baltimoron 4/22/2008 |
0 (0) |
219 |
2 |
0 |
English
Far from demystifying al-Qaeda, Peter L. Bergen’s use of metaphors, like “holding company” and “Holy War, Inc.”, re-mystifies al-Qaeda as innovative, when what has really changed, after the fall of the Soviet Union, as Snow argues, is the context. Bergen’s unique value as bin Laden’s interviewer is undermined by the use of journalistic and legal sources. Bergen’s claim that al-Qaeda’s aim is political and not cultural is not original. Bergen’s subsequent contention, that al-Qaeda’s war is with both the major Sunni states loosely affiliated with the West, and Western states, is adequately supported. But his “scattered” discussion of al-Qaeda campaigns, without placing them within the context of contemporary events, such as the Kosovo war and Pakistan’s explosion of a nuclear device, is chronologically confusing. Finally, Bergen wastes an opportunistic attack on Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis, by his indecision about whether to assassinate or arrest Osama bin Laden. Characterizing al-Qaeda as a cultural force could conceivably lead one to adopt a less risky military campaign, to consider “hearts and minds” in the region. Yet, the preponderance of Bergen’s evidence, although not good enough for a conviction—and certainly the intelligence he could not recover—does support a call for assassination. Bergen’s indecision is less comprehensible than George Tenet’s, who after all had much more to consider. But, in each their own way, Bergen and Tenet—and President Bush—are dealing with the momentous changes created by the fall of the Soviet Union and globalization. ... more>>