| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Horn |
| Bin Laden's real message on Darfur |
| 2006-04-25 |
| In his most recent audio taped message, Osama bin Laden succinctly restated his rationale for international terrorism. This is worth understanding for several reasons, not the least of which being that it provides a much-needed refutation to the often-stated argument that al Qaeda and its supporters are driven and strengthened only by the actions of the United States in general and, more narrowly speaking, the Bush administration. As bin Laden makes clear, his grievances are by no means limited to the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan or the now-familiar litany of the Israeli-Palestinian, Chechen, and Kashmiri insurgencies. Indeed, he includes accusations that Western nations were involved in "barring arms from the unarmed people in Bosnia and letting the Serb army to massacre Muslims and spill their blood for years under U.N. cover," that the United States "sought to reach southern Sudan, recruited an army of southerners, supported them with weapons and funding and directed them to seek separation from Sudan," and the bizarre charges that "a Zionist-Crusaders war" resulted in "the humiliation of Muslims in Somalia and killing 13,000 Muslims . . . along with torching Muslims' bodies." Those who argue that bin Laden's complaints represent an honest assessment of international politics (as he sees it) will be hard-pressed to hold to this position. At some point, even the most adamant defenders of the view that bin Laden is a rational actor will have to acknowledge that someone with a sophisticated understanding of international politics would not believe that America deliberately allowed Serbia to carry out its massacres in the Balkans, while it was creating the Sudan People's Liberation Army and killing 13,000 Somalis. These are not the views of a rational actor. THE LACK OF RATIONALITY ASIDE, the most notable change in bin Laden's rhetoric is a focus on Sudan, and in particular the Darfur region. While giving no indication that he intends to abandon his support for the Iraqi insurgency (indeed, he explicitly says that "The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the khalifate rule" and notes favorably that "They keep reiterating that success in Baghdad will be success for the US, failure in Iraq the failure of the US"), bin Laden is now keen to side with Sudan when it comes to Darfur and is advising his followers to do this same. The message is simple: If there is any international intervention in Darfur, al Qaeda will be there waiting for them. Bin Laden's relationship with the Sudanese government is best characterized as love-hate. He's eager to defend Sudan, despite its actions against the Muslim population of Darfur, but at the same time he chastises the Sudanese government for backtracking on its pledge to implement sharia throughout the country. But bin Laden has never been without allies--most notably the "pope of terror," Hassan Turabi--in Sudan, where al Qaeda was harbored from 1991 to 1996. As Rohan Gunaratna noted in Inside Al Qaeda in 2002, "the threat posed by Islamists has not diminished in the Sudan and is likely to re-surface from time to time. Parallels are often drawn between Osama and his Sudanese precursor, the Mahdi, who fought a jihad against the British in the late nineteenth century." Indeed, as early as July 2004 a group calling itself Mohammed's Army distributed leaflets at a central mosque in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. They seemed to have been very much in tune with bin Laden's sentiments, saying "There is no doubt that this [international intervention in Darfur] is a Crusader war . . . we call upon you to speedily head toward Darfur and dig deep into the ground mass graves prepared for the Crusader army." As Western and African governments weigh the costs and benefits of supporting international intervention in Darfur, they should not be deterred by bin Laden's threats, but neither should they view them as empty. Indeed, bin Laden's call to arms at the behest of Sudan is strikingly similar to his February 2003 statement in support of Iraq, even to the point of offering tactical advice for prospective Sudanese jihadis. But should bin Laden's threat be seen as sufficient deterrence against international intervention--even if only temporarily--it will only serve to further raise his stock, both inside Sudan and throughout the Middle East. It would show that the core of bin Laden's message is fundamentally correct: that Western nations, while powerful, are easily intimidated and can be defeated. This is why, contrary to the assertions of some academics, shifting policy decisions in an effort to deter violence is not only foolhardy, but, in the context of al Qaeda, might actually be chumming the water. In the case of Sudan, the issue of Darfur appears moot: violence is already occurring at the behest of the Sudanese government and its proxies, the issue at hand is whether or not the people of Darfur will have anyone to assist them in deterring the individuals perpetrating most of the violence. Ultimately, bin Laden's wholehearted embrace of the Sudanese view of Darfur should not deter international intervention in the region. Instead, it reminds us of the longstanding relationship between the Sudanese government and international terrorism, in particular with regard to individuals like Hassan Turabi. The humanitarian case for intervening in Darfur was already a strong one--all bin Laden has done is highlight the national security implications, as well. Dan Darling is a counterterrorism consultant. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #17 Osama's view is based on the relatively successful UN effort in E Timor (where a mostly non Moslem population gained independance from an oppressive Moslem govt.) and the completely ineffective UN effort in the Balkans in which many Moslems were killed. Keep in mind that E. Timor was successful only because the Aussies were in charge. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-04-25 18:55 |
| #16 Get pictures LH! And carry sweet reason and lots of tuna sandmiches. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-04-25 18:52 |
| #15 Let us know how the rally went, liberalhawk. With pictures, if you can. Thanks! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-04-25 18:41 |
| #14 I hope things go well for ya 'Hawk. I don't mind seeing moozlims get killed, but I would like to see China lose a good customer. If they need killing after the genocide stops, there's always the Marines. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2006-04-25 17:36 |
| #13 On Sunday im going to be protesting genocide. Not advocating it. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-04-25 17:27 |
| #12 Amen Patriot. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-04-25 15:05 |
| #11 The only thing bin loosin' and most muslims understand is force. If you're stronger than they are, they're subservient. If they percieve a weakness, they treat you with contempt. I suggest once again that what we need to do is to take every aircraft in the US inventory, and any we can salvage from Davis-Monthan, load them up with iron bombs, and keep pounding Khartoum until there's nothing left but a lake on the Nile. I think that would send a clear picture of what America CAN do if you piss us off enough. It's a message that will become absolutely critical to the overall success of the war against intellectually challenged islam. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-04-25 14:56 |
| #10 mrp : yes, very well remarked; from the little I understand, the western "elites" worldview is shaped by Auguste Comte's thinking, and they have difficulties to assume the acts of leaders from other cultures may not conform to this. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-04-25 09:14 |
| #9 Those who argue that bin Laden's complaints represent an honest assessment of international politics (as he sees it) will be hard-pressed to hold to this position. At some point, even the most adamant defenders of the view that bin Laden is a rational actor will have to acknowledge that someone with a sophisticated understanding of international politics would not believe that America deliberately allowed Serbia to carry out its massacres in the Balkans, while it was creating the Sudan People's Liberation Army and killing 13,000 Somalis. These are not the views of a rational actor. Except that Zawahari's target audience isn't the secular West but al Qaeda's faithful and fellow travellers. And in that world, every word spoken by that organization's leadership is accepted as dogma. In their minds, we are the irrational ones, and our unbelief makes us the enemy of Allah. The West places such a premium on reason - the reason of Man. Traditional faith (especially in Europe), has been under constant assault because a belief in God is considered unreasonable by the mainstream secularists that control the media and political systems. Those organs cannot honestly express the dangers of Islam facing them because they cannot admit that their intellects and world-views can be challenged (much less annihilated) by Islam's religious fanatics. |
| Posted by: mrp 2006-04-25 09:03 |
| #8 Osama has a different view of the UN than most Rantburgans. Osama's view is based on the relatively successful UN effort in E Timor (where a mostly non Moslem population gained independance from an oppressive Moslem govt.) and the completely ineffective UN effort in the Balkans in which many Moslems were killed. Osama believes that the ineffectiveness in the Balkans was intentional (most Rantburgans assume that the UN is structurally incompetant and are not surprized by ineffectiveness) and thus the UN is not just an enemy but a potentially difficult enemy at that. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-04-25 08:05 |
| #7 i thinkr you should thinkr twice before nitting the pic. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-04-25 06:11 |
| #6 That should be "there is wishful thinking even in Hell." I need to go to bed ... |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2006-04-25 04:35 |
| #5 Should is one of those ambiguous words. My dictionary has 7 distinct meanings, including, Indicating obligation Indicating what is probable Indicating the (actual) consequence of an event Expressing a conjecture or hope |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-04-25 04:27 |
| #4 Well, I did say "should," phil. There is, as CS Lewis noted, wishful thinking even in hell. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2006-04-25 03:44 |
| #3 Ultimately, bin Laden's wholehearted embrace of the Sudanese view of Darfur should not deter international intervention in the region. However, it will. Sorry, Dan but you got a bad case of wishful thinking there, but otherwise an interesting piece. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-04-25 02:36 |
| #2 Thanks Joe...doesn't get much clearer than that. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-04-25 02:27 |
| #1 IOW, the focii of Osama's efforts and zealotry is. among other things, more aimed at his fellow Muslims than against the alleged hated Crusader-Zionist enemy, specifically those Muslims whom refuse to accept Sharia-based Absolutism/ Totalitarianism. There is to be no moderation, no tolerance of non-Islamism or as against the literalist interpretation of the Sharia. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-25 01:46 |