Q: Where is Osama bin Laden? Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that bin Laden was behind the events. If so, what reason might he have had, what are his aims?
CHOMSKY: One has to be cautious about this. According to Robert Fisk, who has interviewed him repeatedly and at length, Osama bin Laden shares the anger felt throughout the region at the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, support for atrocities against Palestinians, along with US-led devastation of Iraqi civilian society. That feeling of anger is shared by rich and poor, and across the political and other spectrums.
Many who know the conditions well are also dubious about bin Laden’s capacity to plan that incredibly sophisticated operation from a cave somewhere in Afghanistan. But that his network was involved is highly plausible, and that he is an inspiration for them, also. These are decentralized, non-hierarchic structures, probably with quite limited communication links among them. It’s entirely possible that bin Laden’s telling the truth when he says he didn’t know about the operation.
All that aside, bin Laden is quite clear about what he wants, not only to any westerners who want to interview him, like Fisk, but more importantly to the Arabic-speaking audience that he reaches through the cassettes that circulate widely. Adopting his framework for the sake of discussion, the prime target is Saudi Arabia and other corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, none of which are truly “Islamic.” And he and his network are intent on supporting Muslims defending themselves "against infidels” wherever it may be: Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, Western China, Southeast Asia, North Africa, maybe elsewhere. They fought and won a Holy War to drive the Russians out of Muslim Afghanistan, and they are even more intent on driving the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, a far more important country to them, as it is the home of the holiest Islamic sites.
His call for the overthrow of corrupt and brutal regimes of gangsters and torturers resonates quite widely, as does his indignation against the atrocities that he and others attribute to the United States, hardly without reason. It’s entirely true that his crimes are extremely harmful to the poorest and most oppressed people of the region. The latest attacks, for example, were extremely harmful to the Palestinians. But what looks like sharp inconsistency from outside may be perceived rather differently from within. By courageously fighting oppressors, who are quite real, bin Laden may appear to be a hero, however harmful his actions are to the poor majority. And if the United States succeeds in killing him, he may become even more powerful as a martyr whose voice will continue to be heard on the cassettes that are circulating and through other means. He is, after all, as much of a symbol as an objective force, both for the US and probably much of the population.
There’s every reason, I think, to take him at his word. And his crimes can hardly come as a surprise to the CIA. “Blowback” from the radical Islamic forces organized, armed, and trained by the US, Egypt, France, Pakistan, and others began almost at once, with the 1981 assassination of President Sadat of Egypt, one of the most enthusiastic of the creators of the forces assembled to fight a Holy War against the Russians. The violence has been continuing since without letup. The blowback has been quite direct, and of a kind very familiar from 50 years of history, including the drug flow and the violence. To take one case, the leading specialist on this topic, John Cooley, reports that CIA officers “consciously assisted” the entry of the radical Islamic Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to the US in 1990 (Unholy Wars). He was already wanted by Egypt on charges of terrorism. In 1993, he was implicated in the bombing of the World Trade Center, which followed procedures taught in CIA manuals that were, presumably, provided to the “Afghanis” fighting the Russians. The plan was to blow up the UN building, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and other targets as well. Sheikh Omar was convicted of conspiracy and given a long jail sentence.
Q: Again, if bin Laden was responsible, what is the proper approach to reducing or eliminating the danger?
CHOMSKY: Every case is different, but let’s take a few analogies. What was the right way for Britain to deal with IRA bombs in London? One choice would have been to send the RAF to bomb the source of their finances, places like Boston, or to infiltrate commandos to capture those suspected of involvement in such financing and kill them or spirit them to London to face trial. Putting aside feasibility, that would have been criminal idiocy. Another possibility was to consider realistically the background concerns and grievances, and to try to remedy them, while at the same time following the rule of law to punish criminals. That would make a lot more sense, one would think.
Or take the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. There were immediate calls for bombing the Middle East, and it probably would have happened if even a remote hint of a link had been found. When it was instead discovered to be a domestically devised attack, by someone with militia connections, there was no call to obliterate Montana and Idaho, or the “Republic of Texas,” which has been calling for secession from the oppressive and illegitimate government in Washington. Rather, there was a search for the perpetrator, who was found, brought to court, and sentenced, and to the extent that the reaction was sensible, there were efforts to understand the grievances that lie behind such crimes and to address the problems. At least, that is the course we follow if we have any concern for genuine justice and hope to reduce the likelihood of further atrocities rather than increase it. The same principles hold quite generally, with due attention to variation of circumstances. Specifically, they hold in this case.
Q: What steps are the US government seeking to undertake?
CHOMSKY: What has been announced is a virtual declaration of war against all who do not join Washington in its resort to violence, however it chooses. The nations of the world face a “stark choice”: join us in our crusade or “face the certain prospect of death and destruction" (R.W. Apple, New York Times, September 14). Bush’s rhetoric of September 20 forcefully reiterates that stance. Taken literally, it’s virtually a declaration of war against much of the world. But I am sure we should not take it literally. Government planners do not want to undermine their own interests so grievously. What their actual plans are, we do not know. But I suppose they will take to heart the warnings they are receiving from foreign leaders, specialists in the region, and presumably their own intelligence agencies that a massive military assault, which would kill many innocent civilians, would be exactly “what the perpetrators of the Manhattan slaughter must want above all. Military retaliation would elevate their cause, idolize their leader, devalue moderation and validate fanaticism. If ever history needed a catalyst for a new and awful conflict between Arabs and the West, this could be it” (Simon Jenkins, Times [London], September 14, one of many who made these points from the outset).
Even if bin Laden is killed, maybe even more so if he is killed, a slaughter of innocents would only intensify the feelings of anger, desperation and frustration that are rampant in the region, and mobilize others to his horrendous cause. What the administration does will depend on the mood at home, which we can hope to influence. What the consequences of the actions will be we cannot say with much confidence, any more than they can. But there are plausible estimates, and unless the course of reason, law, and treaty obligations is pursued, the prospects could be quite grim.
Q: Many say that the citizens of Arab nations should have taken responsibility to remove terrorists from the planet. How do you respond to that?
CHOMSKY: It makes sense to call upon citizens to eliminate terrorists instead of electing them to high office, lauding and rewarding them. But I would not suggest that we should have “removed our elected officials, their advisers, their intellectual claque, and their clients from the planet,” or destroyed our own and other western governments because of their terrorist crimes and their support for terrorists worldwide, including many who were transferred from favored friends and allies to the category of “ terrorists” because they disobeyed US orders: Saddam Hussein, and many others like him.
However, it is rather unfair to blame citizens of harsh and brutal regimes that we support for not undertaking this responsibility, when we do not do so under vastly more propitious circumstances.
 |