Ur bin Legend
I may be repulsed at the deeds orchestrated by Osama bin Laden
...
But I'm even more repulsed at the ineptitude displayed in the
attempts to stop him and his cause.
I mean, the guy's a murderous criminal. He's an anti-Muslim, as
any credible scholar of the Koran would attest. He's been
disowned by his family and disavowed by the country of his birth.
So, why is it so hard to dislodge him as a hero to a significant
portion of the Muslim world?
The answer, frankly, is in the policies of those to whom his
attacks are directed. The USA and its allies have transformed
the perception of Osama bin Laden into that of a modern-day
Robin Hood, a rich guy who is a champion of the poor by virtue
of his acts against the capitalist infidels who invade their
lands and impose a foreign culture upon them. As far as I'm
concerned, it takes a band of idiots to offer democracy to a
country and not be able to make it palatable, but to date, the
Western powers are 0-for-2 in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their
mishandling of bin Laden's image is a major reason why.
It seems clear that, until they can defeat Osama bin Laden and
his band of thieves, they'll fight an uphill battle. It seems
just as clear that this task shouldn't even have been part of
the equation. After all, al-Qaeda wasn't the Taliban --- the
actual rulers of Afghanistan at the time --- and it certainly
had little or nothing to do with Iraq.
However, every enemy needs a poster boy, and bin Laden was
certainly well-positioned to provide one. He was only an uneasy
ally with the Taliban and just a distant acquaintance with
Saddam Hussain's iron-fisted machine. However, he fit the
stereotype of an extreme, culpable Muslim terrorist who stood
for all that was evil in the region. That put him in perfect
position to be publicized by the Western world's leaders, which
in the process, proved the age-old bromide to downtrodden and/or
displaced Muslims that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I highly recommend the recently published book by Peter Bergen,
'The Osama bin Laden I Know: an Oral History of al-Qaeda's
Leader.' To defeat an adversary, one must first understand him.
This book does an excellent job of not only providing a series
of first-hand accounts which illuminate bin Laden's origins and
background, but even more importantly, confirming that the
publicity heaped upon him by the USA and its allies has only
served to solidify bin Laden's legend among his followers and
others who are susceptible to his twisted message.
Bergen argues that al-Qaeda was close to becoming an
afterthought in the Muslim world prior to the invasion of Iraq.
The majority of Muslims were appalled by the wanton murder of
innocents on 11 Sep 2001. The al-Qaeda movement was virtually
crushed during the American retaliation in Afghanistan, which
was really directed against the Taliban government for harboring
bin Laden. It could be effectively argued that the al-Qaeda
cause had been minimalized to that of an outrageous bunch of
anarchists hiding behind a great religion's doctrine.
And then, the Americans tied al-Qaeda to Iraq to further justify
their invasion.
My guess is that bin Laden couldn't believe his good fortune. He
had no standing in that country until that time. Now, his money
and his message sound quite appealing to devout young Iraqi men
who have few alternatives in a devastated land that will need
years to stablize. The irony is that these are people who like
the American way; they just happen to like it on their terms
rather than have it thrust upon them in a context of imposition
which leaves them little choice but to obey or rebel.
And therein lies the ultimate irony. At no time has bin Laden or
al-Qaeda actually stated their way. We know what they're
against, but never raised the question as to what they are for.
The concept of 'a fundamentalist Muslim state' is too broad.
After all, Iran claims that objective, and they're hardly close
friends with al-Qaeda.
Sir Winston Churchill once said, "It's better to remain silent
and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." I can
think of no better policy shift in the battle against al-Qaeda
than that. Rather than continue to personify a criminal element,
why not begin a campaign to goad bin Laden into listing
specifics as to how he would run a perfect world. My guess is
that his responses would alienate enough of the Muslim community
to the point of his becoming trivialized, and in the process,
exposed for the villain he is.
Why are we not demanding to hear his words and then throwing
them back in his face? Why are Western leaders trying to
associate his name with every Muslim-based transgressor --- eg-
the Taliban and Saddam --- with whom they have an issue? Could
it be their laziness in spin-mongering or simply their cynical
attitude that the Western populace cannot discern the reality of
these matters for themselves?
Never-ending cycles of attack and imposition haven't worked yet
for the Israelis and Palestinians. Did the Americans and their
allies really think it would work elsewhere in that region?
It's unconscionable that Western leaders have turned bin Laden
into a legend for the mere fact that it's convenient to put a
face to an adversary. Make no mistake, this was their doing. To
this day, you've never seen a Muslim authority --- not even the
Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan --- ascribe any heroic
faith-defending status to him. Bergen's book underscores the
reality that Osama bin Laden is nothing more than a soldier of
fortune.
It's time for the world to see the difference between a real
legend and an urban legend. Bergen's book is further proof that
Osama bin Laden is the latter.