 happens.
Indeed, by validating Al Qaeda propaganda, it’s as if he’s saying, these earnest Muslims are really just trying to protect themselves and they have that right, as we really are out to rule them all, and force them to replace all of their traditions with our socio-economic system and way of life. But we should continue ruling the world like this any way, and totally destroy Muslims if they retaliate. If this is what the “sympathetic” American policy analyst thinks, no wonder you don’t trust America!
Never mind that Wahhabis fund radical madrassahs all over the Muslim world. Never mind that the ideology eventually envisions the total submission of the world to Allah (i.e. Islam being the dominate religion in all states, if states will even continue to exist in such a universal “utopia”). Never mind that radical Islamists are at war with non-Muslims all over the place, and don’t just target America or the West. Never mind that all non-Muslims and false Muslims (munafiq) are defined as the enemy (the former if they don’t humble themselves before the morally superior Muslims) by this “Muslim insurrection”.
Scheuer is right that AQ is strategic, is specific in its goals, and is deliberately trying to hurt America financially in order to weaken it. They can’t win without divide and conquer tactics, and judging by the nature of American political debate, it’s working. Rightwingers blame America for being threatened, either because they make a link between liberal rhetoric and AQ statements (which AQ does on purpose) saying that all critique of U.S. policy gives aid and comfort to the enemy, or even because biblical fundamentalists (who share this same set of deeply conservative values) think God is punishing us for having the abomination of homosexuality and other “sins” in America. And it’s no secret that the extreme left validates AQ, and even shows deference and respect for their “freedom fighting.”
America is weakened by this. No less than in Pakistan, it’s full of paranoia, divisiveness, conspiracy theorizing, the constant look out for fifth columns, etc. The Patriot Act, choking off of immigrants who can help the country, ploys to unthinking patriotism (i.e. it’s “un-American” to regulate banks and corporations, even when they destroy the economy, or to not keep spending billions on wars of choice, giveaways to Halliburton, because it “undermines the troops”) all of this is not helping America.
This, I suspect, is why Obama has been so obsessed with uniting the country, bi-partisanship, transcending identity politics, convincing the public that government should work for people, etc. but has failed in that regard. This couldn’t be any more different than how the country pulled together under F.D.R. Americans voluntarily underwent temporary personal sacrifices that eventually paid off, lifting the country out of depression, creating social safety nets, defeating the Nazis, and enacting the Marshal Plan. The solidarity now is hallow in comparison – shrill, token, and often uniformed (and often xenophobic and jingoistic).
And, to his credit, OBL asked a valid question – why are we not attacking Sweden? Because Sweden is not the world’s police and hasn’t done anything to Muslim countries, as America has, is the obvious answer. If it had, you’d heard something along the lines of “this nation is not secular, they’re still involved in the Crusades”.
But let’s not forget that Muslim countries basically tried to pressurize Denmark because, instead of following Islamic legal norms, they would not censure a newspaper in their country that allowed offensive speech (never mind how offensive the Muslim media is to Jews and others). That made Denmark culturally “at war” with Muslims. If a highly liberal northern European nation like that had America’s power and influence in the world, you can bet that they would be attacked by AQ as well.
But here’s another good question – why isn’t the U.S. at war with every oil rich country? Because most of them trade openly with the U.S., and it makes no sense for America to occupy their lands. When U.S. ships were abducted by the Barbary pirates, it wasn’t because Americans had troops in Muslim lands back then, or because of bad relations with Muslim countries (in fact, Morocco was one of the first states to openly acknowledge the new country’s existence). The pirates made it very clear to U.S. diplomats that they were non-Muslims (now without British protection) and thus, as non-believers, were fair game for pillaging, holding for ransom, killing or enslaving. Self-interest on the part of those Muslims, yes, but certainly not the rational kind envisioned by Adam Smith. The U.S. did not respond with disproportionate force, did not occupy Muslim countries, and went back to trading on the high seas once the hostages were freed.
What we face now is no less than modern Barbary pirates, but with a fundamentalist core that is, at its heart, a reaction to the conditions of the modern world. Iraq was a serious blunder, unnecessary, and wasted American blood and treasure, not to mention the lives of a people suffering a decade of harsh sanctions and dictatorship. And it was a gift for Islamist propagandists. But limited use of force against select “pirates”, if you will, is totally justified. As is the desire for trade, aid, and cooperation on security issues with Muslim countries.
I’d like to lobby for a new sort of Marshal Plan for Muslim countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. But getting the American people onboard is tough enough – they are rightfully demanding that their money be spend more wisely and ethically, as am I – but it simply won’t go through if the people of those countries reject it, because they reject the U.S. as a whole. And to me, that’s a lose-lose.
