Exclusive: U.S. and Al-Qaeda: Whose Vision of Reform Will Prevail? How the US Could Have Played into Al Qaeda's Hands after 9/11


Author: Joel Gilbert

Date Published: 2008-01-27


U.S. and Al-Qaeda:  Whose Vision of Reform Will Prevail?

How the US Could Have Played into Al Qaeda's Hands after 9/11

Joel Gilbert

 

Osama Bin Laden: Allah knows we want reform, and that we strive for it as much as we can.

 

President George Bush:  For America, 9/11 was more than a tragedy, it changed the way we look at the world.  America has (now) committed its influence in the world to advancing freedom.

 

Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri:  Reform can only be achieved by uprooting these corrupt regimes, and by installing a Muslim government that will protect rights, defend sanctities, and establish justice.

 

President George Bush:  We must seek stability through a free and just Middle East and the governments should continue to move forward with other reforms.

 

Osama Bin Laden:  It is obligatory for all Muslims to take action for reform…these regimes are nothing but a part of the system of global heresy.

 

President George Bush:  With our help, the people of the Middle East are now stepping forward to claim their freedom...  As you struggle to find your voice, the United States will stand with you.

 

Since the early 1990’s, Osama Bin Laden’s singular message was REFORM.  Bin Laden echoed the Islamist call for democratic elections in the Islamic world, which he believed would rid the Middle East of corrupt kings, military rulers, and puppet presidents and replace them with Islamist political parties.  This would fulfill the Islamist agenda by ushering in an era of Islamic rule on the path to a revival of Islamic society, after 300 years of decline.

 

In light of Bin Laden’s quest, the Bush administration’s post-9/11 “Freedom Agenda” for the Middle East raises profound questions:

 

1)  Will reform in Muslim countries, i.e. free elections, lead to the election of democratic, secular governments or will it bring anti-Western, Islamist parties to power? 

 

2)  Does the Islamist agenda serve American interests in the world and enhance the security of the United States and its allies?

 

Islamism advocates the implementation of Shari’ah (Islamic law) and the restoration of the Koran as the sole authority for government in Muslim countries.   Islamism is an indigenous, grass-roots movement championed by both poor and educated Muslims throughout the Muslim world.  "Islam is the solution!" is the Islamist call to action against Westernization and secular governments in the Muslim world.  A return to Islamic rule demands a purification of Islamic society from secular government systems, legislation, and institutions borrowed from or imposed by the West.  And for Islamists, the very existence of an independent Jewish state is a theological and historical impossibility, and Israel's elimination is the number one target and obstacle on the path to a successful Islamic revival.

 

Contrary to U.S. perceptions, the 9/11 attacks were not an attack on “freedom.”  Al-Qaeda is an Islamist organization whose adherents are devout Muslims.  The teachings of Islam have social and political goals whose purpose is to succeed in this world - in politics, warfare, diplomacy, and economics.  In Islam, religion is not merely one segment of life, it regulates the total domain.  Therefore, Islamists are not capable of engaging in random attacks against “freedom,” they only target their actions to religio-political objectives.

 

Central to the agenda of Al-Qaeda and the Islamist movement is the replacement of secular governments in the Muslim world with Islamic rule in order to facilitate Islamic revival.  Islamists view U.S. support for secular regimes in the Middle East as one of the key elements keeping secular governments in place.  Did the United States play into the hands of the Al-Qaeda after 9/11 with its “freedom agenda” for government reform across the Middle East?  Isn’t the U.S. now helping to pave the way for Islamist parties to come to power?

 

In the late seventies, Jimmy Carter emphasized “human rights” over other American interests, helping to push the important American ally, the Shah of Iran, out of power.  Carter believed Western-style secular democracy would emerge in Iran.  However, the result was an anti-Western, Islamist government - considered by the United States to be a state sponsor of terrorism with nuclear weapons ambitions.  In addition, there is talk of regional war, calamitous economic results from oil disruption in the Persian Gulf, and even World War III emanating from Iran’s Islamist government.  Jimmy Carter’s policy toward Iran produced catastrophic consequences for Western interests and Western security.  And now, the Bush administration seems to be repeating Jimmy Carter’s policy in Pakistan (a country that already has nuclear weapons), attempting to push aside U.S. ally President Pervez Musharraf in favor of democratic elections, which it believes will usher in a Western secular democracy. 

 

Yasser Arafat died in November 2004, and the United States insisted on Palestinian elections.  Predictably, in January 2005, the Islamist HAMAS party won the vote and chose an Islamist Prime Minister.  In fact, wherever free elections are held in the Islamic world, Muslims choose an Islamist party, which Muslims believe is the route to a revival of their society rather than Western secular democracy.   

 

Why would American presidents pursue policies with unlimited adverse consequences to U.S. interests?  The answer:  misunderstanding of the Islamic world view, and the values and goals of Muslims.  Because the West considers its own historic development of "nationalism," "freedom," and “separation of church and state” as the natural advancement of humanity, it cannot conceive that its values don't apply to others.  Western “separation of church and state” is the result of the Christian historical experience, used to end strife between Protestants and Catholics, and resurrect Christianity from its decline after the Dark Ages.  The concept of “separation of church and state”, however, is irrelevant to Muslims, whose society found its greatest success in its first 1,200 years, precisely due to the dominance of religion in society.

 

Despite all of this, President George Bush repeats calls for “freedom” and reform in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and to the Muslim masses.  With the U.S. President as the de facto leader of Middle East reform, Osama Bin Laden may not ever need to leave his cave. He can wait for the United States to usher in Islamist rule, making 9/11 successful beyond his wildest dreams, courtesy of the misguided, tried and failed policy of Jimmy Carter, now recycled as the "Freedom Agenda."

 

#  #

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org  Contributing Editor Joel Gilbert is the writer, director and producer of the new film FAREWELL ISRAEL:  Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam. The trailer and info can be found at http://www.farewellisrael.com.

 

© 2003-2008 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

 

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

 

Note – The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

 

Click here to support Family Security Matters