Bin Laden and the Logic of Power
by John O. Voll

During the 1990s there were a number of competing conceptual frameworks used in efforts to understand new modes of global conflict. Two of the most important conceptualizations of conflicts were the "clash of civilizations" model most clearly articulated by Samuel Huntington and cultural polarity models made popular by best-selling books by Benjamin Barber and Thomas Friedman. Their book titles clearly present the defined lines of conflict: Jihad vs. McWorld and The Lexus and the Olive Tree. In many ways these two models were complementary, emphasizing the cultural dimensions of conflicts that were often defined in religious and ethnic terms. These different polarities represented significantly different life styles and were seen as representing sharply contrasting social and political systems, even though there was significant interaction among the different societies as a result of globalization.

The bin Laden recruitment film emphasizes a significant dimension of global conflicts and interactions that the religio-cultural models often ignore: the importance of raw physical, military power in shaping the contemporary "world order." Many of the most powerful images in the film are those of military force. The repetition of pictures of large tanks in battle formation and of soldiers, clearly identifiable as soldiers by their clothing and weapons, pushing and beating children and Islamically-dressed women emphasize the military and force dimensions of the situation.

The tanks and soldiers represent the sheer power of the adversary as defined in the film. The words of the songs and the exhortations as well as the visual images of the film emphasize that the conflict in which bin Laden and those associated with the film are involved is, in many important ways, an issue of power. The constant reference to the Quranic message and the mission of Islam provides a religious framing for the presentation, but the subject of the presentation is power and how the power of the forces that have suppressed and exploited Muslims can be countered and defeated.

The conflict as defined in this film is not simply a "Jihad against McWorld." If one uses that phrasing, the film defines the conflict much more completely in terms of "Jihad against Crusade." McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and other establishments that are viewed as symbols of the Americanizing forces of McWorld have been attacked by anti-American demonstrators following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the American military response. However, there are virtually no images of McWorld as the enemy in this recruitment video. Instead, the enemy is defined in terms of the military power of the "Crusaders." It is important in this regard to note that the film concentrates on the military occupation of the Arabian Islamic holy land, and does not attack (although bin Laden clearly must object to) the presence of McDonald's restaurants in Saudi Arabia since 1993, including in the holy city of Mecca itself. The conflict is presented not as a clash of cultures and lifestyles, or even of civilizations. It is presented as a conflict between righteous but weak peoples who are oppressed and subjugated by the tremendous physical power of an unbelieving enemy.

This video presentation should necessitate some redefinition of the basic nature of the conflict that is represented most starkly in the clash between the United States and Osama bin Laden. The supporters of bin Laden may be against democracy and human rights as understood in the United States, and early American responses to the terrorist acts of 11 September defined the attackers as enemies of democracy. However, many so-called Islamic "fundamentalists" who do not advocate violence believe that democracy and Islam are compatible, and that Islam may, in fact, require some form of democracy as the basic political system for Muslims in the contemporary world. This video does not engage in the "Islam and democracy" debate. It presents a perspective that argues that however democratic and free American society might be domestically, the face that it presents to the Muslim world is one of overwhelming military force that is used to compel Muslims to submit, without choice, to the commands of those who control that military force. In other words, in the minds of those who created this video, the conflict is not about attacking or defending Western style democracy and freedom, it is about responding with force to the seemingly overwhelming military power of the West.

Other analysts define the conflict in terms of a struggle against modernity. Aryeh Neier, writing in the Washington Post (9 October 2001), for example, noted that Huntington might be correct in suggesting that the clash may be cultural, but "religion may not be the most important fault line. The calamitous events of Sept. 11 can be seen as a new phase in a long struggle in which tribalists and fundamentalists have identified cosmopolitanism and modernity as their arch enemy." The recruitment video can, in some of the words and arguments used, support this broader view, but the very format of a contemporary, well-produced video argues against seeing the movement that the video represents as "anti-modern." The global networks of bin Laden's organization and the capacity to utilize contemporary communications technology show that the movement is a product of globalizing modernity. The cosmopolitan, multinational composition of the terrorist networks emphasize that the movement is not opposed to "cosmopolitanism" in generic terms; rather, it is opposes one type of cosmopolitanism with another. In this, again, the issue becomes the issue of power. "Modernity" is not so much an issue as is the power that modernity has given to people who are viewed as unbelievers.

This video seeks to inspire and mobilize people. It is not a careful intellectual presentation of an ideological program or theological position. It does, however, have its place in a significant modern tradition of thought and faith in the Muslim world. The so-called fundamentalists seldom advocate a return to medieval conditions of life, and often reject medieval scholastic formulations as strongly as they reject contemporary secularist ideologies. Most Muslims within this tradition do not advocate violence as a response to contemporary problems. However, many recognize that coercive power is a decisive aspect of the contemporary Muslim world. The video goes through a long list of places where Muslims have been defeated and oppressed by superior military force and says that force can only be countered by force. This is in the tradition of a Shiite teacher writing from a besieged section of Beirut during the Lebanese civil war in the 1970s, Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, who said: "History! The history of war and peace, in knowledge and wealth and in all other things. Truly, it is the history of the powerful and their adversaries who are the followers of the Truth. As for the weak and the powerless, they are not able to gain benefit until they take hold of the sources of power." (al-Islam wa mantiq al-qawah [Islam and the Logic of Power], 1979, page 17) The video seeks to mobilize the weak and the powerless by offering a way to take hold of the sources of power.