Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Who is Osama Bin Ladin?

Osama Bin Ladin is not, strictly speaking, a terrorist. Terrorists, generally speaking, have certain characteristics he does not share. By and large, most of the people we might describe as "terrorists" have limited territorial ambitions or similarly limited practical agendas. A terrorist kills people publicly, randomly, so that an audience to the violence thinks "That could have been me!" and adjusts their behavior, theoretically in a way that the terrorist intended. Rather than achieve some specific objective in changing the behavior of people in the west, Bin Ladin is content merely to kill as many of them as possible, in the immediate hope of inspiring others to follow his example, and in the long-term hope of sparking a global war between the Muslim world and the West, the result being a resurrected Caliphate ruling over the entire world, enforcing a version of Sharia acceptable to him. To this end, he attacks people he considers enemy combatants, or those who aid and abet them; to him, the World Trade Center was as acceptable a target as German munitions factories were in the Second World War. Bin Ladin's declared adversary is the West; the West's weapon is its economy, and anyone involved in it (in other words, given the economic dominance of the West and the interconnectedness of the world, everyone) is a valid target. He has declared a fight to the death with the entire world. A little pie-in-the-sky, this makes him not so much a terrorist per se as a what's-the-word crazy person.

So who or what exactly is Osama Bin Ladin, if not a terrorist? From one perspective, he's Martin Luther. Traditionally, the main schism within Islam is that between the two main sects of Sunni and Shi'a, which in some ways parallels the great schism in the Christian church: a conflict between those who believe religious authority belongs in the hands one leader (a Caliph or a Patriarch) or in those of someone the faith's founder allegedly appointed (Ali or St. Peter). Currently, I'd think the most pressing issue is not that but whether or not, as a certain faction claims, it is necessary to kill all sorts of people in Allah's name. I would be on the "no" side, personally, but then, I'm no mujtahidun, what do I know?

Anyway, in both sects, much authority has rested in the learned hands of legal scholars and jurists, the vast majority of whom do not condone Bin Ladin's actions. Bin Ladin, for his part, doesn't cite those few who do sanction his activities, but rather holds to his own interpretation of the Qur'an, and in doing so implicitly or explicitly invites other Muslims to do so as well. In this regard, he is somewhat reminiscent of Martin Luther, rejecting central authority for interpretation of issues of faith, instead focusing on individual interpretation of scripture; a personal relationship with God, no intervening institutions needed. It remains to be seen whether his actions will ignite the kind of lasting change Martin Luther's did; it would be nice if Mr. Bin Ladin would confine his actions to nailing things to other things (which has always made for great PR moments for Christianity) instead of blowing things up.

Osama Bin Ladin is also George Washington. Not to make the clichéd one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter argument...but that is the case. Consider: during the Soviet Union's invasion and ultimately unsuccessful occupation of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Ladin cut his terrorist teeth fighting off the godless Commies. He was able to do so thanks in no small part to considerable aid and assistance from the Soviet Superpower's rival for global dominance, the United States. George Washington was similarly able to fight off the number one power in the world at that time, Great Britain, thanks to the help he received from Britain's main rival at that time, France.

Bin Ladin may seem to be needlessly wasting lives tilting at windmills, but really, terrorism to him is just advertising, a recruiting tool. When the towers fell, there was mourning, but there was also celebration around the world: it may seem despicable, but it may make more sense if it's thought of as analogous to Washington's victory at Trenton. Trenton was a minor battle, but as a clear and sweeping victory against the seemingly unbeatable British, it had a profound psychological effect, making the war seem winnable. Similarly, tactically speaking, 9/11 may not have spelled the end for the Grand Republic, but to oppressed people on the margins around the world, it was a blow against the system they perceived as keeping them under it's boot.

Furthermore, while Bin Ladin may be reviled today by people around the around the world for flouting the rules of war, in his day, Washington did much the same: while the idea of Americans shooting from cover at Brits standing in the open is largely a myth, or at least exaggerated, the Parliamentary forces did notably often fight without uniforms, target officers, and otherwise engage in guerrilla tactics contrary to conventions of European warfare, and in doing so influenced military strategy both in North America and the rest of the world (Wellington famously adopted the Parliamentary Army's double-firing line practice against Napoleon, who was still using conventional triple firing lines). "Terrorist" is just another word for someone who fights by the rules of the next war, not the present one.