On News Hounds, I had said, "just as Hitler was Nazi Germany, so too is bin Laden al-Qaeda. So long as he is free, it is free; capture him, and it will be broken." Another poster expressed doubt that this was the case, and I composed a detailed response for him. Since I've been meaning to put together a post on this topic for quite some time, I am posting it here as well.
Osama bin Laden is the lynchpin that holds al-Qaeda together. Even before 9/11, al-Qaeda was very strongly focused on him; his lieutenants swore an oath of fealty to him personally, which is unheard of in other such organizations. After 9/11 seared his name into history, he became almost mythical. His immense prestige is what prompted other such organizations to join forces with him.
It is important to remember that al-Qaeda is organized in a very unusual way. It does have a very firm, hierarchical structure, but the nature of that structure is very different from that of, say, a military. In militaries, location in the hierarchy is based solely on authority; in al-Qaeda, it is based primarily — though not exclusively — on deference. In other words, the various components of al-Qaeda work together not because they have to, but because they want to. Now, this does not mean that you can just change your mind and go your own way — just ask Zarqawi — but such insubordination is usually not an issue. Furthermore, individual components are autonomous, and are thus not often called upon to show deference.
In the al-Qaeda of today, there is no question that the regional commanders defer to bin Laden. To suggest otherwise is just silly. Whether or not they would show the same deference to bin Laden's successor, though, especially if we had already gotten Zawahiri, is another matter entirely. It is entirely possible that al-Qaeda would break up into its component organizations, and even if it didn't, the inability of its new leader to gain such unquestioning authority would mean that the whole system would eventually break down. Even if it remained intact, though, it would lose most of its momentum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sure, but counter-examples to your theory can be seen throughout the history of the world's civilizations. Octavian had to go through a lot to gain control of the Roman empire, for example, but he managed to do so successfully. However, in the case of Alexander of Macedonia, we see that with the death of a strong leader the unity can disintegrate. However, Alexander was responsible for the Hellenization of the lands he conquered and that certainly had lasting effects that transcended the life of the man himself. OBL is no Alexander but, even when he is dead and gone, his name and deeds will remain infamous and will more than likely guide others in the Apostasy in the future.
Big, big difference between the structures of al-Qaeda and the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was a country, with strong central control. Al-Qaeda is a bit more like NATO, that is to say, it is a conglomeration of essentially independent groups that work together because they have a common purpose. Regional commanders such as Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud are more than happy to obey Osama bin Laden; after all, he's Osama bin Laden, hero of the Afghan Jihad, who brought them their greatest victory of all time. They might be less amenable to taking orders from some dweeb in glasses or one of bin Laden's spoiled brats.
Post a Comment