Think fast: what
would you call this era of American history? What term would comprehensively
define the current American zeitgeist? Time’s up. Perhaps you have come to the
same conclusion that I have. The United States is already a decade into the
post-9/11 era. The events that unfolded on September 11, 2001 have shaped the
American government and the American people like no other. This era of history
has presented us with a new adversary: al-Qaeda. Though we have been at war
(The War on Terror) against this enemy for ten years, I wonder how much we, as
students of international relations, actually understand about this terrorist
faction beyond the foundation that “they hate America and its values.” Even
though perspective is nominally everything in IR, here I find a regrettable
deficiency. We are forgetting Sun Tzu’s principle rule in The Art of War – “Know your enemy.” For this reason, I urge you to
read a book that I had read over the past summer, Inside the Jihad: My Life with al-Qaeda by Omar Nasiri.
Before I
continue, I must preface with the fact that Omar Nasiri does not exist. At
least, there is no man by that name. The name “Omar Nasiri” is an alias for a
Moroccan man who infiltrated the al-Qaeda Afghan training camps as an agent
first for the French DGSE (Directorate-General for External Security) and then
the British MI6 from 1994 to 2000. The accounts that Omar Nasiri collected are gripping
and invaluable. He is likely the only primary source you will encounter in the
discussion of Afghan training camps and the larger terror networks that allowed
the 9/11 terrorist attacks to occur.
The level of
description that Omar Nasiri provides is staggering. He details the daily
routine of both of the camps he had visited – the comprehensive weapons
training, explosives exercises, theological study, and most importantly the
overwhelming sense of brotherhood shared by the mujahideen. Even though he was
a spy for European governments, Omar was no exception to this kinship. In fact,
he references to himself as a mujahid many times throughout the novel. He is
truly “one of them.” The fundamental ideologies that drive Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed and Omar Nasiri are the same – “Western governments have propped up
illegitimate regimes in our homeland for far too long; it is time for Islamic
lands to belong to Muslims.”
Though Islamic terrorism has evolved into an uglier beast, it was rooted
in this principle when Omar Nasiri was a mujahid. Is this such an offensive
belief? In theory, I believe not. Omar Nasiri and his brothers from his days at
the camps differ in one core area: methods. While the rest of them believed
that the Qu’ran condoned their acts of terrorism, Omar did not.
This one
difference provides us with a true spy story, one with perspective. From Omar
Nasiri’s accounts, we can see against whom the War on Terror is truly being
waged. We can learn their history, methods, and motivations. If my words cannot
entice you to read his book, perhaps those of Omar Nasiri will resonate
stronger:
“I was appalled
by the way the Americans reacted on 9/11. The endlessly naïve outrage: We’ve
been attacked on American soil! A
tragedy, no doubt. And a crime. But what about the millions of Muslims killed
on Muslim soil? In the Middle East, in Africa, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, in
Afghanistan? Did time stop for them? And so, yes, I believe there are battles
worth fighting…But I also believe in laws. Perhaps more than any other religion, Islam has very clear
laws about when and how to go to war…And I learned there [the Afghan training
camps] that these laws make us different from and better than the Americans and
the French and the Germans and the Russians and the English and everyone else. They kill however they can. They dropped nuclear bombs on cities and
killed millions in gas chambers and destroy whole populations to steal land and
riches…But we’re Muslims and the Kur’an tells us not to. That is true Islam…If
we, as Muslims, let ourselves become like them
– which is to say, like you –then
there will be nothing left to fight for.
This
is my jihad.”
As students of
IR, it is imperative that we learn about terrorist networks. If you’re looking
for a book about the mujahideen, there are many. If you’re looking for a book
by a mujahid, read Inside the Jihad.
This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm glad you wrote about it. It is definitely something I'd be interested in reading. I was amazed by the resonant and strong identity which the author spoke with in the excerpt you included. Although I agree with his criticism of our outrage at one attack when many people are living in war torn situations everyday I did find that he was perhaps overstating the wickedness of the Western world while glorifying the Arab world (similar to how people in the western world often depict the Arab world as being negative). He names many horrific things that other countries have done in times of war, however I think he fails to recognize that many Muslims and people living in Muslim countries have committed foul things in wars as well. Maybe there aren't current blatant examples as there are for many Western countries, due to the minor role the Arab world had in WWII, however they have still occurred. Also he generalizes all Americans, Russians, English, Germans and French as part of a "them" group, which supports these aggressive tendencies. He also implies that Muslims are more peaceful and that other religions support these acts. With these ideologies it seems as he is equally as closed minded and biased as the people in the "them" group which he is fighting against, simply holding an opposite bias.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the review! The book definitely sounds interesting, and very intense!
ReplyDeleteI was also interested in the idea that brotherhood was so central to the author's experience and to Al Qaeda. I also think it's interesting that many of these men rely on the Qu'ran as justification for their terrorist acts. I think it's the instinct of Americans to think that their wickedness stems from a pure hatred, without realizing that these men believe they are doing what is religiously obligated.
What effect do you think a book like this can have on foreign policy? It definitely sounds like the book provides a better understanding of terrorist networks, but what is the next step?
Jas - While I agree that the author does tend to glorifying Islamic culture (which is expected), I believe he does acknowledge the atrocities that Muslims have and currently are committing. This is what distinguishes him from what we consider "terrorists." and defines what he means by "his jihad."
ReplyDeleteCaroline - I believe that the next step is addressing the true root of the problem that the author notes - American imperialism. The author works with several foreign intelligence officers throughout his story and he tells them his perspectives (the Muslim perspective) as he tells his audience. However, these grievances are widely ignored. I believed the next step is to not make the same mistakes as those that have preceded us who ignored the heart of the issue.
Thanks for posting this Sagatom, it sounds like a really interesting book. I agree with a lot of what you said here; I do think that there is a disconnect in America between out perception of the terrorists and the reality. Bush said the terrorists hate us for our freedom: this is utter crap. Anti-American sentiment in the middle east is rooted in the fact that America has routinely deprived them of their freedoms: through support of repressive governments, overthrow of potentially democratic governments, and military troops stationed throughout the entire middle east.
ReplyDeleteMy question is this: recently American policy in the middle east has shifted, to the point where we have actually supported populist democratic uprisings in Libya and Egypt, whereas in the past we suppressed them (most notably Iran in the 1950s). Do you think this represents a significant shift in American foreign policy that addresses some of the grievances outlined by Nasiri?
In a sense, it both does and doesn't. While American support of the democratic uprisings in Egypt and more notably in Libya marks a contrast between previous US foreign policy, it's hard to tell where Us really falls in the matter. It could be argued that these democratic uprisings could in turn become another autocracy like the one they deposed (which is often the case). In that happens, America will just have backed another illegitimate government.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the argument I would make against the claim you pose is that, some Middle Easterners view any American intervention as illicit and improper. Regardless of which side the US adopts, it is still interfering with the internal affairs of Middle Easterners. Professor Chenowith, who gave a talk about Arab Spring, made this point explicitly. She said that non-violent protests which do not enlist any sort of foreign aid appear more legitimate and are therefore more successful.
Thus in that respect, I don't think US foreign policy has changed as much as it needs to. In order to effectively improve relations, I believe the US needs to view Middle Eastern states as more of equals than states that need a helping hand. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US would be a good example of this. Given that this is probably not a reasonable expectation, there may be a more realistic way to improve US-Middle Eastern relations.