Was Osama correct???

The Nation of Islam always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends will support their view.

By de Andrea

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and severe. But if you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there not be any punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward; as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and other miscellaneous pacifists and apologists came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to make it right?"

A few examples may be in order.
During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals; notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as Europeans.

There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and dire, and was directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. As a result the kidnapped Russians were promptly released, moreover, after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.

These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions, and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. The Soviets already ruled half dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism.

Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost uncontested.

One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.

The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, ultimately found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization known as the Taliban (literally translated, "the students") began to organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able to attract some support from the Muslim world; some grants of money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden.

To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, an ongoing hatred of Western Christianity by Islam, and they have been violently bent on removing whatever obstacles that might be in their path. For a long time, the main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the West, but some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to accept what help they could get against their common enemy. This explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies of the West, and therefore natural allies to Islam. [“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.]

Now however, the situation had changed. The more immediate, more dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the passive, pampered, and degenerate Americans would be easy.

We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers however, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack some plausibility.

From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the lack of an American response to a whole series of attacks; first on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to damage a tent and possible kill a camel in some remote part of the dessert.

Stage one:
Jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; with that accomplished;

Stage two:
Was to bring this war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage.

The violent response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock to the Muslim world, and it is noteworthy that there has been no significant attack on American soil since then.

The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was likely necessary. In more recent developments, and notably the public discourse and political correctness inside the U.S. administration and in Congress, are persuading increasing numbers of Islamic jihadist that their first assessment may have been correct after all, and that they need only to be patient and press a little harder to achieve final victory.

History will record whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences for America and the entire Western Nations will be disastrous to say the least.

THE BOTTOM LINE: It should, at the very least, be clear to this administration and the Congress, that this enemy respects nothing but and instant response of overwhelming power. This is obviously the only language that Islam understands. So if we should resume, and, or continue with our pacifistic position, or even as we have been doing, to lift the throttle up on our aggressive resolve, we will once again be seen as weak and impotent. The west can ill afford to allow this relentless theocracy of Islam to continue its agenda of violent world conquest and domination.

If we walk away from the challenge of aggressive response to this murderous attack of 911 then we will have reduced ourselves to defending our very survival…

de Andréa