Could al-Qaeda Be a Western Conspiracy?

The question, posed in recent comments and elsewhere, suggests a number of connections founded on a problematic logic.  This has persuaded me to reply in some detail, although my argument only responds to the relevant comment on some points.  I am not therefore accusing my commenter of holding all the opinions I am arguing with below.

The problematic logic: Because similar phenomena have happened elsewhere, or in the past, does not mean they are happening right now by that fact alone.  Just because the CIA and British intelligence kindled resistance to Mossadegh, in 1953, and led to his overthrow (democracies attacking a democracy -- there goes that Eurocentric theory), does not therefore mean that today's protests against Iran's government are therefore a Western conspiracy.

Secondly, al-Qaeda does have Western roots.  That's reality.  Go ask Stephen Coll.

The C.I.A., the ISI and Saudi intelligence, all agencies of allied nations, worked together to create an Afghan anti-Soviet resistance, to arm and train it in terrorist and guerrilla actions, and to fund it with huge sums of money.  Pakistan's government went on to transfer its own fighters and allied fighters to other arenas and contexts, in the pursuit of, frankly, remarkably stupid foreign policy objectives (hence the crisis today.)  Therefore, it is not an argument against al-Qaeda's existence or actions to say it had "Western" roots, at least to some extent.  Israel encouraged Hamas as an alternative to the PLO, to factionalize Palestine, but then saw Hamas become ever more formidable (though present paralysis in Palestinian politics might suggest that, however indirectly, an Israeli objective was achieved -- although Israel's policies have harmed its strategic interests in other ways.)

Israel's invasion of Lebanon helped Hezbollah grow, as did Syrian, Iranian and other streams of assistance.  But this narrative then imagines that local actors are puppets, and America is an all-powerful force which can construct its own opponents, attack itself and win.  Two questions come forward: Is any country that powerful?  Many powerful countries make numerous mistakes and yet are able, through more sophisticated institutions and stronger resources, to ride out the consequences (namely, Vietnam.)  Others, aka the USSR, could not: Afghanistan.  But that doesn't mean they're all-powerful, it just means they are resilient, because they know how to bounce back from failure.  Many Muslim countries cannot, because their social cohesion is so weak.

Nations are rarely as powerful as we assume them to be.  Usually, there is the power of inertia, the reality of clashing interests, and the simple fact that leaders ultimately have skewed vision, biases, prejudices and the like, just as the rest of us do, and often do not get what they intended.  (What the hell was the point of the Iraq War, after all, and how far from its intention has the reality brought us?)  A lot of power comes from trust and common priorities, which are the project of cultural efforts, national education, political institutions and more.  Very few countries manage to do this very well: America does it well, for a lot of reasons (Somalia, clearly, didn't, for a lot of reasons.)

The second question: If this is the conspiratorial reality, if al-Qaeda were a conspiracy, then what agency does anyone have?  Anything can be blamed on foreigners.  We would be useless, paralyzed and unimportant.  There would, in a world so powerful and easily manipulated, be no room for initiative or responsibility.  This is the powerlessness Muslims preach, because it helps us avoid responsibility where we have responsibility (nobody told Zardari to be a corrupt ruler, but he is all the same.  Saddam Hussein was aided by the West, even when he used WMDs, but other Arab allies have defied the West on a host of issues and retained their alliances.  Did Saddam have to kill everyone who criticized him to get Western aid?  Of course not.  Jordan is a close American ally, and yet far more humane than Iraq was.  Turkey's AKP said no, loud and clear to the Iraq War, even in the face of billions in potential aid, and all the same is trying to improve the situation of its Kurdish population.  Qatar gives us al-Jazeera, but is also an American ally.)

The assumption that America is so superior to all nations that it can "create" al-Qaeda for its purposes is negated by this simple fact: How, possibly, is a bankrupt America benefiting from a conflict that seems to be doing more for China?  While we're busy fighting wars of choice and getting bogged down in interminable conflicts, China's building for the future.  Just because America is powerful enough to overthrow a government does not mean it can recreate a society as it pleases, or even control every society it wants to (and it also means that, just because a country cannot compete with America militarily or economically doesn't mean they can't push their own agenda when they want to: Turkey is such an example.)  The UK let its empire become such an obsession that it lost competitive edges to Japan, USA and Germany; WWI was the end of the British Empire after a long period of economic decline -- we just didn't fully realize it until 1956.  America's power projection capabilities are for now drastically limited.  Is that an "end" to American Empire, a rise of a new world order, or a momentary weakness?  Time will tell...

Lastly, why did Umar Abdulmutallab not blow himself up in the bathroom?  Because the explosive was not powerful enough.  He needed to be next to a wall of the aircraft, so that the explosion could quickly tear a hole in the plane, depressurize the cabin and take everyone down with him.  Or he suspected the bomb would explode immediately, leaving his location on the plane immaterial to his plan.  I also think it's quite clear how al-Qaeda or its affiliates would benefit from this attack: Heightened security increases America's isolation -- who wants to fly to America now?  All the smart desis will move to Singapore, Canada, Australia, the Gulf or the UK, and America will be hurt by that loss. 

Also: Their -- al-Qaeda's (and I know al-Qaeda is not one solid organization) -- attack indicates ongoing viability, which draws in funding.  America will now get further caught up in Yemen, which will be bad for Yemen's official credibility (i.e., they are America's "stooge" and lose public respect), and American missile strikes will invariably kill civilians and alienate more and more Yemenis.  An unstable Yemen gives al-Qaeda a new safe haven, after the threats to Pakistan and Afghanistan's havens.  By leaving from Amsterdam, the attacker picked a European country very uncomfortable with Islam, giving it more reason to clamp down on Muslims and to create a more hostile public climate, thereby alienating more young Muslims who could potentially be recruited.  There is a cold, brutal and, I hate to say it, sophisticated logic at work here.

In the end, most Muslim countries are where they are because too many leaders want power, are obsessed with absolutist narratives, and fear their people, so they brutalize them.  But those that have accepted the pragmatic reality of the world have prospered, and become world players: Indonesia and Turkey, to name two.  Believe me, it hurts me so bad to see how Muslims are treated, and to see where this ummah has fallen to, and how badly we are victimized and abused.  Just to hear the plight of the Uighurs, or of the religious Muslims in Karimov's jail, it brings tears to my eyes.  But that sight requires I understand who is doing what to whom, and also that we are courageous enough to see that our problems are many, and the road ahead is long, and we must take responsibility to improve ourselves, our condition and the world around us.  We cannot do that if we blame others for everything.  Besides, that attitude brings us no pragmatic, let alone moral, good.

Lastly, the comment mentioned "huge profits".  Really?  Airline companies, which are huge companies, are going out of business or threatened with bankruptcy at an alarming rate.  Again, just because someone profits doesn't mean they're "behind" something.  One can make anything sound suspect.  I agree we should always consider economic benefits. 

But the last ten years has seen the West, apparently, stagnate, while China and emerging economies apparently got the better end of that deal.  It's about advantages, bad decisions, external and internal circumstances, which leave a lot more room for agency than we often admit. 

China has profited immeasurably from our failure to invest in infrastructure, our no-limits lifestyles, our addiction to debt and our expensive wars. Is al-Qaeda therefore a Chinese conspiracy? 

Comments

[thabet]

China and Russia stands to profit immensely from the stupid adventure in Iraq.

[Asics Tiger]

Mr Reiss says he has not been surprised by the victims. "People are much more discerning now about how they spend their money and you have to keep moving forward as a brand. If you don't have that sense of uniqueness or give customers what they want, you are going to struggle. You have to be adaptable and understand your customer. It's a tough world out there."

[ralph lauren shorts]

ok thanks for your reference