Al-Qaeda Terrorist Organization - Case Study Example

International Organizations in Global Politics (Transnational Crime and Terrorism) Describe a transnational criminal or terrorist network and evaluate its impact. The following is an evaluation of the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. This organization was selected because of the serious threat it poses to the security of the international system (The Economist 23 December 1999 p.23). Al-Qaeda has existed since the 1980s yet it was the September 11 2001 attack on the United States that brought the organization to global recognition. The American government did not believe that Al-Qaeda to be a threat to the USA despite previous attacks on their interests and forces abroad (http://www.9-11commission.gov/). Firstly the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization is structured in such a way as to increase its chances of gaining weapons of mass destruction in order to achieve its over all aims, which reflect its attitudes and the tactics it uses. Al-Qaeda has also established a global finance network to ensure that its cells and affiliated groups have enough money and weapons to carry out terrorist operations. The training that all Al-Qaeda terror cells and fighters receives stress the need for secrecy, efficiency, and devotion to its very extreme cause. The groups linked to Al-Qaeda have caused the maximum amount of death and destruction possible with the resources available to them. Al-Qaeda unlike other terrorist organizations has never been unable to carry out terrorist operations because it did not have enough resources to do so (Prefontaine & Dandurand, 2004). . Al-Qaeda is not organized like Western Europe terrorist groups such as the IRA or ETA, that have tended to target police and security forces or their civilian contractors in order to achieve their nationalist objectives. That is because Al-Qaeda are organized across many countries and have objectives that are not predominantly linked to nationalist goals, instead the common link with all member groups is an extremist view of Islam, coupled with rabid anti-Americanism and anti-Western views (http://www.9-11commission.gov/) That is not to say the leadership of Al-Qaeda does not consider nationalism to be important even if it does not represent the most important ideological perspective for the organization taken as a whole. Prime examples would include the Chechen rebels that have been fighting for independence from Russia since 1991, and supporting the Palestinians in their fight for a homeland (Prefontaine & Dandurand, 2004). Despite the best efforts of Presidents Yeltsin and Putin the Chechens have not been defeated and have carried out large-scale terror attacks that had killed up to 300 people in Moscow (Bridget Kendal ‘Putin’s Opportunity’ from Baxter & Downing, 2001 p.162). Although Al-Qaeda has not yet obtained weapons of mass destruction there is a strong possibility they would use them if they did. Al-Qaeda has been an organization that was able to expand due to the support it received from Islamic regimes in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan. Ironically enough it also received support from the CIA, as it was part of the Afghan resistance movement against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989 (Fisk, 2006 p. 800). It was no coincidence that Russia helped the US assault on the Taliban and Al Qaeda with the use of airbases in Uzbekistan in return for a freer hand against the Chechen terrorists. Perhaps there was also an element of payback as the failure to win its war in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union (Service 2003 p.544). Al-Qaeda has a similar mentality to earlier Islamic inspired groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas that are virulently anti-Western, and anti-Israeli and resisted Israeli occupation in Lebanon and Palestine. Hamas and Hizbollah may have rocket and suicide attacks but did obtain weapons of mass destruction. They view their struggle as a jihad that must be continued (Youssef Choueiri ‘Islam and Fundamentalism’ taken from Eatwell & Wright 2003 p.275). Were differs Al Qaeda differs from other Islamic groups are in its objectives. Al-Qaeda aims to carry out the most deadly attacks possible with the most destructive weapons at their disposal. These groups have a tendency to become increasingly inter-linked and co-ordinate their activities. The leadership of Al-Qaeda has been particularly keen on such co-operation (Youssef Choueiri ‘Islam and Fundamentalism’ taken from Eatwell & Wright (2003) p.275). It and its affiliates will often carry out deadly suicide bombings whether on the World Trade Center with jet airliners, on packed buses in Israel or on US led coalition forces in Iraq (Fisk, 2006 p. 1020). These attacks have proved particularly effective, destructive, and deadly. One must not doubt that Al Qaeda would use chemical or nuclear weapons of mass destruction if it were able to obtain them. It must be remembered that bin Laden is not interested in compromise or achieving objectives but only in total victory or getting vanquished in the attempt (Fisk, 2006 p. 1026). It is the concept of jihad or armed struggle that fires up Al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups and also aids their recruitment of fighters / terrorists. However Al-Qaeda’s fighting and destructive capabilities are enhanced by financial support, the use of technology and training facilities. Islamist groups such as Al-Qaeda do not usually refer to the use of suicide bombers as suicide missions but describes them as being sacrificial operations. Whatever term is used to describe these attacks they have proved difficult to counter and relatively easy to carry out (Halliday 2002 p.20). Given the scale of carnage described in some of the attacks Al-Qaeda has achieved by conventional, suicide bombs, and home made weapons it would be justified to worry about conventional weapons as well of or instead of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Despite the efforts of the US since 2001 Al-Qaeda and its affiliate groups have been remarkably successful in obtaining new weapons as well as new recruits (Fisk, 2006 p. 1022). As September 11 proved it was easier to obtain control of jet airliners and crash them into buildings than producing or obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Why bother with the relatively high cost of developing weapons of mass destruction when bombs and suicide bombers are a cheaper more readily available alternative? The attacks have resulted in a tightening of airline security measures yet there have been several bomb scares since 2001. For the deaths of 19 suicide bombers Al Qaeda managed to destroy the World Trade Center, damage the Pentagon and unleash the deadliest assault the United States had ever suffered (Stephen Evans ‘Ground Zero from Baxter & Downing 2001 p.23). A smaller scale attack with a bomb in a van had killed six people in February 1993 but had not caused any major damage to the Twin Towers themselves (Clinton (2004) p.497). Although the World Trade Center was designed to withstand being hit by a jet airliner in an accident, despite the Pentagon being protected from bomb blasts those safeguards turned out to be inadequate. For neither were designed or meant to survive being hit by planes flying at around 500 miles per hour. Burning fuel finished the jobs started by the huge impacts and ultimately caused the collapse of the Twin Towers (Evans from Baxter & Downing 2001 pp 24-30). The second attack gained instant notoriety and resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people from all over the world. In the words of former President Clinton, Al Qaeda were able to use ‘ the forces of interdependence –open borders, easy immigration and travel, easy access to information’ to murder all those people (Clinton (2004) p.955). As a consequence the Bush administration launched its war against terror and invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime that supported and gave Al Qaeda its main bases. Bin Laden praised the actions of the September 11 bombers as ‘they have moved the battle into the heart of America’ (Halliday, 2004 p.236). Conversely instead of worrying about terror organisations using weapons of mass destruction it would be more beneficial to reduce the scope, funding and membership of these groups were possible and cutting off all potential sources or components for weapons of mass destruction. This has been a strategy used in the past with some success, but that depends upon the commitment of the particular terrorist groups to their armed struggle and the means they are prepared to use to further that cause (Fisk, 2006 p. 1023). Given the technological ability of some of the groups belonging to the Al-Qaeda network it would not be difficult for them to produce their own weapons of mass destruction if they can get hold of all the parts needed. Of as much importance of the power of conventional or weapons of mass destruction can be the timing of their use and the threat of further attacks. For instance the attacks on Madrid in March 2004 were intended not only to kill as many commuters as possible but also cause as much damage to the Spanish government in the week of a general election. As a result of the bombs 200 people died. And one that did not support it replaced the Spanish government that supported the invasion of Iraq. Thus weakening the coalition against Al Qaeda (Nick Craven, Daily Mail, March 15 2004 pp.4-5). The London bombings of 7/7 once again proved that the ways in which Al-Qaeda and its linked groups operate makes it difficult to discover planned attacks and stop them being carried out (Fisk, 2006 p. 1026). Whilst the American led war on terror has not yet defeated terror organisations it has succeeded in replacing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s in Iraq. However the removal of the Iraqi regime has proved to be a backwards step in the efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda as it has provided with greater opportunities to attack American and other Western targets (Prefontaine & Dandurand, 2004). Al Qaeda has taken loses for sure but it still fights on and is inflicting casualties on the American led coalition forces. What have not been found in Iraq were weapons of mass destruction that were rumoured to be there. Al Qaeda were there however. Al Qaeda strength has been estimated at 18,000 fighters despite the loss of 2,000 of some of its best fighters in Afghanistan. These figures did not include their loses in Iraq but they are far from defeated and continue to attack coalition forces (Michael Evans The Times May 26 2004 p.13). The US government has been worried about Al-Qaeda getting hold of weapons of mass destruction whilst acknowledging the serious threat posed by their continued use of conventional and improvised weapons. A factor that could delay or prevent terrorists obtaining sufficient quantities of weapons of mass destruction is the cost in making or obtaining them which has proved prohibitive to nation states let alone small terrorist groups many of whom find it hard to supply themselves with conventional weapons. Al-Qaeda’s leadership has operated on the basis that the organization should make the most effective use of the weapons available to it (Fisk, 2006 p. 1026). Whilst the war on terror has cost American tax papers billions of dollars the estimated cost of mounting Al Qaeda attacks is relatively modest. The cost of the Bali bomb in 2002 was as low as $35,000. The cost of carrying out the September 11 operations was around $500,000 or a fraction of the price of an American warplane or a battle tank let alone the cost of its ballistic nuclear missiles (Michael Evans The Times May 26 2004 p.13). The threat from groups and networks such as Al Qaeda should be taken seriously as the attacks of September 11 and subsequently in Bali, London, and Madrid show they are capable of achieving mass destruction without using weapons of mass destruction. The possibility of bin Laden or any of his followers obtaining such weapons is remote but not impossible and they would certainly have no qualms about using them. After all not many people believed that terrorists could fly aircraft into buildings prior to the attacks of September 11. It has also proved more difficult to counter small groups linked to Al-Qaeda or individuals bent on destruction or terrorism than taking on nation states. Just compare the difficulty the US led coalition have had in restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan Iraq to the ease with which the Taliban regime Saddam Hussein were overthrown in a matter of weeks. Bibliography Baxter J & Downing, M. The Day That Shook The World Understanding September 11th (2001) BBC News, London & New York Clinton, B. My Life (2004) Hutchinson, London & New York Craven, N. A backlash at the polls, Daily Mail, March 15 2004 Eatwell, R. & Wright, A. Contemporary Political Ideologies (2003) 2nd Edition, Continuum, London & New York Evans, M. Regrouped al-Qaeda ‘has 18,000 terrorists’ The Times May 26 2004 Fisk R, (2006) The Great War for Civilisation – the conquest of the Middle East, Harper Perennial, London Halliday, F. Two Hours That Shook the World (2002) Saqi Books, London Prefontaine D C & Dandurand Y, Terrorism and Organized Crime Service, R. A History of Modern Russia – From Nicholas II to Putin (2003) New Edition, Penguin Books, London & New York The Economist, The new-year bombers 23 December 1999 http://www.9-11commission.gov/ Read More