The tensions’ relationship between the United States and the Muslim World is not a new subject. However the attacks in World Trade Center and at the Pentagon have aggravated the situation because it brought to our backyard the on-going clashes in the far Middle East. Our leaders backed by the media, deceivably portrayed that the American hope for a safer and prosper world was in danger due to fanaticism among Muslims who hated us because of the freedom we preached. The only way to combat this horrible Islamic threat was by initiating a global war against them. The United State government response to the attacks of September eleven has increased the fear, suspicion and antagonism among Muslims. Military action in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq has contributed to validate extremist groups’ platform in calling for a global jihad against American imperialism in the Muslim world. Unless an unprecedented commitment emerges to reduce ignorance, misperceptions and stereotypes from both sides together, Americans and Muslims will continue to disrupt the so important steps towards reconciliation and the violence preached by a minimal fraction of extremist groups will gain more popularity and will not cease.
The 9/11 events killed thousands of innocent civilians in America by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Bin Landen was seen as the evil by us and also he was seen as a hero by some. The ones who saw him as a courageous hero justified his attack stating that he was able to shake the superpower imperialist United States and send a message of hate. The event was an awake up call to all Americans. In one day, we saw ourselves in the reality of what millions of Muslims have experienced in their daily lives. Even though this terrorism attack acted against the peaceful message of the Qoran itself, Islam was somehow described as our enemy and the American people bought the concept. Hence Muslims, by watching the US media propagating the “bad” image of Islam, understood the threat against their religion and the conflict escalated and hurt even more the weak image of Americans by the Muslim world. Years of interventions in internal affairs, the support of the US to authoritarian governments, the disregard for the Palestinian cause, the invasion of Iraq based on forged propositions only exacerbated the Anti American sentiments throughout the Muslim World and the Jihadism movement gained ground to flourish. Al Qaeda was portrayed by the Bush Administration as a transnational well structured organization with hieratical leadership directly led by Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was exposed with no moral values and their main desires were the total destruction of the American society and the imposition of Islam in the world. He also wanted to replaced western inspired secular oppressing regimes in the Muslim world by an Islamic governments ruled by the sharia. The US commission conducted the investigation of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal investigation and focus on the understanding of the plot itself and people behind the attacks instead of focus on understanding the social movement behind it. The report was based on the interrogation of few Al Qaeda members captured by the coalition forces. The report itself did not provide significant information about the organization decision making process or about the main leaders (Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri who was an important figure in the ideological and religious vision of Al Qaeda). The report is very controversial because in using intense methods of interrogation (torture basically), the information extracted from the prisoners is believed by many to be not credible, inconsistent or unreliable. The report was supposed to help us to understand the dynamics of the Jihad movement that provoked the attacks in American and help US policy makers to act according, but it failed provide the information. It is only in understanding the causes that let the globalization of the Jihad movement that we will address the issue assertively. Gerges in The Far Enemy help us to better understand the Jihadism and politics of Al Qaeda. Differently of what was projected by Bush Administration, Al Qaeda is a minimal fraction of the Jihadism movement. Most religious nationalist leaders reject its agenda, strategies, and the use of the violence against civilians. The focus of the religious nationalist was to battle the status quo at home, and not to battle the “far enemy”. Gerges portrays Jihadism as movement that is far from being monolithic and shows the tensions inside Al Qaeda. He argues that since Bin Laden saw their defeat in the jihad at home, transferring the fight globally would be his last beat for his cause to succeed, and in with move he showed the fragmentation of the movement. Gerges states ”Understanding the tension, differences and shifts among jihadis will shed light on how Sept. 11 occurred as well as on the relative weight of transnationalist jihadis and religious nationalists. It will also illuminate the rise of AL Qaeda, its influence within the Jihadism movement, and its potential long-term durability.” In reality, AL Qaeda is not such an organized entity as we were made believe. It was this exaggerated threat presented by the administration that helped the organization to gain popularity and Bush and his cabinet purposively sent the message of an evil empire to gain public support for his so wanted war.
Understanding terrorism in contemporary days has led many scholars to agree and disagree about terrorism goals and operations. Robert Pape, discusses that after 9/11 there was a imperative need of understanding suicidal terrorism. He argues that the cases he studied gave him the assertion that suicide terrorists do not act on religious motives. Rather, it is an ideology to transform the world independently of religion. He state “Terrorists compel modern democracies to withdraw combat forces from territory they prized.” That is the case in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. He argues that never in Iraq occurred suicidal attacks since the invasion. The solution is to withdraw all station troops extracting the motive that causes the suicide bombs from the Middle East and station them off shore to protect American interest in the region. In Contrary, Mark Juergernsmeyer’ s, in The Logic of Religious Violence states that extremists or people who excuse the use of violence in the defense of faith, portray their secular government as the responsible force in advocating anti-religious ideology that threats the traditional way of living. As presenting their faith under attack, militia leaders win individuals adherence to their cause requesting them to have discipline, courage and strength to fight their enemy, if necessary to the end. It is a cosmic battle between truth and evil. Talk is not enough to fight injustice, they are called to act. Leaders’ misuse of religious language legitimizes their cause to overcome human politics and economic problems and to give moral endorsement to their use of violence. Scott Atran in The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism states that suicide attackers today do not fit Pape’s description. Suicidal terrorist are composed by idealist youth inspirited by religious oriented heroes (Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri). Since they are isolated from societies especially in Europe, and with all the spare time available to navigate the Internet and watch television, they incorporate the jihad movement as they can identify social oppression and political repression around the Muslim world with their own lives. They vow that suicide for the cause of jihad is the noblest cause. Atran proves the opposite of our main visualization of “traditional” terrorist as poor, deprived, no other option, criminal and hate freedom stereotype. The suicide bombs in the British consulate and HSBC in Istanbul is an example to disprove Pape’s theory about a strategic political objective as too narrow too broad, outdated, and misleading. The invasion of Afghanistan eliminated the training camps and the disruption of the money flow to Al Qaeda and from Al Qaeda to its militants which degraded it back to a decentralized network of small cells. Today, Atran says “Zawahiri calls jihad everywhere to inflict the greatest possible damage and maximum causalities among the West, regardless of time and effort required or of the immediate consequences.” Humiliation then is a great tool in the hands of extremist Islamist because they produce rage and quest for vengeance in the Muslim youth community. The idea of a centralized Al Qaeda recruiting and leading militants to expel troops is not correct anymore. These young people are inspired by the global Jihad movement (usually from reading “posts” on the Internet), self generated from below, organized by groups of friends. Understanding the group dynamics is the key in challenge it. Jihad cells are small in groups (usually 4 to 8 people). They are individuals with similar characteristics within the group but very different from other cells, and they form spontaneously. The cell members are so united to themselves that individuals are willing to give their lives for their peers. Therefore, it is important to channel religious beliefs to less violent expressions. In fighting this new ideological threat, Mark Sageman in Understanding the Jihadi Networks states “ Develop a coherent and comprehensive strategy by discrediting the legitimacy of leaders and the ideology behind the global Salavi jihad and replacing it with an inspiring vision of a just and fair partnership with Islam.”
The US Administration keeps committing the same old mistakes according to Atran’s To Beat Al Qaeda, Look to the East. In increasing troops in order detain counterinsurgency efforts and to focus on trying to gain popular support for a corrupt government is a proven failed strategy. What is actually happening is that by overestimating the threat of Al Qaeda, we are instigating an increase in Pakistan Taliban surge that is now threatening Pakistan stability and the world. He argues that the war against Al Qaeda has to be local, and that it will only work when the West realize that what unify the terroristic networks are cultural and familial rather than political ties. Europeans have been successful in preventing plots doing exactly that tracking links among local extremists, families and friends and improving relations with young Muslims immigrants.
Pres. Obama’s speech in Cairo was a true ground break in the reconciliation process. American image has been damage so much in the Muslim world that only an address by the president in a Muslim country could break the ice and set a new tone. The Bush Administration made so many mistakes that people around the world would not be willing to listen to Americans if there was no change in the administration. I believe Obama was very successful. His speech was truly a remarkable piece of diplomatic “re-commitment” owned to the Muslim community. It assured that his administration was serious about a new beginning where diplomacy would prevail. Differences will be spoken and discussed at public level. America will remained behind its most cherished values of freedom, democracy and justice. Human rights will be again priority and he proved that American will not be hypocritical about it with the closure of Guatanamo Bay Facility. He assured that America is not in war against Islam, since Islam is part of our own history. We will go beyond the definition of our relations with Muslims based on our differences and work together in our shared principles of tolerance and dignity.
Religion is too important and influential today to be ignored by the US policy makers. Agents in foreign policies have to engage religious leaders in other to advance its agenda of promoting human rights and democracy. Cairo was crucial, but we need to move to action, otherwise the speech will be soon forgotten. Religious leaders can be important allies in the resolution of conflicts and the achievement of global peace. The moderate voices in Islam are being shut down because of our fear of engaging in dialogue with religious leaders. It is our common goal to eradicated extremists use of violence against innocent people. There has to be a unified effort to educate members of public and private sector about religions. Acknowledging achievements of religious leaders in social programs could help to break down misconceptions. Providing participation in government by religious leaders would also help to bring their knowledge and agenda to the government. The Report of the Task of Force on Religion and the making of US foreign policy suggest an American Muslim as ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conference and encourage ambassadors who work in countries where religion is important to be knowledgeable about them.
The responsibility for peaceful coexistence is in the hands of United States and Muslims leaders equally. We need to re-build trust, respect and understanding. If we cannot achieve a common ground, the danger of further conflict escalation is great. Our immediate action has to be the better use of diplomacy and dialogue. Solving the problems together will stop the violence. Americans have to live up to values we advocate to avoid perceived cynicism and resistance among the world community.
