True, but the point isn't to exonerate him. The point is that had the US
government behaved differently, he wouldn't have done what he did. The other
point that the author omitted, is that the US government used him as an ally
in Afghanistan, against the Russians.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of peter altschul
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 10:02 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What if Osama bin Laden Had Legitimate
Grievances?
Legitimate drievances? Very likely. But killing 3000 people doesn't make
friends. I think OBL tried to sucker us into a war
- and he was successful.
Best, Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date sent: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:31:01 -0500
Subject: [blind-democracy] What if Osama bin Laden Had Legitimate
Grievances?
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
