|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
December 21, 2004Should We Care What Osama Wants?In Sunday's New York Times, there was an article, "Sizing Up the New Toned Down bin Laden", http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/weekinreview/19vann.html, that suggests the possibility that OBL has changed either his goals or at least his methods. Essentially, the article postuates that OBL has become frustrated by his inability to reach the American people and that the most recent tape evidences a different strategy; i.e., instead of portraying himself as a menacing figure, he is trying to reason with Americans and help them understand his aims. In this view, Osama has relatively limited goals,i.e., he is not seeking to destroy America or "take away our freedom", but is seeking changes in American Middle Eastern Policy. The vexing question emerged again last week with the release of an audiotape on which the Qaeda leader seems to be speaking. On it, he applauds the Dec. 6 attack against the United States Consulate in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and urges the toppling of the Saudi royal family. The tape indicated that Mr. bin Laden has apparently moved the fomenting of a revolution in his Saudi homeland toward the top of his lengthy and ambitious wish list, which also includes the reversal of American foreign policy in the Middle East, the retreat of the American military from the Arabian Peninsula and the creation of a Palestinian homeland. Mr. bin Laden has advocated these sea changes before. What intelligence officials and terrorism experts find particularly remarkable in his recent pronouncements is a shift in style from the raw anger and dark imagery of the post-9/11 days. They say he has subtly tempered his message, tone and even persona, presenting himself almost as an ambassador, as if he sees himself as an elder statesman for a borderless Muslim nation. Perhaps most striking is Mr. bin Laden's expression of frustration. Like any politician on the stump, Mr. bin Laden craves the ability to deliver an unfiltered message to his audience. Speaking directly to Americans in the pre-election address, he complained that his rationale for waging a holy war against the United States was repeatedly mischaracterized by President Bush and consequently misunderstood by most Americans. To change this, Mr. bin Laden is testing what he apparently believes are more mainstream themes, while trying to dislodge the entrenched American view of him as a terrorist hell-bent on destroying America and all it stands for. In the pre-election address, Mr. bin Laden said Mr. Bush was wrong to "claim that we hate freedom." He added: "If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike, for example, Sweden." What they cannot say is whether the less strident approach means that he has changed his goals and is less of a danger or that he is just laying the groundwork to justify a new attack against the United States. But they are listening closely and debating an important question: Is Mr. bin Laden committed to destroying America, or has he become more pragmatic, trying to begin a rational foreign policy debate about its presence in the Middle East and even appealing to Americans' pocketbooks? Mr. bin Laden's attempt to engage Americans is occurring while his message to drive the United States out of the Muslim world is resonating with those among the 1.2 billion Muslims who believe the Qaeda leader eloquently expresses their anger over the foreign policies of the United States and Israel. In recent years, he has emphasized the Palestinians' struggle. "His genius lies in identifying things that are easily visible and easily felt by most Muslims," Mr. Scheuer said. "He has found issues that are simple, and that Muslims see playing out on their televisions every day." But Mr. bin Laden also wants Americans and Europeans to heed his messages and urge their leaders to change their Middle East policies. This has not happened and probably will not happen. "He is tuned out by most Americans and Europeans, and it's begun to really annoy him," said a senior counterterrorism official based in Europe. In his pre-election address, Mr. bin Laden seemed irritated that interviews he gave to Western journalists in the 1990's went largely unheard by most Americans. He appeared to suggest that if American leaders had listened to his warnings that the United States must change its foreign policy in the Middle East or face the consequences, the Sept. 11 attacks could have been avoided. Analysts say Mr. bin Laden's repeated refrain is that Al Qaeda's strikes are retribution for American and Israeli killings of Muslim women and children. "Reciprocity is a very important principle in the Islamic way of the world," Mr. Scheuer said. "They judge how far they can go by how far their enemy has gone." What stood out in the pre-election message was Mr. bin Laden's bid to reinvent himself. He traded his battle fatigues, his AK-47 and a rough-terrain backdrop for a sensible sheik's garb, an anchor desk and a script without a single phrase portending a clash of civilizations. No longer was he reflecting on his own possible martyred death in the "eagle's belly" - the United States - as he did in 2002, nor did he threaten another spectacular attack against America. Jessica Stern, a Harvard professor who lectures on terrorism, said she was most surprised by Mr. bin Laden's detailed comments about the American economy. "It seemed as if he was trying to appeal to more moderate Muslims, who might have found his 1998 fatwa to kill all Americans morally repulsive," said Ms. Stern, the author of "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill." "His message on this tape is not nearly as offensive. He talks about Americans having a choice - it is up to us to decide whether we will support a foreign policy that he says is bad for our economy and bad for the Islamic world." Does Mr. bin Laden's more moderate style mean there is less risk of a terrorist strike on American soil? Intelligence analysts are unsure. More than one analyst discerned an ominous warning embedded in his milder pre-election address. "In Islamic jurisprudence, the warning is important," Mr. Bergen said. "And if we don't respond, it's our problem and our fault. He's putting the ball back in our court. Maybe this is all rhetorical and they don't have the ability to launch another big attack. But he intended to tell us that if we choose to completely ignore him, which is a very viable option for us, then we are going to get hit again." I have several reactions to this article. First, I believe it is true that OBL's attacks are motivated by specific goals, not by a desire to establish a caliphate in the United States or to undermine our democratic institutions. But that doesn't mean that other elements of Al Qaida or other Muslim militants don't have broader goals. I think it's a mistake to look at OBL as the sole face of Islamic militancy. In fact, you could look at his most recent tapes as ways of reaching out to the other stands of the movement that have moved beyond his control. But it seems unlikely that he is really seeking to undo the Muslim loss of the western world in the 13th century. He has relatively specific goals, in my view, that largely involve the Middle East. Second, even if his aims are limited, I think it makes no difference in terms of our policy toward OBL or Al Qaida. While OBL' s goals might not be as chiliastic as Bush and others suggest, that doesn't mean they are reasonable or things that we can simply accede to and have everyone live happily ever after. To the extent that he wants the US and the West in general to essentially withdraw from the Middle East, this is simply not a viable option. We have too many interests (yes, including oil) to return to a policy of isolationism (which, of course, never really existed). Moreover, even if all he wants is a caliphate over the Middle East, I don't see how it is in our interests to have a violent, misogynistic, racist theocracy presiding over a large part of the globe. Having limited goals is not the same thing as having reasonable goals. Plus, I am not inclined to accomodate someone whose political ideology includes having his acolytes commit mass murder and who is apparently willing to use nuclear weapons to accomplish his "goals." The only way to deal with Osama bin Laden is to kill him dead. Third, we need to stop the apocalyptic talk about how OBL wants to destroy us and "take away our freedom." We need a rational debate about whether and how our policies, including the occupation of Iraq, contribute to support for OBL in the Muslim world. I believe, as I have said before, that militant Islam is a danger both to the United States and, especially, to the spread of liberal ideas throughout the world. But overwrought rhetoric does not help to defeat it. By ignoring the fact that OBL is focused on the Middle East, not America, it retards our ability to see the world as it is. Bush's "axis of evil" phrase appeals to the quasi-religious sense of our righteousness. But it did nothing to help us understand the problems we face in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. All I'm saying is let's recognize the threat for what it is, but don't inflate it into something it is not. Posted by Marc W. Schneider at December 21, 2004 04:36 PMComments
OBL long ago forfeited any right or legitimate claim to act as a political representative of the Islamic middle east. The various peoples of the middle east may indeed have legitimate grievances against America for its past and present foreign policies. If these people want any sort of hearing for these grievances, they better find another voice. OBL wants to claim he was misunderstood? Too bad. He wrought forever our understanding of him when he murdered 3000 people on 9/11. We'll now understand him correctly as a murderer. I don't care about any of the rest of what he has to say. I don't care if he sings, dances, kisses my butt, and says my name. His re-invention will come only over my dead body and those of millions of other Americans. And he knows this. He's no dummy. Posted by: bk at December 21, 2004 04:52 PMWell said, I agree almost completely with you on this one MWS. Bin Laden killed 3000 non-combat citizens (not to mention the casualities from all the other attacks). He must be brought to justice, preferably through a court and executioner. However, the flip side, the conniving word wrangling that we've seen from American politicans since 9/11 is a prime example of why I really dislike the Bush Presidency. This administrationseems to prefer exaggerations, dogma and lies to honesty. There is no Hope or Help in blatent dishonesty. Posted by: Ratatosk at December 21, 2004 05:05 PMUnless it is a heat seeking missile where the sunlight doesn't reach, than the answer is "no," we should not care. Posted by: mathewpruitt@usa.net at December 21, 2004 05:27 PMBy his previous actions and messages, OBL opened the door to international war. To come and state 'just get out of Saudi' and we're even cannot close the other forces unleashed by his rhetoric. Just one quibble about the post: OBL wouldn’t be considered racist. His theme is Wahabi Islam and the rest are infidels. Nothing racist about that. Posted by: EG at December 21, 2004 06:29 PMEG, Well, I think his attitudes about Jews would be considered in some way to be racist, at least by Western standards. At the very least, he would be considered a religious bigot. Posted by: MWS at December 21, 2004 07:45 PMMWS, OBL may talk about Israel but we're all infidels in Wahabi terms. Jerusalem is a holy city like Medina. Jerusalem is under control by Jewish 'infidels'. According to wahabism, if Christians were in control of the city, the same words would be used. Posted by: EG at December 21, 2004 07:56 PMHe wrought forever our understanding of him when he murdered 3000 people on 9/11. We'll now understand him correctly as a murderer. Many Muslims believe we've been murdering them for years under the guise of "policy". Posted by: Scott at December 21, 2004 10:52 PMYou might be interested in my recent post Can you negotiate with al-Qaeda? Posted by: Dave Schuler at December 22, 2004 12:38 AMScott, Many people believe the earth is flat too, that doesn't make them right. Posted by: John at December 22, 2004 01:40 AMWell said, John. Scott, does that mean that we just say, ok, we're sorry Osama, we'll stop doing what we've been doing? I'm all for understanding the Muslim world, but doesn't it bother you that this guy thinks it'a a legitimate policy to fly airplanes into buildings? I'm very frustrated at the ethical relativism we are seeing reflected in the comments. Everyone that does horrible things think they are justified by something.Just what is this "policy" by which we murdered so many Muslims. You mean Kosovo where we killed Serbs to save Muslims? Is there anything that anyone could do that someone wouldn't justify by saying well, they think we are just as bad? Posted by: MWS at December 22, 2004 09:09 AM"Many Muslims believe we've been murdering them for years under the guise of "policy"." Even for those who believe that's true, that can't justify the murder of well over 4,00 civilians, in the U.S. and elsewhere, if you start tallying up the toll from all the attacks. I personally think Bin Laden is crazy -- and has a very limited view of the United States (didn't he ask one of those guys from upstate New York what were the chances of Muslims in the United States revolting? What an idiot) -- and is particularly despicable in his willingness to send *other* people to die for his beliefs (to the degree that I think he has beliefs, besides just hatred). I think this is about a crazy person who wants power, pure and simple. He wants to be noticed. He wants to be listened to. He wants to matter. And I don't have any interest in hearing what he (or any other murderous, crazy person) has to say. Posted by: kate at December 23, 2004 01:33 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|