All this talk in the U.S. media about al-Qaeda being defeated is to be welcomed, since it reflects a realization, belated as it may be, that Bin Laden’s movement is not particularly strategically significant. This has always been the case, of course, even when the U.S. was going to war on the basis of the Qaeda bogey — Saddam Hussein, remember, became an intolerable menace only after 9/11, because of his “al-Qaeda connection” spuriously suggested by the Bush Administration.
Al-Qaeda is irrelevant, and yet U.S. hegemony in the Middle East is facing an unprecedented challenge from Islamist-nationalist groups. To understand the link between al-Qaeda’s weakness and the greatly expanded strength of groups such as Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood and, of course, Iran, over the past seven years, it’s worth turning to the 20th century precedent: Leon Trotsky and his followers vs. the larger, nationally-focused parties of the left in the mid 20th century.
Trotsky rejected pragmatism and compromise by nationally-based leftist movements and insisted, instead, that they subordinate their specific national interests and objectives to the fantasy of “world revolution.” And as a result, long before his murder by Stalin, he found himself holed up in Mexico City, manically firing off communiques denouncing all compromise, and being largely ignored by the more substantial parties of the left world-wide. He had become an irrelevant chatterbox, caught up in a frenzy of his own rhetoric while world events simply passed him by. The same can be said of Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri — it is not al-Qaeda, but the likes of Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brotherhood that represent the future of the nationalist-Islamist challenge to Western power in the Middle East. And that’s a profoundly important distinction: There’s no point in negotiating with al-Qaeda, whose very prominence is more a function of the U.S. reaction to its provocations than of its own organizational efforts, which represents very little on the ground, and eschews politics. But Western powers are beginning to see that there’s plenty to be gained from talking to Iran, Hamas, Hizballah etc.
I wrote on the Qaeda-as-Trotsky them in my new op ed in the National this week. Extract:
Following the manic preaching of Ayman Zawahiri from his far-off cave, it’s hard not to think of Leon Trotsky. It’s not just the beard and the granny glasses, or the feverish fantasies about the imminent collapse of his enemies and the “betrayals” by those in his own camp.
Trotsky, with his insistence on ideologically pure “world revolution” in contrast to the more nationally based communism adopted by Joseph Stalin, found himself holed up in Mexico City by the 1930s, frenetically firing off communiqués inconsequential to the actual unfolding of events. He had become irrelevant.
Like Trotsky, Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden have become irrelevant to the unfolding of events in the Middle East, even at a moment when US hegemony faces an unprecedented nationalist-Islamist challenge throughout the region. (That may be the reason Zawahiri reserves so much bile for the likes of Hamas, Hizbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood over their participation in democratic elections, and their willingness to consider truces with their enemies. Vintage Trotsky.)
Click here for the whole thing.
Badmouthing Trotsky will get you nowhere…the truth is, Al-Qaeda is more like Ayn Rand; her organziation (always minescule) is split in two, she is (just) well-known, both Ayn Rand’s novels and Al-Qaeda’s plans for a new Caliphate are idiotic tripe.
The reason for my Trotsky analogy is that I believe the organizational model for al-Qaeda (unacknowledged, of course) was the Communist International, i.e. the attempt to fold the leftist parties of teh world into a single organization that could be strategically directed from a single power center — but al-Qaeda in reality is more like the 4th International, pretty much ignored by all the leftist parties of any real consequence in balances of power around the world…
Al-Qaida killed 3000 people in the United States. They are popular throughout the Islamic world, and maybe beyond that. Although they don’t have state power behind them, that certainly does make them a significant player on the international stage, something that Trotsky never was, once he fell from power.
I don’t believe Al Qaida has any support among the Arab/Muslim world. Certainly, however, Hamas and Hizbollah have very deep and wide support and neither of them have much nice to say about AQ. And the feeling is mutual. Hizb, in particular, has captured the imagination without any 9/11 style attack and I doubt they would ever contemplate one.
Also importantly, both these groups have gained some broad appeal, even if it is held in secret, amongst western leftists. They are also taken seriously by realists. Witness French reaction to the Doha agreement, even under Sarkozy. AQ has no appeal at all outside the Muslim world, and only with a very narrow slice within it.
It really isn’t possible to prove that al-Queda would now be irrelevant even if the US had not gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s a good question, but there is no solid answer.
But the entire shooting match has been educational to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. None of these guys wants to be in the crosshairs of the US.
The Trosksy analogy appeals for several reasons (as long as one doesn’t try to take it too far, or too literally).
First, as you state, both Bin Laden and Trotsky clung to what they considered to be utopian visions of world revolution.
Second, both were intolerant of dissent and were directly involved in brutality and neither had any respect for democracy (Trotsky playing a direct role in crushing the Kronstadt sailors strike, for example, and in crushing rival leftist groups).
Third, the followers of both men tend to people psychologically incapable of understanding nuance in politics – grey areas – which is why so many Trotskyists make the huge leap from far left to far right without ever touching base in the mushy liberal-left centre (the absurd Christopher Hitchens is just one of so, so many).
However, let’s not take the analogy too far. To take just one key difference: Bin Laden, sadly, retains considerable symbolic support as some kind of brand-name figurehead, something old Leon never enjoyed. Trotskyists like to portray it as a life and death battle between Stalin and their hero (the bad Napolean and the good Snowball), when in fact both were aweful and Trosky was never in the running, and became irrelevant after fleeing for his life into exile.
Bin Laden is a nut case who got lucky.
Hamas and Hezbollah are anti-colonial resistance movements with a religious flavor. Finally, Iran is a nation playing traditional power politics (with client states, etc).
Now it’s crucial for the US to keep all three threads joined in the public mind. That’s what the word terrorism and war on terror is supposed to do.
Bin Laden believes that the last thousand year history is a struggle between Islam and Christianity, where the Muslims lose by not staying focused.
He didn’t especially like it that some Muslims who try to take their faith seriously never the less thought Western clothes were stylish and that some nevertheless longed for Western rights.
His success at making the West a place Muslims wouldn’t want to be is so far amazingly successful.
When Majority leader Bill Frist was in charge of reviewing the additional abu Ghraib photos Congress was given for private viewing, he was going to call for bipartisan prison reform, but a news bulletin about Nick Berg’s beheading cut him off the air.
He went on the internet to demand Iraqis not vote that got in the way of the non-anti-Semitic parts of the antiwar movements claim that the Iraq war had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. He teased Bush about reading the little Goat, at the moment it would cause Bush to get an election surge from it, and could have an incident that will make Obama look bad right before the November election.
Trodskey didn’t have WID’s nor a desire for permanent war.
He could have gotten a lot of women and little kids killed.
The reason the US never resembled former South Africa or Israel Palestine is because the Black Muslim’s thought it their job to drag the children out of harms way as they did back on August 8, 1978 during the first Philadelphia Move confrontation when little kid with their bicycles were shouting Baby Killers at the police, and fortunately the Black Muslims got all the bicycles and most of the kids off the street before Officer Ramp was shot and police on horseback charged the crowd.
Bin Laden is messing with the accelerator, while neocons think he is an opportunity to convince people of the need for an aggressive foreign policy
*
*
*
If you don’t like links please edit out the rest, not bleep the whole thing
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/8841#comment-35458
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/8841
Bin Laden believes that the last thousand year history is a struggle between Islam and Christianity, where the Muslims lose by not staying focused.
He didn’t especially like it that some Muslims who try to take their faith seriously nevertheless thought Western clothes were stylish and that some nevertheless longed for Western rights.
His success at making the West a place Muslims wouldn’t want to be is, so far, amazingly successful.
When Majority leader Bill Frist was in charge of reviewing the additional abu Ghraib photos Congress was given for private viewing, he was going to call for bipartisan prison reform, but a news bulletin about Nick Berg’s beheading cut him off the air.
Bin Laden went on the internet to demand Iraqis not vote that got in the way of the non-anti-Semitic parts of the antiwar movements claim that the Iraq war had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Later teased Bush about reading the little Goat, at the moment it would cause Bush to get an election surge from it, and could have an incident that will make Obama look bad right before the November election. North Vietnam used to praise people like Jane Fonda, al Qaeda beheads non-violent activists like Doctors Without Borders, only allowing, as much as he is able, an anti-Semitic peace movement in the West. If he gets McCain in the White House and gets McCain to attack Iran, the West may be exactly to his likening except people will be forced to pray to a different God.
Trodskey didn’t have WID’s, nor a desire for permanent war.
He could have gotten a lot of woman and little kids killed.
The reason the US never resembled former South Africa or Israel Palestine is because the Black Muslim’s thought it their job to drag the children out of harms way as they did back on August 8, 1978 during the first Philadelphia-Move confrontation when little kid with their bicycles were shouting Baby Killers at the police, and fortunately the Black Muslims got all the bicycles and most of the kids off the street before Officer Ramp was shot and police on horseback charged the crowd.
Bin Laden is messing with the accelerator, in the direction of a crash, while neocons think he is an opportunity to convince people of the need for an aggressive foreign policy
“Al-Qaida killed 3000 people in the United States.”
In 2001 alone many more people died in the US as a result – direct and indirect – of Colombian drugs smuggled through Mexico.
At NATO level, drugs produced and exported by the FARC caused many more casualties – direct and indirectly – than WTC, Madrid 2004 and London 2005 combined.
Don’t know about the extent of the drug problem in Israel, but it would be interesting to compare numbers.
Finally, from http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/06/journal-gg-prog.html
“Simply, Mexico is in a guerrilla war and the majority (54%, in a recent Reforma poll) of the population thinks the narco-guerrillas are winning. Last month, the guerrillas decimated the senior staff of Mexico’s law enforcement organizations and there are threats of more assassinations to come. In small towns, policemen are resigning en masse as the drug gangs continue their killing spree. Placards and banners are openly displayed in town streets promising death to the police that oppose the drug gangs and/or offers to recruit anybody with military experience.”
“NOTE: The only existential threat the US faces in the near term, is from global guerrillas in Mexico and not the Middle East. A breakdown there could result in massive population movements, refugee centers, and the spread of guerrilla warfare into US border states.”
No 3.
911 was an inside job, get with the updated research and evidence. Start at 911 blogger.com and patriotsquestion911.com, try also scholars for 911.com.
You have a long way to go.
Max
Pingback: Is Al Qaeda Irrelevant or Broken? | The Global Sociology Blog
Pingback: By The Fault » Blog Archive » Is Al Qaeda Irrelevant or Broken?
Tell Obama. He’s been announcing in the debates that Al Qaeda is the US’s number one enemy and threat.
(Meanwhile those commanding the heights of the US economy seem to have done a better job than Osama in bringing “the great satan” to her knees)
Pingback: The real root of terrorism | Antony Loewenstein
Mexico is in a guerrilla war and the majority (54%, in a recent Reforma poll) of the population thinks the narco-guerrillas are winning.
thanks dude i like your post..
free idm sir