An Unclaimed Price on his Head

By Ali H. Massoud

Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, has an interesting take on the US government’s decision to raise the bounties on Osama bin-Laden and his top subordinate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from $25 million to $50 million. He thinks that the bounties should be dropped altogether rather than continued and increased.

“We should not be paying Iraqis or Arabs or Pakistanis to get rid of their problem. Osama bin-Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are a curse on their civilization. Their capture will have meaning or real value to them, to us and to the world, only if it is done by Arabs and Muslims for the sole purpose of purging their civilization of these two cancer cells,” writes Friedman in his column published on February 6, 2005.

Friedman goes on to say that bin-Laden’s bounty ought to be changed to one penny and al-Zarqawi’s to a single pistachio nut. He is serious, too. I am not going to parse the whole piece here (just follow the link I’ve provided), but it did make me curious. What kind of enemy does Friedman think they are? Does the failure to date of a rat-out call or e-mail or whatever else they’ll take over at the CIA’s “Kill bin-Laden Unit” mean that the price is too low or is a market failure?

Most Muslims detest and despise both of these men and see them the way most people in America see Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, or John Hinckley, Jr.: As demented, bloodthirsty nutjobs, who fancy themselves qualified to kill, injure, destroy, and terrorize other people in the name of their religion and ideology.

However, at the same time, many -- especially in the Third World -- see the George Bush and American foreign policy in much the same way. Many Americans have serious doubts about the wisdom of continual interference in the affairs of other nations and alliances with dictatorial regimes. Bush apparently believes that he has the right to use whatever means he thinks necessary to accomplish his policy objectives regardless of the death, destruction, and injuries they cause. Thus, while most Muslims hate bin-Laden and al-Zarqawi and the bloodshed they cause, at the same time, in a guilty and ambivalent sort of way, they kind of admire them too.

Why, one might ask, would they have those feelings? An important question, considering the wave of terror bombing that happened in late 1990’s and culminated in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that since 1985 the US has attacked, sent troops to occupy, or out right invaded Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

Some of these actions were in response to attacks by a particular country or its cat’s-paw, such as when President Reagan ordered the aerial bombing of Libya and the naval gun bombardment of Lebanon, or President Clinton’s invasion of and intervention in Somalia, as well as missile and air strikes against Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. As of the date of this essay, the US government has troops occupying or garrisoned in both Egypt and Bosnia, and is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just as bad, if not worse, is the US government’s (incestuous?) relationship with Israel. The way Muslims look at that particular affair is to wonder why the Neo-cons, Christian fundies, and AIPAC don’t just try to make Israel the 51st state and be done with the pretense?

And yet, even with all that going against America, most Muslims I know, know of, read, and listen to STILL condemn al-Qaeda’s attacks against American civilians. The next time you watch CNN, MSNBC or Fox News, look and see if you find any Yellow Ribbons or their equivalent on the walls, cars, or other property of Muslims or Arabs supporting “our boys” in Al-Qaeda the way Americans do? Well you won’t, but look anyway. And, for people like me, this doesn't come as a surprise.

“This man dirties the name of Islam, a religion of mercy and compassion, and peace. There is a special place in hell for him.” the spiritual leader of the Muslims in the town where my mosque is told a local newspaper about al-Zarqawi. This is not an isolated or unusual opinion in this regard either.

Muslims in America and everywhere else condemn the actions of the terrorists and the Jihadists as morally wrong, and un-Islamic in the extreme. And yet, who else is standing up to the American Leviathan? Who else avenges the faithful killed by Israel, and those oppressed by the “moderate” pro-western dictators and royalty who rule in most Muslim countries?

Americans and Europeans who read this, be advised. You are not hated by all, but your actions-- intended and unintended-- are. And to Mr. Friedman: No amount of money will avenge the years of oppression and humiliation, nor the active attempts to prolong it by the American political classes and their allies in the press and media.

Osama knows this. He depends upon it for his safety. And, he does so successfully, as is made obvious by the fact that, to this very day, western intelligence services and their minions such as the Saudis, Pakistanis, and the Mossad, are all incapable of finding someone, (anyone!), to inform on, assassinate, or otherwise sell him out. Yet, Osama’s group and similar organizations regularly receive volunteers to commit suicide bomber attacks. What does that tell you?

What it tells Thomas Friedman is that, “…both these guys (bin-Laden and al-Zarqawi) are obviously megalomaniacs, who think the world is just hanging on their every word and waiting for their next video. All we are doing is feeding their egos, and telling them how incredibly important they are, when we not only put a $25 million bounty on their heads, but in the case of bin Laden, double the figure. We are just enhancing their status on the Arab street as the Muslim warriors standing up to America, and only encouraging other megalomaniacs out there who might have similar fantasies to follow suit. We should be doing just the opposite - letting these two losers know that we don't think they are worth more than a penny or a pistachio.”(Italics added for emphasis).

Thank-you Mr. Friedman! Finally there is someone who gets it.

In some respects, the old ways of the old days are the best. When a rival king attacked another, the victor would often make a point of dragging the vanquished king’s body roped to the bumper of his chariot in the post-battle victory parade through the conquered kingdom’s capital city. It was done both to degrade and humiliate the loser and more importantly so the new king’s subjects would see the slain former monarch as a loser who couldn’t prevail when needed. Not as a martyr or hero, but as a failed loser.

That is why they should take Saddam Hussein and march him blindfolded, in his underpants, to a public square and force him to kneel and be shot in the back of the head. It tells people he’s no martyred hero, just a failed loser. Instead, the US tortures and humiliates the foot soldiers at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay while giving Saddam a fancy show trial and a final public spotlight. To most Muslims this seems very unjust. Obviously, given that humane treatment of captives is now the order of the day, the US government couldn’t do this, but the Iraqi’s could and probably would if allowed to. (Policy makers please note.)

What Friedman suggests about dispensing with the bounties and such makes sense after a fashion. Bounties only serve to inflate the importance of what are after all just men, just guys. Killing or capturing either or both and all their lieutenants won’t erase overnight the anger and resentment caused by years of lies and mistreatment.

Ali Massoud is a father, political theorist, apostate Muslim, small business owner, college graduate, crack rifle marksman, a blogger, cat lover, shrewd investor, US Army veteran, and currently single. He lives in Michigan. To see what he means by "Anarchy," and other ideas he has click here