Al-Qaeda Redefined

March 2, 6:34 PMDC Foreign Affairs ExaminerJoshua Pierce

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Foreign Affairs Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

It seems clear at this point that Obama will continue the Bush administration policy of conducting isolated missile attacks against terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Some hardcore liberals are disgusted that their savior would pursue a policy that so blatantly disregards state sovereignty and risks further military and civilian casualties.  One of the rationalizations put forth for these attacks continues to be the annihilation of Al-Qaeda.

Aside from U.S. aircraft crossing imaginary borders and the risk of collateral damage, here’s a better argument for foreign policy doves out there – can “Al-Qaeda” as that term is used today ever be eliminated?  At present, Al-Qaeda is more decentralized than ever.  Many countries, including the U.S., have successfully implemented legislation designed to red flag transactions potentially linked to the financing of terrorist networks.  The term that was so aptly and frequently utilized by the Bush administration to classify radical Islamists now more accurately describes an ideology than an organization.

Assuming the original network of terrorists referring to itself as “Al-Qaeda” remains marginalized, it seems counterproductive for the U.S. government to keep using the phrase to refer to other groups affiliated by ideology only.  The Bush administration’s emphasis on “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” or “AQI” as the predominant threat to U.S. forces may have been exaggerated.  While certain elements have undoubtedly pledged their allegiance to Bin Laden, this does not necessarily indicate an organizational link.  Some percentage of the population in the Arab world will inevitably be drawn to Islamic extremism in some shape or form for generations to come.  If a band of radical Islamists in Indonesia with no concrete connection to traditional Al-Qaeda leaders publicly announces their subscription to the Bin Laden worldview, branding them “Al-Qaeda in Indonesia” simply leads to confusion.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, it is likely to lead intelligence and diplomatic agency personnel to presume a financing or operational connection in circumstances where none exists.  From a political standpoint, it is misleading to use the term in reference to nothing more than ideological commonality whereas many in the public associate “Al-Qaeda” with a hierarchical organization.  By conflating the two concepts, politicians and bureaucrats unwittingly entice the public into believing that “Al-Qaeda” can someday be eradicated.  As the term continues to morph into something broader, the likelihood of that happening becomes more remote.

Obama has the opportunity to change how America views terrorism.  The Bush administration squandered political capital by characterizing it as a “war” with a definable end point.  Obama should take a more Israel-like approach by stressing that the threat is and will always be omnipresent.  Regardless of how successful our efforts are in Pakistan and Afghanistan to pursue Bin Laden’s organization, the administration can help itself by clarifying its use of “Al-Qaeda” in reference to a multi-headed monster.