In the past week, Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi have exhorted followers to continue fighting and warned their enemies, from Saudi liberals to the new Iraqi government to George Bush, that their efforts to reform, democratize and crusade (respectively) would be defeated.
But their latest releases also reveal that all is not well with Al-Qaeda.
Popularity waning, Osama played the Palestinian card hoping to bolster support. According to Osama, the West’s failure to provide the Palestinian Authority with economic assistance was proof of a Zionist-backed war on Islam.
Zarqawi, still posing as Osama’s devotee but eager for equal airtime, taunted Bush and rejected the hard-won coalition government in Baghdad. At one point during his video-tirade, the message “don’t forget to pray for us,” flashed across the screen.
It seems that fewer and fewer Muslims are willing to do so.
Eager to put some daylight between Hamas and Al-Qaeda, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri noted that “the ideology of Hamas is totally different from the ideology of Sheikh Bin Laden.” In Iraq, Sunni groups formerly allied with Zarqawi have cut their ties, particularly after he took credit for hotel attacks in Jordan last December. Now he claims that his group, Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia has joined The Freedom Fighter Council led by an “Abdullah Al-Baghdadi”. In reality it is nothing more than a PR stunt to counter growing revulsion at the Iraqi death toll from Zarqawi’s attacks.
The core of each man’s anger, and perhaps the underlying rationale for their tandem messages, is the possibility that the world will not revert to the 14th century but continue plodding through the 21st.
Why else would Osama blast Saudi Arabia for holding “dialogue of civilizations” and wag an ideological finger at Saudi liberals? Change, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. To Liz Cheney, reform in the Kingdom may seem to be moving at a snail’s pace; to Osama, it is moving at an alarming rate.
Similarly, his call to jihad in Sudan is targeting progress, in this case, a deadline to conclude a fragile peace agreement that he finds repugnant.
Yet despite his pledge of support, the Sudanese Foreign Ministry wasn’t very appreciative. The ministry’s spokesman Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim said, “Sudan has nothing to do with such statements.” He went on to say that Darfur is an “internal problem that we are trying to resolve under the auspices of the African Union.”
Zarqawi’s murder and mayhem have upped the ante in Iraq, but he failed to prevent a new government from taking shape. Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites managed to take a small but critical step forward. Sunnis stood firm against a tide of violence. On April 13, the brother of Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi was murdered.
Al-Hashimi wasn’t cowed. On Wednesday, he called for the insurgency to be crushed. On Thursday, his sister was killed. Shiites showed similar courage. Every major party bucked Tehran and agreed to back Nuri Al-Maliki for prime minister, ending the tenure of Iran’s preferred candidate, the incumbent Ibrahim Jafaari.
Of course, all of the above represent a whisper of hope, easily overwhelmed by the cacophony of violence that Al-Qaeda continues to orchestrate. But even glimmers are a pox to Osama and Zarqawi.
The best chance of sustaining these nascent trends?
First, Muslim nations must continue their individual pursuit of change. I’ll avoid the “d” word (democracy) or the “r” word (reform). The vocabulary is far less important than the outcome.
Each leader is faced with a stark choice between an increasingly untenable status quo, with multiple forces pulling in different directions, and a robust civil society with different options for political engagement, which also involves different forces pulling at the center. Either way, change will occur.
The danger with the status quo is the cost of maintaining it. A police or “mukhabarat” state creates its own set of dilemmas that can only be remedied with additional layers of security. In the end, the system’s rigidity causes as many problems as it prevents. Some analysts claim that the recent Sinai attacks may have stemmed from Bedouin resentment at the government’s round-ups after the previous incidents in 2004 and 2005.
Second, driving to the mall, even if women are behind the wheel, is not enough. Consumerism is not a panacea. Economic development cannot replace tandem, if uneven, progress on the political track. The balancing act is never easy, but it is essential for long-term stability.
Third, Hamas’ victory and Islamic Brotherhood’s gains should not silence Washington and Europe’s support for increased public participation and representation throughout the region. The West has to respect the results and engage. Rigorous conditions on economic assistance can be set, as with the Palestinian Authority, but the lowest possible bar should be set in order to facilitate communication. Otherwise, the process of change grinds to a halt as those determined to stymie it, succeed.
Fourth, enough talk about how “they (Arabs and Muslims) hate us (Americans/the West) for our freedoms”. Those people who disrespect our freedoms, from executive branch officials, who flout the law, to congressmen eroding coveted civil liberties for dubious national security concerns, are the ones who undermine democracy’s standing abroad. A burning flag does no harm to a free country; a shackled constitution does.
Finally, American politicians and commentators who try to muzzle critics by calling them Al-Qaeda sympathizers should read George Kennan, the father of “containment policy”, and his Cold War strategy for undermining communism. In his words, “Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiqués.”
The same holds true for Al-Qaeda. Osama and Zarqawi are desperate for a values war, a religious war, a battle for hearts and minds. In large part, that’s because the magnetism of freedom — political, economic, social — is so powerful that only hate of the rawest, blinding and guttural variety can lessen the attraction.
Al-Qaeda masterminded 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in Europe hoping we would tarnish our liberties and reduce their appeal. We did. It is time to recognize the mistake and restore them to their original luster.
