Osama bin Laden’s strategic plan
Well, folks, he ain’t got one

A little debate has been going on over at Mrs. du Toit’s site about what Osama bin Laden is really trying to accomplish; in other words, what is his ultimate goal?

Mrs. D posted a thoughtful essay about the topic, which I found linked on Dean Esmay’s site, where the debate also goes on. But I am afraid that Mrs. D’s essay is not on target in substantial ways.

She says that she wants to focus "on the terrorist's goals, rather than taking their [sic] rhetoric and communications at face value, which is always dangerous." On the contrary, experience shows that the face-value reading of the words of such men is highly fruitful. After World War II, for example, historians and analysts of the allied nations who has scoffed at Hitler’s grandiose prose in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf, were compelled to admit that Hitler had been very clear in the book about the aims that he strove for in making war. Hitler had set out to do just what had written he wanted to do.

Similarly, bin Laden has never hidden his objectives. He has stated them many times in writing and during interviews. Over the years his description of his core objectives has changed little, although there are opportunistic phrases here and there: the Palestinian cause was of little importance to him until after the 9/11/2001 attacks, for example.

Mrs. D says that killing as many Americans as possible is not an important goal because it would have made more sense to kamikaze airliners into American nuclear power plants that the WTC and the Pentagon. Hence, OBL is not really making war on the West but is striking the West in order to (she writes further on) to gain a "symbolic victory that will give you a great deal of press coverage and prestige. You also consider the target to be consistent with your other need to destabilize economies. What better than the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Washington D.C. and New York?"

The only problem with her scenario is that hitting a plant would not cause near the destruction and deaths as hitting the heart of a major city. Diving an airliner into a nuke plant does not yield a true mass-casualty event; not many more people would be killed than aboard the airplane. Other people would eventually die, of course, from radiation effects and cancers, but most of them would be many years down the road. And that presumes that the crashing plane would penetrate all the way through the plant’s heavily-reinforced containment structure and also penetrate the nuclear core - both high problematic eventualities.

Of course the 9/11 strikes hurt the American economy, but if bin Laden’s goal was, as Mrs. D says, to "destabilize" it then he failed abjectly.

Mrs. D writes that bin Laden’s

central focus is to create economic disruption that will eventually lead to a destabilized oil economy. Any action that will impact world markets will have an impact on the oil economy. This is your only focus and all targets are chosen with this goal in mind.

However, bin Laden’s writings and proclamations that Mrs. D so cavalierly dismissed show that he has put oil targets strictly off limits. In his 1996 fatwa, the "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places">", bin Laden proclaimed:

The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world. The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and push them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land; therefore spread of the fighting in the region will expose the oil wealth to the danger of being burned up. The economic interests of the States of the Gulf and the land of the two Holy Places will be damaged and even a greater damage will be caused to the economy of the world [italics added].

I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. We also warn the aggressors, the USA, against burning this Islamic wealth (a crime which they may commit in order to prevent it, at the end of the war, from falling in the hands of its legitimate owners and to cause economic damages to the competitors of the USA in Europe or the Far East, particularly Japan which is the major consumer of the oil of the region). . . .

In fact, bin Laden knows that the economies of the Gulf states are even more slaved to oil than those of the West. If, as Mrs. D says, disrupting the oil economy is OBL’s "only focus" and all his targets "are chosen with this goal in mind," then OBL is a bungling clod. In Saudi Arabia, it would be very simple to do. Robert Baer, author of Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude,served 21 years with the CIA's Directorate of Operations in the Middle East; he is authoritative. Baer wrote that the "most vulnerable point" in Saudi Arabia

. . . is the Abqaiq complex - the country’s top oil-processing facility, just 24 miles inland from the Gulf of Bahrain. After an attack there, production would slow from some 6.8 million barrels per day to a mere 1 million barrels, a loss equal to one-third of America’s daily consumption. . . .

If all that oil is taken out of play, all bets are off. Crude could rise from $49 a barrel to perhaps %150. And the global economy would collapse.

Does bin Laden recognize the extreme vulnerability of the Saudi oil industry to well-planned attacks? Of course he does, but the region’s oil is exactly what he’s not interested in attacking. He considers the oil to be the common property of the ummah, the Arab Muslim masses. He has explicitly and repeatedly accused the House of Saud of squandering the oil wealth on personal luxury, one of the main grievances he has against them. In 1996, for example, bin Laden said,

"The ordinary man knows that [Saudi Arabia] is the largest oil producer in the world, yet at the same time he is suffering from taxes and bad services."

Instead of attacking the oil industry, he attacked residential areas in Riyadh last May. Saudi security services then clamped down hard and proactively. In June the Saudis killed five terrorists in a gun battle in Mecca and have continued to uproot al Qaeda in the country. And all this is evidence of bin Laden's masterful strategic planning? Hardly.

Mrs. D says that bin Laden’s

. . . propaganda against "modernity" or the suggestions that this is about class envy or world position is also just that, propaganda. Bin Laden was dependant on a kidney dialysis machine—hardly a Koran-approved device, no? The operation used cell phones, flew in modern airplanes, and use modern machinery of war. They aren't throwing stones and shooting bows and arrows. They are accepting and have adopted modernity—for all except their lowly recruits.

Yet Mrs. D fails to distinguish, as Arabs have done for literally centuries, the difference between the implements of modernity and the adoption of modernity itself. As an Egyptian cleric told Middle East scholar Raphael Patai many years ago, "We want your VCRs but not your videotapes." Arab Muslims are quite okay about using technological tools, they just don’t want the scientific-materialist culture that produces them.

Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama bin Laden's closest associates since the early 1990s, was one of the terrorists killed by Saudi security forces in Riyadh last June. He wrote a book recently published by al Qaeda entitled, The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad. In it Ayyeri wrote, as Amir Taheri summarizes,

"It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American democracy." . . .

Al-Ayyeri then shows how various forms of unbelief attacked the world of Islam in the past century or so, to be defeated in one way or another.

The first form of unbelief to attack was "modernism" (hidatha), which led to the caliphate's destruction and the emergence in the lands of Islam of states based on ethnic identities and territorial dimensions rather than religious faith. . . .

What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities."

This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. . . .

Modernity is precisely what bin Laden and his allies are fighting against, for modernity carries within it the idea that human societies should be able to shape their culture as they please. But such is anathema to radical Islamism, which wants to make strict sharia, Islamic law, the sole rule of society.

Again, what bin Laden and his cohorts have written and proclaimed about the reasons for their fight and what they want to accomplish must be taken seriously if we are to understand them.

Mrs. D says the ultimate aim of Osama bin Laden can be discerned from the pattern of his actions:

The goal is (at least the first one, in a domino series): Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family and take back Saudi Arabia.

This is close to the mark, with two qualifications. First, there is no "taking back" of Saudi Arabia that bin Laden can do, since neither he nor his brand of radical Islamists have ever held it. Second, one need not examine his actions to discern this goal, since bin Laden has explicitly stated his desire for the fall of the House of Saud for many years.

In fact, examining his actions alone as a guide to his intentions could easily lead you astray because of a simple fact:

Bin Laden has a strategic goal, but does not have a strategic plan. Osama bin Laden does not even rate being called a lousy strategist.

Bin Laden has been emphatic that the Saudi regime is un-Islamic, corrupt and oppressive of the Saudi people, although, of course, he blames the United States for all this. His most serious charge against the Sauds is that they permitted the occupation of "the Land of the Two Holy Mosques" (meaning Saudi Arabia itself, wherein lie Mecca and Medina) by the Americans, who are conspirators with Zionists to destroy Islam.

In his 1996 fatwa, bin Laden said of the House of Saud:

The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (Allah's blessing and salutations on him) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places - the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims - by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. . . .

From here, today we begin the work, talking and discussing the ways of correcting what had happened to the Islamic world in general, and the Land of the two Holy Places in particular. . . .

But the competition between influential [Saudi] princes for personal gains and interest had destroyed the country. Through its course of actions the regime has torn off its legitimacy:

(1) Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law. . . .

(2) The inability of the regime to protect the country, and allowing the enemy of the Ummah - the American crusader forces- to occupy the land for the longest of years. . . .

There followed a long list of grievances against the Saudi regime, particularly emphasizing its un-Islamic rule, the wealth-corruption of its princes and accusing it of being a puppet of the USA.

Yet it is not the destruction of the ruling Sauds OBL seems to desire so much as their conversion to pure Islam, as bin Laden defines it. In a November 1996 interview with "Nida'ul Islam," bin Laden said, regarding Saudi Arabia,

There are several choices for the regime, one of these is reconciliation with all the different sections of the public, by releasing the scholars, and offering essential changes, the most important of these is to bring back Islamic law, and to practise real Shura (consultative government).

The regime may resort to this choice after finding itself in the position of a morsel of food for the Americans to take, after the enmity has been stirred with their people. These people today feel that the Americans have exceeded their limits both politically and economically, the regime now knows that the public are aware that their sovereignty is shared. This was particularly evident in the recent period through the American press statements which give justification to the American occupation which only exists to rob the wealth of the people to the benefit of the Americans. This option is dependent on the agreement of the people who hold the solution and have the ability to effect change, at the forefront of these would be the honest scholars.

As for the other option, this is a very difficult and dangerous one for the regime, and this involves an escalation in the confrontation between the Muslim people and the American occupiers and to confront the economic hemorrhage. Its most important goal would be to change the current regime, with the permission of Allah. . . .

In another Interview with bin Ladin, conducted by Jamal Isma'il in Afghanistan and broadcast on Middle East television, 'Abd-al-Bari 'Atwan, editor in chief of the London-based Al-Quds al-'Arabi newspaper, said,

I felt that the man had his own vision and special strategy. This strategy is based on his concept of the region. The first point in this strategy is that the US Administration or the US forces, which he considers occupation forces in the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula, are a prelude to a comprehensive Israeli-Jewish hegemony over the region with the aim of looting its wealth and humiliating its Muslim people. One senses this as the essence of his creed and strategy.

Therefore, he believes that expelling these US forces from the Arab world is a top priority [italics added]. He believes that the regimes should be reformed or, more correctly, changed. The regimes immune to reform should be changed, the shari'ah should be applied properly, and a just Islamic system should be set up in the Islamic and Arab states, particularly the Gulf states. This is a summary of his strategy. Currently, he does not want to fight the regimes. That is what he told me. He wants to fight the Americans, who are protecting these regimes.

So while bin Laden does not specifically seek the destruction of the House of Saud, he thinks it may be necessary if the House does not reform. If the Sauds are brought down violently, bin Laden thinks it will be by popular uprising, a revolution resulting from the long-suffering Saudi people deciding to suffer no more. His 1996 fatwa makes clear that he expects this general uprising to do two things, in sequence: expel the Americans from Saudi Arabia, then force reform of the Saudi regime or its replacement, in either case resulting in institution of a true Islamic society - as bin Laden understands such to be.

Saudi Arabia is of prime importance to bin Laden because it is the land of Muhammed and the land of the Two Holy Mosques, one being Mecca itself, the holiest site in all Islam, the other being in Medina. But true Islam in Saudi Arabia cannot be achieved with the kufr (unbeliever) army stationed there; hence the American presence must be expelled, and not just America’s military presence. All non-Muslim Americans must leave.

Bin Laden thinks that US forces are in Saudi Arabia as conquerors; he told The Independent of Britain in 1996 that "our country has become an American colony." Thus he is convinced that America will not vacate Saudi Arabia on its own. It must be expelled violently. This task, he says in the fatwa, is the primary duty of every true Muslim, after the duty of being a Muslim in the first place.

A spasm, not a plan

But it is a far cry from having a desire to see Saudi Arabia freed of infidels and sharia society instituted there, and actually having a plan to bring it about. What we have seen so far is that bin Laden lashes out spasmodically at targets of opportunity. The United States has been the consistent target of the attacks (though not the only one, of course) but bin Laden’s "strategy" (it can hardly be dignified with the term) is based on a delusion that he has explained many times: when hurt, the United States always cuts and runs. In the Isma'il interview, bin Laden said,

We think that the United States is very much weaker than Russia. Based on the reports we received from our brothers who participated in jihad in Somalia, we learned that they saw the weakness, frailty, and cowardice of US troops. Only 80 US troops were killed. Nonetheless, they fled in the heart of darkness, frustrated, after they had caused great commotion about the new world order.

And in an interview between Al-Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alouni in October 2001, bin Laden said,

We believe that the defeat of America is possible, with the help of God, and is even easier for us, God permitting, than the defeat of the Soviet Union was before.

Q: How can you explain that?

Bin Laden: We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedin in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.

America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.

Here is more evidence of bin Laden’s lack of strategic acumen. Trained strategists know that nations rarely sacrifice much blood and treasure for inconsequential aims. From the beginning, the American military action in Somalia was for humanitarian relief there. The mission was extremely ancillary to America’s total self interest. There was no vital national interest at stake there by any stretch of the imagination.

While then-President Clinton can be fairly faulted for the timing of the mission’s cancellation and the full withdrawal of US forces, he did what any president of either party almost certainly would have under the circumstances. American certainly had the combat power on the ground to prevail militarily- for awhile - but it had neither the political nor popular will to suffer such casualties for unimportant reasons or to continue to kill thousands of Somalis by fighting back, simply to flex its muscles.

A minimally-competent strategist would understand this, but bin Laden did not. From one relatively small American military action in Somalia, of little strategic value to the United States, bin Laden convinced himself that all he needs to do in order for the Americans to vacate Saudi Arabia specifically and the Muslim world generally is to kill Americans.

This is not strategy, it is ignorance and self-delusion. As I pointed out in March 2002, bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan,

. . . had little idea of the sophistication and capabilities of American technology and weapons, or of the enormous destructiveness of our weapons. They adapted poorly, at best, to the pervasiveness and effectiveness of American sensors and target acquisition systems. There is no evidence that they ever attempted to acquire, much less doctrinally integrate and use, even moderately advanced sensor or target acquisition equipment, probably because they have no industrial base that can support even tactical use of such equipment. But without these kinds of systems, they cannot hope to prevail against an American force that uses and maintains advanced technology at every level of command, has a comprehensive doctrine of battle-systems integration, and is trained and equipped to operate around the clock in all weather. They never got time to rest, recuperate or refit because they were neither equipped nor organized to do so. The record shows that after only a few days of active resistance, all they could do was hunker down, try to hide, and take our pounding. (It does seem now, though, that significant numbers successfully fled.)

In short, they were entirely unprepared for the level and intensity of the attacks America's armed forces made against them. At best, they could fight well in a low-intensity war, but we are fighting at a much higher intensity.

But bin Laden never expected America to retaliate with enduring, serious purpose after attacks on 9/11/2001. He had no real model of America’s response to his escalating attacks except the pusillanimity of the Clinton administration, which at worst lobbed a few cruise missiles bin Laden’s way to no effect. Even the 1993 attack on the WTC, linked to bin Laden, brought a yawn, practically speaking, from the American government.

Despite literally months of warning, bin Laden had no countermeasures available for our invasion of Iraq, except sending pickup trucks full of deluded fools to face American cannon fire.

I see no evidence that bin Laden has ever had any plan except violence itself, committing it where he could, when he could. He commits violence against Western targets with no vision apparent beyond the violence. He has no idea of how to constitute a true nation state. He is a man whose vision extends no further than more fighting, which is to say, he has no vision at all.

One of the fallacies of logic is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc, meaning, "after the fact, therefore causing the fact." It is seductively easy to see the results of certain events and ascribe them to some master plan that made them inevitable. But this would also require bin Laden to have master planned getting the tar kicked out of him across the globe - for make no mistake, we are beating him very thoroughly, and more thoroughly in Iraq than anywhere.

If the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the emplacement of American bases throughout central Asia, the destruction of al Qaeda’s key leadership, the seizure of its monetary assets and the activation of Saudi security services against the kingdom’s terror cells are all the result of bin Laden’s inscrutable planning, then I say he’s the best planner we’ve got.


(Update: please see also my followup essays:

Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq

Why does al Qaeda fight Americans in Iraq?

The Saddam - bin Laden connection

An analysis of whether a true strategy would be heretical within the radicalized, Islamist, religious world view.

by Donald Sensing, 9/15/2003 04:23:36 PM. Permalink |