10 Years Post-9/11: A Note
(September 7, 2011)
10 years ago, Bin Laden thought that he could initiate a global revolution in the Muslim world against Western ‘kuffar’ hegemony. Maybe in Bin Laden’s narrow mind, a series of terrorist attacks with symbolic targets and massive casualties across Western world would provoke the West to rain bombs on Muslim countries, which would force the Muslim world to retaliate, then the West would retaliate harder – tension escalate, and he will have masterminded a war between the two worlds. In the end of it, in Bin Laden’s head, the West will collapse, and there’ll be a caliphate (headed by him) spreading from Morocco to Moro. Ironically, after 9/11, such scenario was also bought by the wingnuts in United States who encircle around George W. Bush – to this day. If we watch FoxNews pundits, like Glenn Beck – before he left, rambling in their shows, they still talk about global Islamists-Socialists conspiracy against capitalism and democracy. That’s partly why Bush and the neocons made the huge blunder on Iraq (and also Iran). They failed to categorize and differentiate their enemies, and therefore failed to prioritize - driven solely by fiery ideology with too little sense of realism.
10 years after 9/11, it’s proved that both Bin Laden and Bush are dead wrong.
Al Qaeda
In the beginning of the play, there was Al Qaeda – we could go backward further through the bloody history of the Middle East but there’ll be no end to it. Al Qaeda is the ‘base’, according to its founder – a base for global jihadist resistance against Israel and also the superpower behind her. It’s Al Qaeda that provoked the so-called ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT), and Al Qaeda is the number one enemy in GWOT. 10 years after 9/11, instead of succeeding to establish an emirate somewhere in the Middle East or Central Asia, it’s collapsing and on the run.
America’s counterterrorism (and counterinsurgency) effort, although very inefficient, managed to decapitate the low, mid, and top ranks of Al Qaeda. Far before Bin Laden’s demise, many high value Al Qaeda leaders were already captured or killed – from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, to Saeed al-Masri. And this year, exactly one decade after 9/11, the Americans got Bin Laden. It was tremendously a huge blow to Al Qaeda – Bin Laden is both symbolic-spiritual leader and also operational chief of the gang. According to Al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen, Bin Laden is like Hitler to the Nazi. Al Qaeda is in a sense personal cult of Bin Laden – new recruits swore allegiance to Sheikh Osama, not Al Qaeda. It’s inconceivable for anyone within Al Qaeda’s current rank to replace him – who had all the necessary ingredients. His number two and successor, Al-Zawahiri, doesn’t have the charisma and the stature equal to him. In fact he’s an Egyptian, which would cause rift against the ‘Arabian Gulf’ members. Just months after Bin Laden’s deaths, Al Qaeda had lost several key leaders and allies, from Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a bomb expert and top commander for Al Qaeda in East Africa, Ilyas Kashmiri – a Pakistani anti-Indian top militant, and Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, the current ‘CEO’ of Al Qaeda, killed less than 3 weeks ago.
But what’s made Al Qaeda lost its influence was not just the CIA and its drones, but also its own actions. When 9/11 happened, no matter how sadist and brutal was it, many people in the some Muslim countries perceive the act to be just – a retaliation over Israeli’s oppression on Palestine. Some people would proudly wear Osama T-Shirt written ‘He’s my Brother’. Apparently people start to change their mind when the suicide-bombing and car-bombing happened next to their doorstep. In the beginning it was Western targets: Manhattan, Pentagon, Madrid, London – but then, when it gets difficult, Al Qaeda and its affiliates went sporadic, striking easier targets: Bali, Istanbul, Amman, Baghdad. After the US and allies choked on their defense at Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Qaeda had failed to successfully launch a single attack on American soil or any Western countries – not in America since 9/11, and not in Western world since 7/7. The plots that still continue to happen to this day were carried out by individual homegrown terrorist indoctrinated through the internet – therefore they have less significance, and Al Qaeda couldn’t claim the whole credit. Al Qaeda’s successful and spectacular attacks in more recent years were happening in Muslim countries and killing Muslim people – the very people whom they claim to protect and fight for. It declared moderate Muslims to be kafir and deemed their killings legal. In the end, it alienates the local populace and the whole Muslim world. Al Qaeda lost its ideological appeal and became a nihilist movement. On May 2, when the Navy whacked Bin Laden, not many people consider him a hero, and we don’t see a single Muslim country experiencing massive demonstration to mourn his death – not even in Pakistan.
In fact, even worse than being hated, in many countries, Al Qaeda is being treated as irrelevant. Its attacks became frequent yet minor, people adapt to them, the news channels don’t go crazy anymore over them, stocks market doesn’t stumble. Terrorism is more about theatre than about killing people, when the public stop being intimidated, it loses its function - the theatre has no audience.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan is the gloomy picture today. Bush stupidly wasted resources on Iraq therefore Afghanistan became the neglected war, and the gains that had been made up to 2005/2006 is now shattered by the resurging Taliban. Pakistani military also stupidly thought that the Taliban is a docile pet that will follow their order forever – yet they can’t even control the weaker Pakistani Taliban that have massacred thousands of Pakistanis. That’s why Afghanistan (and Pakistan) is a mess today and the NATO is already leaving.
For better or for worse, however, Taliban is not a monolithic organization. There’s Pakistani Taliban, there’s Afghani Taliban – both don’t get along with each other. In Afghani Taliban there are Quetta Shura, Haqqani network, the foreign fighters, Uzbeks’ IMU, Hezbut Islami, etc – all swore allegiance to Mullah Omar, but with completely different interest and background. For better though, unlike Al Qaeda, Taliban seemingly doesn’t have appetite for global jihad. Its ambition is confined within Af-Pak. Taliban is not Al Qaeda – both have different agenda and interest, it’s not impossible for Taliban, given enough carrot and sticks, to abandon Al Qaeda – which has been a big liability. For better again, historically, the Taliban couldn’t rule all of Afghanistan at the height of its power, so presumably it won’t be able to do so again in the future, even with the NATO leaving – although I doubt that the Americans won’t leave a brigade or two in Bagram. The best case scenario is Taliban integrating into Afghanistan political system and disbanding its armed wings – like IRA. The worst case scenario is civil war between Pashtun-dominated Taliban in the south, backed by Pakistan and maybe Saudi, against the Tajik and Uzbeks in the north, backed by India and Iran.
Iraq
When Bush invaded Iraq, “This,” a supporter of him claimed, “is our imperial moment.” – and it turned sour. Artificially establishing democracy in the middle of the desert is apparently a lot harder than the neocons thought. It’s sad not just because it failed, but also because it’s unnecessary in the first place. Saddam had not much to do with Al Qaeda, and the WMD has been exterminated. The neocons – Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their clique – pushed agenda before facts, ideology before intelligence. A couple of years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq turned into carnage – her neighbors also jumped in to meddle for their own interests, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Gulf states, and of course, Al Qaeda. Hundreds of thousands civilians killed in sectarian war mainly between Sunni against Shi’ite militants.
But the skeptics also turned out to be wrong. They claimed this would’ve been another Vietnam. Iraq (or Afghanistan) is definitely not Vietnam.
First of all, the number of casualties is in a lot different scale – Vietnam killed 60,000 American soldiers; Iraq and Afghanistan combined killed less than 7,000. One book, SuperFreakonomics (by Levitt and Dubner), even pointed out that the number of American soldiers killed per year during both wars is equal with the number killed during peace times (due to war drills). The number of wounded, and also number captured and MIA also differed extremely. Hundreds, even possibly more than a thousand, of Americans are kept as POWs in Vietnam, and about the same scale is MIA. In Afghanistan and Iraq the number is currently two – Spc. Ahmed K. Altaie and Sgt. Bowe R. Bergdahl. Vietnam demanded conscripts, Iraq and Afghanistan did not.
Secondly, Viet Cong (VC) has a lot greater ideological appeal to the Vietnamese (and the rest of the world). VC soldiers are ideological members, Taliban’s are 2$-a-day soldier who chose weapons due to poverty. VC was also a popular movement. American enemies in both Iraq and Afghanistan are far from monolithic and many are despised by the local people. Iraq is a lot more stable now than 5 years ago because the Sunnis are fed up by Al Qaeda’s brutality and stood up against them. Taliban is also not quite popular to local Afghans. At another side, Americans are indeed hated everywhere, in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – but the Vietnamese wanted the Americans to go away, whereas many Iraqis and Afghans wanted America to stay to maintain order and to keep the militants at bay. Americans dropped napalm and committed massacre in Vietnam (and Laos), they didn’t commit deliberate massacre in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Third, VC was stronger militarily – they engaged in guerrilla warfare. Iraqi insurgents and Taliban, although also engaged in guerrilla warfare, but mostly resorted to terrorism frenzy. Most American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are not due to gunfight, but due to IEDs – which also often accidentally kill local people.
In the end, Iraq also didn’t end like Vietnam. After US troops-drawdown, the militants did not usurp the throne. The Prime Minister today is still Nuri al-Maliki – despite some differences, still considered an American ally. Had Maliki not won the election last year, the victor would’ve been Ayad Allawi – also not an insurgent, and would’ve been an even better ally to America. The President of Iraq is Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish, also a traditional ally of America. The (semi)democratic government today is not in serious challenge of extra-constitutional forces. In terms of security, after the Awakening – thanks to the Sons of Iraq, and the surge – thanks to Petraeus, situation gradually stabilized. There are still car bombs in Baghdad nowadays, but not in the scale of 2006/2007.
In brief, Iraq was a very unnecessary and dumb war, but Iraq today is better than 5 years ago, and to some people like the Kurdish, it’s a lot better than under Saddam Hussein.
Middle East Uprising
Both before and after 9/11, many Western people (and maybe the world) thought that democracy would not grow in the Arabian deserts. The Iraqi misadventure strengthened their view, even with a superpower’s intervention, establishing a democracy in Middle East is a herculean task. They believed that democracy is just not compatible with Arabian society, history, culture, religion. That’s why for many decades had America stayed beside powerful dictators believing that without them, the alternative is Al Qaeda – democracy is unforeseeable. Only a handful people who kept saying that democracy and freedom is a universal value (ironically, including Bush). Al Qaeda, on the other side, built its organization on the narrative that there’s only one way to topple these dictators, and that’s through violent jihad. Thus, the uprising, like the fall of Berlin Wall, took everybody by surprise.
I guess the uprising that we see today didn’t start in Tunisia or Tahrir, but in Tehran, at 2009. Massive demonstrations occurred, protesting the election rigging that gave another win for Ahmadinejad. In a Friday prayer, Khamenei stayed by the President, and brutal crackdown followed. What started out as election protest has now evolved into anti-regime underground movement. It didn’t succeed so far, mainly due to lack of unity and leadership in the opposition, and also the regime’s experienced (and sadist) apparatus in dealing with subversive elements. Iranian regime also sits on top of huge oil reserves, which gave it more domestic and international leverage. But I guess the image of Iranian youth marching silently in thousands even millions, with their green ribbon and their ‘V’ peace (and victory) sign, through Tehran, through Azadi Square, protesting against one of the most totalitarian regimes in Middle East has a profound impact on the youth in Tunisia, Egypt, and beyond.
Then, as we have witnessed, came the domino effects – started by a humble poor street vendor who set himself on fire, followed by the fall of the once thought as all-powerful dictators. Tunisia and Egypt were dramatic revolutions – yes there were victims and even one victim is one too many, yes the actual uprisings had been pioneered years ago – but the 2011 revolution went relatively short and intense therefore in the whole process it never lost its momentum, it had its prelude, climax, and happy-ending without any limbo-parts or extended bloodshed. I guess the fact that Ben Ali and Mubarak were allies to America does help, therefore there’s still somebody who held their leashes and told them at one point that ‘this is enough’. Once the wind reached Syria and Libya, it got messier and a lot bloodier. No one has the leash over Gaddafi or al-Assad, if there’s any, it’s the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese regime – all are also not a big fan to freedom and human rights values. Bahrain didn’t succeed because too much sectarian color in the opposition movement – although there were a lot genuine pro-democratic people in there. Saudi Arabia, the ‘800-pound gorilla in the room’ – in the words of Fareed Zakaria, has little sparks but it survived because it has huge oil reserves and it can sell it to America (unlike Iran). Even so, those who have toppled their dictators are also still in first step towards democracy. The harder tasks are to maintain order and societal cohesion, to balance between individual and civil rights and national interests, and of course, building good governance. The threat of the fundamentalists is definitely overblown, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The big threat in Egypt I think is a military that doesn’t wholeheartedly committed to democracy and colluded with fundamentalists to erode the moderate voices – we’ve seen this happened in Pakistan.
With all its up and downturn, failure and success, I believe that the Middle East Uprising is irreversible. Gaddafi has fallen. Al-Assad has unleashed all his tanks and troops and yet the brave Syrian people continue to resist – the diplomatic pressure on him is mounting. Khamenei may temporarily contain one opponent, the Green Movement, but now faced another, Ahmadinejad. If Egypt succeeded in her experiment for democracy, I believe it will have gradual but significant impact on the Gulf monarchies. In the end, the tyrant may be able to imprison, torture, and massacre thousands, and possibly stopped the demonstrations, but the discontent, the resentment, anger, pain, would not be wiped out from the society’s memory – plus it’s in the internet, and unless you’re Kim Jong Il, you couldn’t stop its penetration. The only way for the regime to survive is to adapt to the people’s demands and reform, the other way is to step down – history is just not on their side. The Chinese Communist Party survived Tiananmen, aside from the fact that it occurred before there was YouTube and Facebook, because it accommodated the people’s aspiration – it’s still dictatorial, it still withheld the people’s freedom, but it gave the people education, wealth, progress, national pride. The Mid-East dictators currently, on the other hand, are withholding freedom but only capable of giving their people anti-Israel rhetoric.
This uprising has reached a point of no return – as they said, fear has been defeated, there’s no turning back. As an Egyptian pro-democracy activist said, ‘this is not an Arab Spring, because it’s not seasonal, it’s Arab Uprising.’ Or as Churchill put it, ‘the voice of freedom never faltered, even though it stuttered.’
Liberty
10 years after 9/11, many of the fears at that moment proved to be untrue. Many of the problems today are often due to internal illness rather than external threats – like the economic meltdown, global warming. Under the threat of terrorism, the democratic world survived, adapted, and maybe even expanded. Al Qaeda didn’t transform into the Nazis or the Communists, no new iron or bamboo curtain is erected in Middle East – it turned out to be just a hiccup.
As Jon Stewart said, just a day after 9/11, “The view... from my apartment... was the World Trade Center... And now it's gone. And they attacked it. This symbol of... of American ingenuity and strength... and labor and imagination and commerce and it's gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. The view from the south of Manhattan is the Statue of Liberty. You can’t beat that.” Yes they tore down the twin towers, but they couldn’t tear down liberty.
