Osama

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