What exactly IS al Qaeda, anyway???

[IrateCitizen]

There seem to be several posts up there on the board today talking about how we need to "deal" with al Qaeda, and lots of assumptions of what al Qaeda actually "is". Most that I have seen seem to present points of view in virtual alignment with Conventional Wisdom. However, in my usual spirit of being a contrarian when it comes to Conventional Wisdom, I have to say that I think that CW in this case is completely wrong, and dangerously so.

I recently read a book called After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd, a French historian and demographer who predicted the imminent fall of the USSR back in the mid 1970's, at a time in which CW was saying that the USSR was on the rise. Much of what the author discusses in relation to "terror" is applicable here.

It is my belief that al Qaeda is NOT the dangerous threat to world civilization that CW likes to make it out to be. Rather, al Qaeda is a movement that would be on the decline, were it not for its legitimization by the actions, statements and policies of the United States.

The Middle East is currently going through its own modernization process, akin in many ways to the process experienced by Western nations during the latter half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th. Looking at the bloody nature of this process in Europe, it is clear that we can say that such an evolution is not without its "hiccups". In the case of Europe, those "hiccups" were a series of wars, finalized with two that engulfed the entire continent, and killed millions. In the case of the Middle East, the "hiccups" are much more internal, with little strife between nation-states and most of the problems coming within the basic constructs of society itself.

Al Qaeda is a product of this process, and it is a force that looks to oppose this modernization. That the modernization is occurring is clear, if judged by social indicators. Literacy rates in the Middle East have increased significantly over the past few decades, while birth rates have declined, dramatically in some instances (Iran is currently only 2.1 children per family, same as the United States). It could also be said that, once this process starts, it cannot be stopped over time. However, it is a process that must occur from within, and cannot be imposed from without.

Al Qaeda, since it stands in the face of this modernization, is condemned to irrelevancy in the future. However, many of the actions of the United States throughout the Middle East, only help give al Qaeda legitimacy in the eyes of many Arabs and Muslims. This, in turn, allows al Qaeda (or other associated elements) to enlist support in actively OPPOSING the modernization process, because it can be actively tied to the interference of the United States (and therefore something that SHOULD be opposed in the eyes of the people).

Emmanuel Todd offers forth the example of the subjugation of women in Afghanistan. While many of the brutalities accepted as cultural norms in Afghanistan are deplorable, US interference may ultimately set back the plight of women in the country rather than move it forward. This is because the freedom of women can be associated with the violence inflicted by US forces, and therefore be tied in with the defense of their homeland by local warlords. Those warlords will be seen as defending Afghan "culture" in the face of assault by foreign invaders.

Personally, I think that al Qaeda is a bogeyman that is promoted in order to maintain the fear level necessary to pursue the perpetuation of a US global hegemony that no longer truly exists. While I certainly believe that it is an organization that needs to be dealt with through international law-enforcement and intelligence-sharing efforts, I do not view it as some ultimate threat to Western civilization. Absent the meddling of the United States in Middle Eastern affairs, I do not even view it as a large obstacle to the inevitable modernization of the Islamic world.

Thoughts or comments?

[Blue-Jay]

1. As near as I can figure,

They're a bunch of brown, funny-talkin' people who hate us.

You know, for our freedoms.

/sarcasm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Hi Chris

Gotta think about this one for a while and maybe revisit it, but wanted you to know I read it...my gut response it to agree with you but for the fact that they are well funded and as we saw with 9/11 are capable of waging terrorism on a much grander scale than the "acme" terrorist.

[AndyTiedye]

18. MIHOP?

> as we saw with 9/11 are capable of waging terrorism on a much grander
> scale than the "acme" terrorist.

Did AQ ever stop working for Bushco?

[parasim]

3. Found this article about "al-Qaeda"

I've been trying to find out the answer to that question myself and ran into this after Googling about:

-snip

Dolnik and McCloud - who first started studying terrorism at the prestigious Monterey Institute of International Studies in California - claim it was Western officials who imposed the name 'al-Qaeda' on to disparate radical Islamic groups and who blew Osama bin Laden's power and reach 'out of proportion'. Both are concerned about the threat of terror, but argue that we should 'debunk the myth of al-Qaeda'

-snip

So where did 'al-Qaeda' come from? Dolink says there are a number of theories - that the term was first used by bin Laden's spiritual mentor Abdullah Azzam, who wrote of al Qaeda al Sulbah, meaning the 'solid base', in 1988; or that it derives from a bin Laden-sponsored safehouse in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when he was part of the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet invasion, again referring to a physical 'base' rather than to a distinct organisation. But in terms of 'al-Qaeda' then being used to define a group of operatives around bin Laden - that, says Dolnik, originated in the West.

-snip

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1422


on edit:

disclaimer, i have no idea what that site that i linked is all about, and I've posted it before, i just know that it came when i was googling around trying find out more about al-qaeda. it's for discussion purposes only. (i don't normally link to sites that claim to be "the voice of the right"). :)

[freetobegay]

4. They seem to be a group of people that like to chop heads off of people!

Now before I get flamed for that response, you should also know That I have been very critical of the war in Iraq & what the U.S. is doing.

Sorry two wrongs don't make a right.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Where did I ever say that al Qaeda was in the "right"?

I never said that I excused their barbarism. What I said was that they are ultimately a movement that was blown completely out of proportion, and also whose standing has actually been ENHANCED by the actions of the United States over the years.

IOW, I'm looking for a bit of a deeper discussion on this issue. I'd be more than happy to consider any more substansive thoughts you might have beyond, "They're a group who likes to chop heads off of people."

[freetobegay]

10. This pretty much sums it up for me.

"I'd be more than happy to consider any more substansive thoughts you might have beyond, "They're a group who likes to chop heads off of people."

You don't need deeper discussion to see a psychopath for what it is, Just look at Bush. They are barbaric, thats all I need to know.

[Warpy]

5. From what I've found through picking the brains

of a lot of folks from the Middle East that I chat with, it's pretty much a bogeyman. Al Qaeda translates into "the base," and refers mostly to the training camps in Afghanistan, partly to the "base" offered by faith. Groups who were independent of one another were offered advanced training in mayhem at these camps, financed by Osama bin Laden. The groups remained autonomous after their training, although most are committed to the same thing, getting the "contamination" of westerners with their funny ideas and inferior religious views out of their homelands.

While group leaders may share their plans with their mentors, their mentors don't order them to do anything, nor does the planning come from the top, although the training and some of the rough ideas do.

What we're left with is a bunch of criminal organizatons throughout the world. Most will sit around coffee houses and plot without ever doing a thing. Some will be very dangerous.

Military intervention will only increase recruitment into these groups, something we've already seen in Iraq. What is needed is international cooperation and a great deal of intensive police work, two things the Bush gang are utterly incapable of doing.

There is probably nothing that will stop these groups completely, but we can slow them down. Getting rid of Bush and hoping the next AG is competent is only the first step.

[Purrfessor]

9. Actually, Al Qaeda translates into "Evildoers Who Hate Freedom"

n/t

[lanparty]

12. Financed by ...

SAUDI ARABIA!!!!! Oh, and the Bush's as well!!!!

[Mnemosyne]

16. and trained by... CIA

at least in the 80's

[jobycom]

15. That's largely the way Robert Young Pelton described them, too

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/04/23/pelton/

"The real war on terrorism
Robert Young Pelton, author of "The World's Most Dangerous Places," says the U.S. military has killed "thousands and thousands" of people in Afghanistan, al-Qaida is a myth and the WTC was brought down by a "Mickey Mouse" outfit."

[Loonman]

6. al Qaeda is a clearinghouse

As opposed to a centralized terror organization.

AQ provides safe houses, resources, logistics planning, and finances to any number of affiliated groups under their "umbrella".

Because of AQ's decentralized nature, it will be very hard to defeat them.

[lazarus]

14. yup

another way to look at is that al Qaeda is a franchise organisation.

[RickyRicardo]

7. A figment of your imagination

[lanparty]

11. Al Queda is like poison ivy.

The more you scratch at it, the worse it gets. If you scratch hard enough, it spreads to other areas.

Right now, Bush is scratching REALLY HARD. And he's scratching at Iran, N Korea and Syria.

The law enforcement angle was the best approach (save Afghanistan). It effectively dealt with Al Queda operatives without creating NEW ONES!!!!

[jobycom]

13. Well written.

To take it a bit further...

Al-Queida is a boogeyman to us, created by Bush's Reaganist belief that we will all unite together to fight a common enemy. This is what Reagan did for the Soviets, as you point out. In one of his more memorable half-speeches, he was claiming that if aliens invaded, the whole world would unite against them, and before Reagan was cut off because his debate time had run out, he seemed almost to be hoping aliens would invade to save us all.

That's what Bush believes-- that it takes an enemy to save us.

But to Islam, al-Queida is more complex. At first it was simply a well-funded renegade group of angry militants, mostly in Afganistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They were real, concrete, and mostly, small and disorganized. To most Muslims, they were thugs, though their complaints may have been legite.

9-11 took them pro, and stretched them beyond an actual group to an ideal, a movement. A ghost. They are now a complex phenomena, almost like America. In many ways, America as an ideal extends well beyond our borders, and survives as a positive image in spite of the occassional Reagans and Bushes who fight against the true ideals recognized as America. People need an America to give them hope against oppression, to prove that democracy can work and thrive.

In the same way, Al-Quieda extends beyond its membership. It is well on its way to becoming a genuine government-in-exile, with the prestige and funding it levies. But beyond that, it is an ideal of freedom to the victims of the physical America. The further away from the true American ideal our government gets, the more victims of America we have, and thus the stronger al-Quieda grows. People in Saudi Arabia who have been unable to rise out of a caste-style economy, blame America, with some justification. People in Iraq and Iran who have watched their nations sink from semi-prosperity to abject poverty blame America, with justification, for crushing their attempts at democracy, at self-governance, at the freedom to hold their own religion. Every time we create another widow, another orphan, another economic wasteland, al-Quieda gains new recreates.

Al-Quieda is our mirror. We can see how far we have wandered from the ideals of freedom and equality and justice by watching how strong al-Quieda grows. IF we were truly living up to our ideals in the Middle East, rather than just in our own country, then there would be no need for Al-Quieda, as you say.

In real terms, however, Al-Quieda will be our downfall if we keep up what we are doing. Bush believes he can conquer the Middle East, but that's only because right now the Middle East is a disjointed collection of bickering nations. Unite the Middle East, and they are a well-funded entity that controls our energy supply. They have the power to shut us down, and they know it. Now, with China gaining in wealth, and growing as an alternate market to us (which is part of why Bush wants to conquer the Middle East-- to control their oil so China doesn't drive prices higher), they no longer need us. We will find ourselves isolated against the world, struggling to maintain thrid-world status with the rest of our hemisphere, if we don't grow up soon.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Thanks for the props, joby -- you give a lot more to think about

I'll start with the ending to your post, because it provides the best talking point.

In real terms, however, Al-Quieda will be our downfall if we keep up what we are doing. Bush believes he can conquer the Middle East, but that's only because right now the Middle East is a disjointed collection of bickering nations. Unite the Middle East, and they are a well-funded entity that controls our energy supply. They have the power to shut us down, and they know it. Now, with China gaining in wealth, and growing as an alternate market to us (which is part of why Bush wants to conquer the Middle East-- to control their oil so China doesn't drive prices higher), they no longer need us. We will find ourselves isolated against the world, struggling to maintain thrid-world status with the rest of our hemisphere, if we don't grow up soon.

I'd disagree with slightly on a couple of points. First, al Qaeda will not be our downfall -- our militarism in trying to maintain a hegemony that no longer exists already is proving to be our downfall. The United States that we all grew up in no longer exists, except in shadow. In the words of the author I cited, Emmanuel Todd, "At the same time that the rest of the world is discovering that it can get along without the United States, the United States is discovering that it cannot get along without the rest of the world."

Second, you are pretty much on with your assessment of US geopolitical concerns over control of petroleum reserves, but you're leaving out one important piece of the puzzle -- Russia. Russia is growing in influence once again, but without any of the imperial illusions of the past USSR (or of the present US). In fact, combined with its immense oil and gas reserves, its relatively weak position in the world could prove to be its greatest strength in dealing with Europe and Japan. As the US exhibits increasingly irrational behavior to maintain the illusion of hegemony, and along with that irrationality continues to stir up the Middle East through its foreign policy -- especially vis a vis Israel -- Europe and Japan could increasingly turn toward Russia as a more secure source for their energy needs -- and a much closer ally, culturally and economically, displacing the United States. In case you think that Russia doesn't realize this, consider the following quote from Vladmir Putin taken from the previously mentioned book, page 166:

"No one doubts the great value of European relations with the United States. But I think that Europe would consolidate its reputation as a truly independent global force ... if it associated its capacities with those of Russia -- with its human, territorial, and natural resources and the economic, cultural and defense potential of Russia."

[Karenina]

19. KICK!!!

:kick:

[IrateCitizen]

20. KICK!

:kick: