What if Osama bin Laden Had Legitimate Grievances?
Iraqi security forces patrol Basra, Iraq, on Sept. 8, a day after protesters
in the southern city stormed the Iranian consulate and torched government
buildings in violence that sparked alarm across a conflict-weary country.
(Nabil al-Jurani / AP)
You're not supposed to utter these words, but what the heck: Osama bin Laden
had a point. No, his grievances, as well as those of his followers and
sympathizers, didn't excuse the mass murder of 9/11-not by a long shot.
After all, I am a native New Yorker whose family and neighborhood were
directly touched by the horror of those inexcusable attacks. Still, more
than 17 years after the attacks on the Pentagon and twin towers, it's worth
reflecting on bin Laden's motives and discussing the stark fact that the
United States government has made no moves to address his gripes.
Now is as good a time as any. The U.S. military remains mired in wars across
the Greater Middle East that have now entered their 18th year. The cost:
$5.9 trillion, 7,000 dead American soldiers, at least 480,000 locals killed
and 21 million refugees created. The outcome: more instability, more
violence, more global terror attacks and a U.S. reputation ruined for at
least a generation in the Islamic world.
Need proof? Consider the regular polling that indicates that the U.S. is
considered the greatest threat to world peace. Not China, Russia, Iran or
even North Korea. The United States of America.
Why, exactly, is the U.S. so unpopular, from West Africa to South Asia? This
can be explained in part by the mere presence-sustained, at that-of U.S.
troops in the region. As a historian, I can assure you that folks don't
usually take well to being occupied. Nevertheless, it's more than that. And
here's the rub: Washington, unwilling to even consider the grievances bin
Laden and his acolytes clearly communicated, has instead doubled down on
militarism in the region-thereby turning al-Qaida's fringe complaints into a
mainstream sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world.
Let's review the three core grievances in bin Laden's 1996 fatwa-essentially
a declaration of war-against the U.S., and then look over Washington's
contemporary policies on the issues:
1.Bin Laden objected to the presence of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia
specifically and across the region more generally, due to their proximity to
the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Furthermore, bin Laden criticized the
U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia's despotic royal regime.
But rather than pull its troops "offshore," the U.S. military has expanded
its empire of bases, both in the Mideast and throughout the world. Despite
the slaughter in Yemen and the murder of a Washington Post journalist,
Washington still inflexibly backs the Saudi monarchy. The U.S. has even
negotiated record arms contracts with the kingdom, to the tune of $110
billion. Clearly, Washington has only doubled down on this front.
2.The al-Qaida chief lamented the starvation blockade that the West-led by
Washington-imposed on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf
War. Make no mistake: Saddam was no friend of bin Laden-in fact, they were
mortal enemies. But the well-reported deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi children,
victims of the sanctions during that period, are what motivated bin Laden's
concern. The blockade was so hard and its civilian toll so gruesome that the
United Nations aid chief, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest in 1998.
Optically, the U.S. government response came across as both coarse and
callous. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked in a "60
Minutes" interview in 1996 whether the price of a half-million dead children
was worth the benefits of the sanctions, she cold-heartedly replied, "I
think this is a very hard choice, but the price-we think the price is worth
it."
Today, in addition to the unwarranted 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which
caused at least another 200,000 civilian casualties, the U.S. is complicit
in a new blockade, this one imposed by Washington's Saudi allies in Yemen.
Recent reports indicate that some 85,000 Yemeni children have already
starved to death in the 3-year-old war on the poorest Arab country.
Undeterred, the U.S. continues to provide munitions, intelligence and
in-flight refueling to the Saudi military. This veritable war crime has
galvanized an increasing anti-American regional public just as intensely as
the 1990's sanctions on Iraq once did.
3.Bin Laden, like many global Muslims, felt sympathy for the
generations-long plight of the occupied Palestinians and abhorred America's
one-sided support for Israel's military and governing apparatus. The U.S.
has been almost alone in its willingness to flout international law, U.N.
resolutions and a basic sense of humanity in its backing of Israel since
1948.
Here again, nothing has changed. Washington has simply doubled down. Israel
remains the principal recipient of U.S. military aid, with almost no strings
attached. U.S. media and Washington policymakers rarely mention the
slaughter of mostly unarmed Palestinian demonstrators protesting along the
Gaza fence line in the past eight months. The results have been striking:
5,800 wounded and at least 180 killed since March. American mainstream media
may not take much note of this, but guess who does? A couple of million
Muslim citizens worldwide. In fact, the ongoing protests kicked off partly
in response to President Trump's near unilateral decision to move the U.S.
Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that essentially announced that
in American eyes, the Holy City belongs to the Jews alone.
The reasons behind American intransigence and obtuseness in Mideast affairs
should come as no surprise. The U.S. is a nation built on a millenarian,
exceptionalist ideology and has long been driven by a mission to spread its
message across the globe. A populace-and government-infused with these ideas
is unlikely to demonstrate the humility to take a proverbial look in the
mirror and admit fault. This became especially unlikely in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11, when passions reached a fever pitch and chauvinistic
nationalism became the name of the game. Even then, however, credible voices
questioned America's rush to war, including scholars such as Noam Chomsky
and Robert Fisk, and even comedians like Bill Maher.
Seventeen years into the nation's longest war, there are plenty of crucial
reasons to review bin Laden's grievances, consider his arguments and show
the strength of character to acquiesce on certain points. This is sobriety,
not surrender. After all, self-awareness is a sign of strength and maturity
in nations, as well as in individuals.
After years of counterproductive U.S. policies and Mideast interventions,
the nation is left with a stark choice: admit error and alter policy, or
wage an indefinite worldwide war on a significant portion of the Islamic
population. The former option would lessen violence and ultimately lead to a
safer homeland, but it would require confronting an uncomfortable truth that
most Americans simply can't face: Bin Laden was a monster, but that doesn't
mean he was wrong on all fronts.
Maj. Danny Sjursen
Maj. Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army officer and former history
