October 27, 2004
THE OTHER DAY UPON THE STAIR, I MET A MAN WHO WASN’T THERE
The Myth of Al Qaeda (Radio Netherlands, undated)
According to the professor (Belgian terrorism expert, Rik Coolsaet) the current obsession with international terrorism is based on inaccurate assumptions.Al Qaeda, Professor Coolsaet argues, no longer exists as a global terrorist organisation.
He draws parallels with previous hypes in history such as the one which gripped Europe around an international anarchist terrorist network at the end of the 19th century. That network existed mainly in peoplés minds, and the same is true of al Qaeda today, Professor Coolsaet believes. [...]
"Terrorism is of all ages. So why do we experience this angst, this deep-seated fear of a hydraheaded monster of mythological dimensions, constantly changing and adapting, always catching its opponents off guard? Today's obsession with terrorism and security comes and goes, in waves. It was there when the anarchist terrorists of the late 19th century made havoc. It was there when the fascist terrorists of the 1930s spread death and destruction. And it is here now. Each time, myth and reality become blurred. Underestimating terrorism is dangerous. But exaggerating the threat is just as dangerous – so is groupthink."
Now, here is a novel theory. The good professor seems to be arguing that overestimating the threat of fascist terrorism in the 1930's was a big problem. But maybe he has a point. Churchill and Roosevelt obviously pulled off a huge scam because, after Germany was defeated, the Allies couldn’t find a Nazi anywhere.
Maybe prof. Coolsaet is right, but some of his examples (nazi terrorism, Al-Qaeda) are exactly the opposite of what he wants to say...
Posted by: César Álvarez at October 27, 2004 6:43 AMThen who are these characters chopping people's heads off in Iraq, Indonesia, Philipines, Pakistan, etc? Disgruntled Yankee fans?
Posted by: Bart at October 27, 2004 7:06 AMCoolsaet is a disgrace - even according to the extremely low standards of his profession in Belgium. This man peddles conspiracy theories about America that even the Saudi government press wouldn't dare to print. Needless to say that he is strongly in favor of a Eurabian Empire (aka the new Caliphate) to counter American power. And that's one of his most reasonable opinions.
Posted by: Peter at October 27, 2004 7:10 AMI'm always amused to read things like this from the left. After decades of hysteria about the supposedly huge dangers of such things as Alar, the KKK, sexual harassment, etc., they can turn around and with a straight face claim that fears of Islamic fascists who murdered 3,000 people in one day are "hyped."
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 27, 2004 1:53 PM>Then who are these characters chopping people's
>heads off in Iraq, Indonesia, Philipines,
>Pakistan, etc? Disgruntled Yankee fans?
Agent Provocateur covert ops of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy masterminded by the Chimp in the White House who stole the election, of course.
Ees Party Line, Comrades.
Posted by: Ken at October 27, 2004 4:32 PMActually he is correct. Al Qaeda, is not the enemy. It is an army of the real enemy or rather of one branch thereof, and an army that has been pretty badly beaten up.
The real enemies were: 1. a branch of the Sa'ud family and their allies in the Wa'hib family, 2. The Iranian Mullocracy, 3. the Pakistani ISI, 4. the Iraq Ba'ath Party. 5. the Taliban, 6. the Syrian Ba'ath Party, 7. North Korea, 8. Some Element inside the Chinese government, and 9. Libya.
They had varying roles, ambitions and capabilities.
1. a branch of the Sa'ud family and their allies in the Wa'hib family,
Saudi Arabia is not a nation state in the way we think of them in the modern world. It is a family possession. The current nominal ruler, King Fahd is the grandson of the founder ibn Sa'ud, who died 50 years ago. At the beginning of the 20th century ibn Sa'ud was a penniless desert bandit. His family had historic claims to the area in eastern around Riyadh and a historic alliance with the heretical and militant Wa'habbist dynasty of imams. He put together a tribal alliance, blessed by the Wa'habs, called the ikwan. After WWI, he conquer the Hijaz, the western province of Arabia containing Mecca and Medina and displaced the British clients, the Husseini sherifs who were in turn rewarded with monarchies in Jordan and Iraq.
Ibn Sa'ud as the ruler of most of Arabia became the luckiest and richest man in the world, when American engineers found oil in his eastern provinces in the 1930s. When he died in the 1950s, the royal treasury, which was a chest kept in his tent, was stuffed with gold. His descendants have run the kingdom as their private property ever since.
Here is the important fact. There is no theory of legitimate inheritance in Islam. The first born son of the first wife is not a more legitimate heir to the throne than the seventh son of the seventh concubine. Islamic regimes have developed ways of dealing with this problem. One is that many heirs were designated before the old king died. The Ottomans had the charming and effective custom of having the successor to the throne strangle all other then living male heirs to the throne with a silken bow string upon his succession. It was part of their success. Their decline began when they abandoned it.
Anyone of the thousands of male members of the Sa'ud family (the so called princes) can claim the throne. Some one [or group] of them has used (whether they believe it or not) the ideology of the Wa'hab imams and the oil money that flows through the kingdom to raise a private army, which we call Al Qaeda. His intention was to drive the United States out of Arabia and use his private army to seize the throne. Whether he had further ambitions such as a Pan-Arab or Pan-Muslim state are his counsel.
In this view OBL, was until his incineration, his emir (in English, admiral). One reason the US invaded Iraq was to outflank him. His counter was a series of attacks last spring in the Kingdom. When that failed, he started pumping more money into the Zarqawi operation in Iraq, hoping to win the US election and stop the emergence of a shi'a dominated republic in Iraq.
He has forced the Saudi establishment to take him seriously and to be nicer to US. But even if Bush is re-elected and the Sunnis are suppressed in Iraq. Arabia will remain a powder keg.
2. The Iranian Mullocracy,
Duh, Thanks Jimmy.
They will have to be taken out.
3. the Pakistani ISI,
Real bad guys. There is no evidence that they believe the islamism they sell, but sell it they do, and they have peddled atomic weapon technology and helped set up Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan is a failed state with a successful army and a rogue secret service. We will need India's help to untangle that one, but it means undoing the remnants of cold war ideology in India -- tough assignment.
4. the Iraq Ba'ath Party.
We are killing the bitter enders.
5. the Taliban,
Where 4 will be in a year.
6. the Syrian Ba'ath Party,
On the must go list.
7. North Korea,
Crazy Kim. Clearly he is not an Islamist. He is only in it for the money. That does not make him a good guy. Actually he is vile scum. OTOH, we have to get the Chinese to see that it is in their interest to solve the problem.
8. Some Element inside the Chinese government,
Must be there. They connect Kim to Pakistan and the Muslim world. During the Cold War, India, driven by ideology and by geopolitics, which had split from Britain sucked up to the Russians and fought with China over its Himalayan border. Pakistan allied itself with the United States and with China against Russia and India. At some point they have a sufficient financial interest in US to stop this BS when they are reminded that their foreign currency reserves are book entries at New York Fed -- Wouldn't want anybody to spill a Coke on that would we?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 27, 2004 10:37 PM