Osama

Photos

Osama bin Laden

see larger image

uploaded by bjtindle

Why it’s useless
and often counter-productive to simply label such men as “evil”,
without trying to understand how he came to be and why people believe
in him

Non-intellectuals (and even
some academics) often dismiss dark figures in history such as Hitler,
Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam, and Bin Laden as simply 'evil men', and it's a
sin if one attempts to describe them in any softer, nuanced terms. They
committed crimes against humanity because they were psychotic, end of
story. I find such characterizations to be elementary and basically
useless. Actually it can be detrimental for the historical record and
for posterity to paint in such broad brush strokes, thereby masking the
details. If we don't learn from their examples, we may allow new
Hitlers to emerge.

I shouldn't have to state
this, but since Justin might accuse me of something foolish again, I
DEPLORE the atrocities committed by such men, as I deplore the unjust
deaths committed by any nation/individual (suicide bombers from Qaeda,
cluster bombing urban areas during gulf war 1, etc.). However, it does
no good to label political figures as simply and purely 'good' or
'evil'. A better goal would be to understand the conditions that
fostered their transformations/policies/views, how they think, how they
came to power, how they appealed to so many, and how to prevent future
tyrants from doing harm. Sun Tsu said victory comes by knowing your
enemy. To some people, it may be offensive (or even profane) to
'empathize' with a Hitler or 'get in he head' of a BL, but we have
criminologists, profilers, and psychologists in the FBI and other law
enforcement agencies for precisely that reason. We do not know how many
crimes their analyses have prevented. They are a service to us
citizens, especially in our violent culture. If we understand a person,
we can better predict what that person will do.

And when we conduct our
analysis of BL or other modern terrorists, what we discover may shock
us, shame us, or dispel some myths/false assumptions. If we truly seek
understanding, and wish to defeat such a foe, we should not censor
accurate data that happens to be uncomfortable/troubling, or sack the
messengers of such info. As was the case during the Iraq WMD debacle,
we know the dangers of filtering only favorable intelligence/advice
that conveniently agrees with your theories, and ignore the rest.
Citing the Newsmax example, Sheuer worked on the BL task force for 3
years at the agency. He has more knowledge of the man than all the
staff at Newsmax combined. Who are they to call him wrong with marginal
evidence? They don't say that specifically, but the tone/objective of
the partisan article is to debunk him as controversial, self-serving,
and unreliable (especially since his book was used against bush in the
campaign, and he dared to bring up Israel and implicate our alliance as
a major impetus for terror & 9/11). This summer on CNN I saw a
colonel being interviewed on the ground in Iraq. He said the insurgents
are dastardly, but unfortunately 'damn good'. He gave credit where it
was due, just as Sheuer said that BL's struggle was 'admirable' in the
eyes of many. Bush says we're safer but not yet safe - but
'misunderestimating' our opponents does not contribute to our safety. 

Mischaracterizing Bin Laden,
or refusing to delve deeper into what makes him tick (because he is so
odious), has already cost us. The huge bounty on his head didn't work
because it was based on unrealistic expectations. It seems like a
no-brainer to us for a poor Pakistani to rat him out and become
instantly rich, but obviously our values are different, and there are
more factors at play than wealth. Which is the point: BL is repulsive
considering our standards and experience with the man, but he's a hero
in other parts of the world. Why is that? When we answer that question,
and can accurately profile BL and Qaeda, we will be so much better off.
No amount of guns, bombs, and tanks can equal that type of honest
intelligence. We have to play it straight and assess the man's
strengths and weaknesses. I do not know about the ongoing efforts to
infiltrate Qaeda and other terror groups. Heck, if we can send Lee
Harvey Oswald to the USSR and back safely, we can get some operatives
in Qaeda (maybe we do, but the de-centralized nature of Qaeda makes it
so hard to topple).

I feel that an element of
ethnocentrism and racism in the USA is retarding our efforts to subvert
Islamic terror, at least in the political-intelligence community (the
content of Newsmax is a perfect example, links below). I know __ is
Muslim, and maybe more RT members too, so I would be curious to hear
their thoughts, but I know this is a digression. In the White House
there is a certain arrogance concerning foes like BL and Saddam. They
are lowly trash, mere mosquitoes compared to the giant American
elephant. This lack of respect may cost us as well, it definitely has
in Iraq, where we 'misunderestimated' the insurgency threat in '03 and
it has claimed hundreds if not thousands of lives, and tremendously
hampered the reconstruction effort.

And why suddenly are all
global terrorists in league with each other? They’re everywhere and
nowhere, lurking and waiting. They’re all evildoers who hate freedom
and our way of life, hate America/Israel/Judeo-Christianity, and won't
rest until we're all praying to Allah or dead? It’s a war of cultures?
Do we really believe that the Beslan murderers have much in common with
the Bali bombers, BL, and even the Iraqi insurgency (which itself is so
tremendously diverse because we've managed to unite foreign fighters,
Jihadist zealots, Iraqi nationalists, Qaeda, ex-Baathists, and
miscellaneous soldiers of fortune in a common cause against us)? Their
major link is their religion and their propensity for violence, but
their grievances, methods, goals, and backgrounds are obviously
different and sometimes incongruous. So what about homegrown Caucasian
terrorists like McVeigh, columbine, KKK; do they fit the mold? But if
we continue to lump all terrorists together, distort their
situations/aims, make sweeping assumptions concerning their
values/motives, and dismiss their subtleties, I fear for our future.

On the campaign trail, Cheney
continually preached that our terrorist enemies can't be reasoned with,
won't negotiate, so we must destroy them before they do us in. but how
does he know, have they ever tried to negotiate? They just hold
steadfast in their narrow worldview, even if other credible
data/opinion suggests differently (maybe that's why bush's new cabinet
has even more yes-men). God forbid we actually try to understand the
legit/perceived grievances the terrorists fight against (like corrupt
Saudi rulers trading with America and allowing a US military presence
in holy land) and the injustices their peoples have suffered (like
Chechnya, Palestine). Surely the terrorists are not innocent sympathy
cases (but the extent may vary from group to group). Revenge does not
address injustice, and violence does not atone for violence. But if
exploring the mind and rhetoric of a terrorist is just too blasphemous,
we can continue to spin our wheels and just label them as murderous
Islamofascist thugs. Some elements of the Muslim world will continue to
label us as imperialist infidel crusaders. No progress will be made, no
peace will be possible, and innocents will continue to suffer while we
kill each other. But I have to believe that is not the only way.

So all I’m saying about BL and
Qaeda is simple: lets be honest about who they are, what they do, and
what they want. Let’s not dismiss any potentially useful data just
because it's hard to swallow, nor should we simply accept the party
line at face value and dismiss all the diverse terror groups around the
world as basically the same: homicidal barbarians who must be killed
before they kill us. Let’s see them as they are - not how we
conveniently wish them to be. Let’s understand our foes so we can
intelligently thwart them with minimal innocents harmed (and minimal
new terrorists spawned), instead of fumbling around in the dark and
clinging to myths as we are.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/Bin Laden/who/alQaeda.html

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/al_qaida.html

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/7/103252.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/23/115744.shtml

The Sling and the Stone, by Thomas Hammes, USMC