Economist reviews two new books on jihadism that differ in their analyses of what’s behind it. Worth reading.
Blood-stained pursuit of revenge
have been written on violent jihadism. But seven years after the September 11th attacks on America, the experts still disagree on basic issues. These two books, for instance, even offer different interpretations of the starting point: what was al-Qaeda’s aim in carrying out the “Manhattan raid” in 2001?
For Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and White House adviser, al-Qaeda sought deliberately “to lure the United States into an invasion first of Afghanistan and then of Iraq”, and thus exhaust the superpower in “bleeding wars” of the kind that defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1989. The ineptitude of the Bush administration and its “botched” occupation of two Muslim countries reinforced al-Qaeda, which Mr Riedel describes as “the first truly global terrorist organisation in history.”
But in the view of Alison Pargeter, a researcher at Britain’s Cambridge University, it is Osama bin Laden who was naive: remembering America’s earlier flights from Lebanon and Somalia, he thought that a devastating blow on American soil would force it to withdraw its forces from Saudi Arabia. Instead al-Qaeda suffered a “tactical disaster” when America’s invasion toppled the Taliban and evicted al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. But a tactical disaster only: Ms Pargeter goes on to argue that on the ideological plane the attacks on America turned out to be a masterstroke, showing a new way of punishing “the symbols of oppression” and taking “revenge on behalf of the entire Muslim population”.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
September:19:2008 - 10:47
John you know more than Mr. Riedel and Ms. Pargeter…on such subjects and yes I have pushed myself and purchased Arabian Knight and have begun reading it. I usually hate reading history but so far so good.
The beginning of the book refers to missionaries but it didn’t specify what type of missionaries. Could it simply mean people on a mission or does it specifically mean “Christian” missionaries?
Thanks
September:19:2008 - 10:47
Definitely Protestant Christian missionaries. Eddy’s family helped start American University of Beirut, btw. The Christian missionaries (of all sects) discovered, over a period of 100 years, that they had little hope of converting Muslims.
What they did instead was to work on ministering to existing Christians, try to poach members of other sects into their own, and built hospitals and schools. The last parts stuck.
September:19:2008 - 10:47
I read that and was totally shocked about the American University of Beirut. My Lebanese friend told me that is the best University in Lebanon. I am still reading about Eddy in France. It did mention that his family helped start up the University. Interesting how he approached his wife to marry her.
From my personal observations, Lebanese people are warm and welcoming overall. I have worked with them in the Kingdom and found them very intellectual and hard working. I have also befriended a few on a close level.
I agree that converting Muslims is nearly impossible but perhaps the greatest mission is helping to build infrastructure that lasts rather than changing someone’s religious belief. It might be noteworthing that this subject came up in this thread. Maybe that is the American jihadism?
September:19:2008 - 10:47
Well, it’s usually tagged with the term ‘cultural imperialism’, rather than ‘American jihad’.
If you’re interested in the missionary efforts in the Middle East, you might want to read Power, Faith, and Fantasy, by Michael Oren. It takes a look at ‘America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present’, as the subtitle says.
I’ve got some problems with that book, but on the whole it’s an interesting and informative read. It’s now in paper and, if you’re in a country with libraries, you can probably find a copy.