Al-QAEDA VERSUS THE NEOCONSERVATIVES: THE WORLD IN BLACK & WHITE

Al-Qaeda Versus the Neoconservatives: The World in Black & White

TUGCE COMERT

11 June 2011

 

Challenge: Compare and contrast the ideological worldviews of al-Qaeda and US neoconservatives

Prepared by: Tugce Comert

Course Convenor: Dr. Rahul Rao

Tutor: Gonzalo Pozo

Can a world power provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety? 1

– Zbigniew Brzezinski

In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared war against all Americans by declaring ‘ To kill the Americans, both civilians and military, in every country in which it was possible to do so – in order to liberate al-Asqa mosque and the Holy Mosque (Mecca) from their grip and to move the armies out of all the lands of Islam’. 2   After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, former President George W. Bush declared: ‘our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.’3  Today we talk about warfare declared by two different yet similar groups, each declaring the other as the ‘evil’ of the world.

Estelle Rigault, the character in Jean Paul Sartre’s play, said ‘When I can’t see myself in the mirror, I can’t even feel myself, and I begin to wonder if I exist at all’. With these words, Sartre declares that people need ‘Others’ in order to realize their existence.  By rejecting that there could be ‘Us’, this ‘othering’ also allows humanity to be divided into two main groups: Self, whose identity is valued, and ‘others,’ who are defined by faults and devaluated. 4

This essay argues that two leading ideologies, Neoconservative and al-Qaeda, become ‘others’ for each other to the zero-sum extent:  while each one needs the ‘other’ one to exist, each one also tries to destroy the ‘other ‘to succeed in their ideology. After clarifying this, other parts will focus on the similarities and differences of these clashing ideologies by claiming that even though there are some differences, the similarities are remarkable.

Background

Definition: Al-Qaeda and the Neoconservatives

According to the US State Department’s official website, the greatest national security threats to the US are the terrorist networks, and the most wanted terrorists come from the al-Qaeda network that includes the core organization and numerous other extremist groups. Oxford Dictionary of Islam defines al-Qaeda as: ‘a militant organization formed in 1986 by Osama bin Laden to channel fighters and funds for the Afghan resistance movement. Al-Qaeda then became a vehicle for the declaration of international military struggle  (jihad) against governments and Western representatives and institutions in the Muslim world, America, and other parts of the West.’

It must be noted that al-Qaeda is generally defined as an organized terrorist group founded by Abdullah Azzam, known as the ideological father of al-Qaeda, and bin Laden just before the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.5 However, Jason Burke highlights the fact that ‘to see Al-Qaeda as a coherent organization with a defined ideology and personnel which emerged in the late 1980s is to misunderstand and undermine its true nature.’6 This means besides its hardcore network of co-op groups from all over the world, it also contains an ideology that has become more important since 2001.7

The fascinating documentary called “Power of Nightmares” shows that the idea of a global terror network of al-Qaeda was just a myth, prepared by the neoconservatives to be able to establish their political agenda.

Who are neoconservatives then? Jonathan Clarke gives the main characteristics of neoconservatives as those who 1. divide the world in terms of good and evil, 2. have little tolerance for diplomacy, 3. are military activists, 4. practice or believe in American unilateralism, 5. are skeptical of international organizations such as the United Nations, and 6. focus on the Middle East.’8

Although some thinkers, such as Carl Boggs, believe that Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell were not neoconservatives, it is not difficult to see that all of these ideas mentioned above can be found in the post 9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.9 That is because most of the neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Defense Secretary), Donald Rumsfeld  (Defense Secretary), and Elliot Abrams (National Security Council Middle East specialist) held important and strategic positions within the Bush administration.

What were their lies?  Strauss, principle founder of neoconservatives, was a  ‘great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics.’ According to him, elites need to create myths to ensure a stable society.  The logic was easy: As neoconservatives want to establish their hegemony in the world, they create fear in society by exaggerating existing threats, such as communism or terrorism, which would lead the public to decide not to interrogate their leadership and give their support. 10 This is an excellent strategy. For instance, before the 9/11 attacks Americans were interrogating the legitimacy of President Bush’s mandate, but after the attacks Bush had immense approval ratings.11

Flickr / smiteme. President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office the evening of Sept. 11, 2001.

For every action there is a reaction

This part of paper aims to look at the historical context of the two actors from a political standpoint to understand the relation between the two. During the Cold War the main enemy was the USSR for the US, and the main goal was to destroy this enemy. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor during the Carter administration, approved this objective. The US gave assistance to opponents of the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan, and this provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.12 Furthermore, during the Afghan war President Reagan, the ‘patron saint’13 of neoconservatives, continued this support by providing sophisticated arms to the Mujahedeen, who unified with the Arab militants who came from all over the world to liberate Afghanistan.14 Bin Laden was one of these Arab militants who worked to achieve that goal.15

If the US was one of the supporters of this group, the question becomes discovering what led bin Laden to declare war against Americans.16  This paper does not claim that the US was ungrateful to al-Qaeda, but this was the thought of the militants who believed that, although the collapse of the USSR was their own victory, the US was not showing gratitude to them.17

There are several reasons for bin Laden to the think that the US was ungrateful. According to him, the US was neglecting the future of the Palestinians by supporting the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, the place where the Prophet’s travel to the heavens took place.25 Moreover, after the Kuwait invasion by Iraq in 1990, American economic and military presence in Saudi Arabia—the holy territories of Islam—was unacceptable.18

Saudi Arabia was also considered to be a betrayer to the global Islamic community because of they allowed the US presence.19 By underlying that ‘for every action there is a reaction’, bin Laden declared that the US was directly responsible for any reaction due to the killings in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. 20 Finally as it is mentioned, it declared war against all Americans in 1998.21

On the other hand, as mentioned before regarding the period following the 9/11 attacks, the neoconservatives could implement their political agenda and got the support for war, which was otherwise unpopular.22Although there was no evidence of WMDs or Saddam’s involvement with al-Qaeda, they declared war on Islamic terrorism and invaded Iraq in 2003.23 It is interesting that 72% of Americans believed that Saddam was personally involved in the attacks.

Military action against Saddam was already part of their political agenda: the letter written by New American Century members such as Francis Fukuyama, Donald Kagan and Donald Rumsfeld to President Clinton in 1998 clearly shows that the Middle East and politics against Iraq were the neoconservatives’ main concern.33 In this letter, they criticized the foreign policy of Clinton against Iraq by warning him about the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and they highlighted that the security of the world in the 21st century depended on the US’ reaction to this threat.24

In summary, it can be said that the neo-conservatives did manipulate the facts and convince everyone that Iraq was an imminent threat; an extension of the manipulation strategy from the Cold War days. Since those days the neoconservatives convinced the President that the USSR was opposing the SALT treaty by increasing the number of its weapons although there was no evidence. 25

This part focused on the political history of these groups. At this point, it should be noted that al-Qaeda’s declaration of jihad (holy war) was not only for political reasons. As the next part of this essay highlights, this ideology has its roots in the 14th  century and they have been shaped against Western values and culture.  The next section will focus on the ideologies of these groups. Interestingly, although they seem to oppose each other, their similarities are astonishing.

Analysis

Social degradation

The first thing we can argue is that both of these ideologies see ‘social degradation’ as the key challenge.  They are attributed to Ibn Taimiya’s ideas that revolutionized Islamic interpretation about governance.26 After observing the defeat of the Muslims against the Mongols in 1258, he claimed that the Muslims stayed weak because the Muslim Community (Umma) failed to follow the injunctions of the early holy text and Sharia.27 According to him, rulers or individuals who do not apply the Sharia (Islamic law) were also infidels even if they are Muslims.28

In the 19th century, the Egyptian scholar Hassan al-Banna also opposed the colonial rulers who supported Western culture and lifestyle. Sayyid Qutb’s ideas are an extension of al-Banna’s ideas and he is considered the main influence behind al-Qaeda’s ideology.29

When Qutb was pursuing his graduate studies in the US, he was impressed by the technological and the material progress there, but criticized the American society by highlighting its lack of social and moral progress.30 He accepts that to catch up to their material development,

Their technology must be adopted. On the other hand, he argues that the Western civilization is sunk in a “putrid swamp of mental illness, sexual pervasion, moral degeneracy, and crime’.31

After mentioning the moral decadence in American culture, Qutb offers the concept of Jahiliyya  (ignorance), which is (1) a social and spiritual condition of society that can exist anywhere and any place, and  (2) is a state based on an attack against the authority, divinity and the sovereignty of God.32 He then continues that all existing societies are jahili.33 For instance, the Christian societies are jahili because they give political and social authority to anyone other than God. On the other hand, Muslim societies who are promoting the Western culture or western values such as democracy are jahili and they must be opposed.34

Like Qutb, Leo Strauss, known as the main intellectual influence for neoconservatism,

Also focused on the values of society. He believed that modern society is in a state of spiritual degradation.35 Strauss affects neoconservatism in two ways: (1) his life experience and (2) his readings of the ancients. 36

Both Taimiyya and Strauss reacted to their undesired social surroundings; while the former reacted to the Islamic weakness in the face of the Mongols (due to poor observance of the religion), the latter reacted to the weakness of democracy of the Weimer Republic against communist and Nazis.37 Secondly, as he read the ancients he concluded that the democracies stayed weak, and this caused the emergence of two totalitarian regimes (‘tyrannies’ as Strauss calls them in the Aristotelian way) in the twentieth century, which were Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. They were a product of modernity, and they provoked people to reject moral values and virtue.38

The main challenge to American culture was therefore societal and political decadence, and the reason according to Strauss was individualism, which was caused by liberal modernity.39 Because a liberal view allows individuals to follow their own interests, it is destructive to common values and cultural ties.40    Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservative ideology, also highlights this challenge against nihilism by stating: ‘Who is merely self-seeking shall find nothing but infinite emptiness.’41

What is different in these ideologies is that Islamic thinkers saw the Western culture as the main reason for the moral decadence. Put simply, besides US’s actions in the Middle East, the main ‘enemy’ is the ‘Western culture’ that it represents in al-Qaeda’s ideology. On the other hand, the neoconservatives do not consider Islam as the main reason for social degradation. However, they use al-Qaeda as a tool to recreate patriotism through fear, and reestablish social integration. 42

Good versus Evil

As both of the ideologies defined the problem, they designated their own revolutionary solutions and considered them the best for all humanity. While al-Qaeda seeks to establish an Islamic state because all of the other political systems are not able to provide the moral and spiritual values that humanity needs, the neo-conservatives believe in the supremacy of American virtues and suggest that their hegemony should be established. 43

Both ideologies have a globalized and universalized menu, and both oppose the other one’s menu. As al-Qaeda opposes the American way of globalization, such as economic liberalism and capitalism, it adopted anti-globalist and  ‘Third-Worldist’ rhetoric. 44

For instance, Ayman al-Zawahiri opposes capitalism and greed by describing the multinational companies as the ‘major devils’.45

In their interpretation of Islam there is only one truth, and everything else is perdition, and these two cannot coexist.46 This means, as Qutb mentions, there is also one true state (the state of Islam) and it cannot be mixed with the state of Jahiliyya.47 As their Islam is a totalitarian system and controls all aspects of life, such as politics, they believe that the only  ‘true’ government is the government of God. 48 As they find solutions in the past, the correct path for the Muslim community should reestablish the Caliphate, ‘the empire of Islam’s early golden age‘.

With a realistic view, the neoconservatives believe that world politics are dangerous. However they do not see the international system as being divided into competing states that aim to pursue their own interests.49 Instead, the neoconservative ideology divides the world in two segments: the evils, which are the totalitarian regimes, and the good. 50  With the idea of establishing their hegemony, they see America as not only as a police force, but also a moral guide that symbolizes all of that is good, such as human rights, democracy and independence.51

However, Clarke and Halper highlight that their message of ‘freedom, democracy and human rights’ is largely rhetorical. The neoconservatives believe in a Hobbes-ian state where ‘trust’ among human beings is elusive and their adversaries must be crushed before they crush them.52  To them it is impossible to transform the evil; the evil can only be destroyed.53 This creates a ‘zero sum game’: none of the parties can win unless the other loses.54 Both ideologies, therefore, have a worldview that aims to destroy the Evil and abolish the ‘dualism of Good and Evil’. According to them, the final stage is the abolishment of the weak and impure world caused by Evil forces and establishment of a ‘monolithic Good’.

This creates continuous warfare. On one side, Bush says ‘Our generation is in a long war against a determined enemy’.   Michael Ledeen also mentions that America will always be attacked by tyrants, and this fight will last forever’.55 On the other hand, Qutb also proves that this fight is ‘eternal’ because truth and falsehood cannot exist together, and the Muslim task will only end on Judgment Day, when Islam will be the only religion left.56 In summary, the wars they perceive against “the other” lead these ideologies to resort to violence.

Use of violence

To begin with al-Qaeda, Qutb adopted from Banna the idea that Islam is concerned with all communities and cannot limit itself to a small territory. If there is an obstacle in the way of this, violence shall be used.57 Mawdudi also states that Islam wishes to destroy anything that opposes the transformation.5872 However, the level and the subject of violence are the main differences between Azzam and Zawahiri.

Azzam never became an advocate of harming innocent and unarmed civilians; his concept of Jihad was like an armed struggle against the military of the enemy.59 While bin Laden was aiming to implement jihad in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, he opposed this idea.60 After this discussion he was killed, and al-Qaeda’s ideology became much more extremist with new theologian Ayman Zawahiri, who supported that anyone should be killed who happens to be in the way of the noble end.6175

The neoconservatives adopted the same ideology of using military power against their enemy. This comes from the idea of American exceptionalism: the US should determine what is a ‘threat’ to humanity, and how to respond it, by using its unipolar power.6276

Even though neo-conservative writer Samuel Huntington declared in 1993 that ‘the new clash will be between civilizations and the next confrontation to Western civilization will come from the Muslim world’ and 9/11 was seen as a proof of his arguments, neo-conservatives do not officially oppose all of the Muslims on Earth.6377 As is mentioned in the background, it considers that there is a defined enemy, al-Qaeda, and state tools or conventional armies should be used to destroy it.

America saw itself as the representative of Enlightenment, including positivism, knowledge, wealth, human rights, democracy, and modern western values. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, represent the people who are, in Fukuyama’s words, ‘determinately stuck in the middle ages’ and against modernization in any way, any liberalism or democracy. Bin Laden, considering himself a true Muslim and al-Qaeda as the representative of Islam, believes that there is a war between civilizations (Islam versus Western civilization) by stating that Americans try to destroy the Islamic identity of the entire Islamic world. 64

It is more interesting that both al-Qaeda and America use the tools that their ideologies totally oppose. While the US is defending ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ and also wants to establish ‘world peace’ under its hegemony, it is being criticized with its actions as a threat to democracy and world peace.65 On the other hand, al-Qaeda, who imposes a pre-modern Islam on the world by destroying the Western culture, uses modern methods to destroy its enemy.66

John Gray claims that the destruction of the Twin Towers was not the product of a medieval worldview, but rather the product of modern and Western thought.67 Using the modern technology does not indicate that al-Qaeda supports the modern Western values; unlike the neoconservatives, al-Qaeda opposes modern thought and suggests going back to the past, back to the golden era when Prophet lived. 68

However, this does not also mean that its ideology is not influenced by modern ideologies. For instance, Gray claims that there is more than one way of being ‘modern,’ and the source of al-Qaeda’s ideology can be found in the philosophies of the 19th century, such as European anarchism.69 Jason Burke also approves this, by highlighting that Qutb and Mawdudi borrowed their organizational tactics from secular leftist groups. The concept of a ‘Vanguard’ is influenced by Leninist theory.70 However, although the ideological foundation of the neoconservatives came from leftist Trotskyism in the 1930s, today there are few if any ideological similarities between Trotskyism and neoconservatism.71

Going back to use of violence, considering the Western civilization as a ‘Crusader-Zionist alliance’, al-Qaeda describes its jihad as ‘defensive’ because they believe that the United States declared  ‘war on God, His Messenger, and Muslims.” 72 The words of an 11-year-old suicide bomber are interesting to mention at this point:  ‘if we do not kill them, they will come and kill us.”

World’s Youngest Suicide Bomber

As Bush declares: ‘We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans’, so the US strategy is also based on ‘preemptive self defense’.73 74

Once you learn about the similarities, it becomes time to note that there are also some key differences. Al-Qaeda calls on every Muslim (individuals and states) to fight against the US; Zawahiri talks about individual jihad by declaring (1) Jihad is the only solution and it is universal, (2) victory is achievable and endurance and patience are the keys to victory, and (3) every person is capable of performing his own jihad.75

On the other hand, although  ‘the war on terror’ is universal like jihad, neoconservatives do not like to include other states. They believe that there is a moral obligation for America to use ‘unilateral’ power to spread its interests, because those interests are also the interests of all humanity.76  This can be seen in the Wilsonian idea of spreading democracy.77 However, like Wilson, they are skeptical about international institutions such as the UN and they embrace the unilateral military action.78

Secondly, although suicide as we know it is prohibited in Qur’an, with suicide bombers having a different interpretation, al-Qaeda expects ‘self sacrifice’ from its believers in the war against the West. According to Assaf Mogdaham, Azzam was the first theoretician who transformed martyrdom into a formative ethos for its al-Qaeda supporters.79 In the Afghan war, he convinced the militants to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Allah so that they could go to heaven.80 Zawahiri clarified the distinction between suicide and achieving martyrdom by stating that the suicide attacker does not have personal reasons; instead, he sacrifices himself for God.81

The neoconservative ideology did not include suicide, and the neoconservatives prefer to use state tools and conventional armies.

Politics versus Religion

It must be noted that bin Laden is not a cleric or a trained imam, he is a pious politician and his supporters embraced him not only because of his Islamic thoughts but also because of his political ideals.82 Furthermore, Roel Meijer mentions that he uses politics as a ‘tool’ for a specific goal, and his program is political: diminish US and Israeli power, and spread Islam.83 Bin Laden also became a big player in today’s world politics. He gave declarations not only about Islam, but also regarding world politics such as Kyoto Protocol, where he blames the Bush administration for not curbing emissions. However, it should not be forgotten that the ideology of al-Qaeda, which is ‘religious’ and has been shaped for centuries, opposes the Western culture and its values, and aims to establish an Islamic state. As before mentioned, al-Qaeda uses politics as a tool in order to establish its goal.

Neoconservatives also use ‘religion’ for their political agenda. They created the myth of a ‘threat’ to prevent social disintegration. As Irving Kristol, the grandfather of neoconservative ideology, highlights, they also use religion as a glue to maintain social order and generate nationalist sentiments.84 Michael Ledeen, an admirer of Machiavelli, adds that religion is a powerful political tool, and with its help, politicians can get the support for otherwise unpopular things, such as war.85

In this respect, neoconservatives used religion during the 1980s under the Reagan era when they agreed with the preachers to convince the fundamental Christians to vote for Reagan.86 Bush also legitimized the war in Iraq in the eyes of Americans with strong religious rhetoric, which is ‘The triumph of Good over Evil requires that US, as God’s chosen agent of freedom, be willing to use military force in order to achieve that what it considers the higher goal of freedom.’87

Conclusion

In conclusion, we began by analyzing the historical context of the conflict of these two ideologies and conclude with how they came to side against each other. Later, it analyzes the similarities and differences, concluding that their worldviews are mainly similar, such as  (1) they both see each other in a zero-sum way and legitimize their use of force to be able destroy the other,  (2) they both see ‘moral decadence’ as the main challenge of society, and (3) they both have a universal agenda in place to solve this problem, thinking that their own interests re also the interests of humanity.

However, they find the solutions to these problems in different eras. While al-Qaeda’s solution is religious and found in the past (the golden era of Caliphate), neoconservatives concentrate on modern values of Enlightenment, such as democracy, human rights and liberalism.

*Tuğçe Cömert is an MA student at University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in International Studies and Diplomacy. She was awarded a scholarship by Jean Monnet Scholarship Committee.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books

BERNER Brad K, Quotations from Osama bin Laden, Book Surge, LLC, 2006. BURKE Jason, The True Story of Radical Islam, Penguin Books, New York, 2003. GRAY John, El Kaide: Modern Olmanin Anlami, Everest, Istanbul, 2004.

HALPER Stefan and Jonathan Clarke, America alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

MAMDANI Mahmood Iyi Musluman, Kotu Musluma; Amerika, Soguk Savas ve Terorun Kokenleri, 1001 Kitap, 2004.

KEPEL Gilles and Jean-Pierre Milelli, Al Qaeda in its Own Words, Harvard University Press, 2008.

VAS Luis S.R., Osama Ben Laden, King of Terror or savior of Islam, Pushak Mahal, 2001.

Electronic Journals

ALY Aly,  ‘The historical roots of Al Qaeda’s political ideology:  Understanding Ayman Al Zahawiri’s vision and developing an appropriate response, presented at the terrorism history conference (RNSA), Canberra, 2007, pp.1-14.

BURKE Jason, ‘ Think again: Al Qaeda’, Foreign Policy, No. 142,2004, pp.18-26.

CLAESSEN Major Erik A.  ‘Learning from moderate governments approaches to Islamist Extremism’, Military Review, March-April, 2009, pp.116-124.

GUNARATHA Rohan.’  Al Qaeda’s Ideology’ in Current Trends in Islamist ideology vol.1,

Hudson Institute, 2005, p.59-67.

HELLMICH Christina Here come the Salafis, The Framing of Al- Qaeda within Terrorism

Research, University of Reading, 2010, pp.1-7.

HUNTINGTON Samuel, ‘The clash of civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, summer 1993, pp.22-49. IKENBERRY G. John, ‘ The End of Neoconservative movement’, Survival, vol.46, no.1, 2004, pp.7-22.

MEIJER Roel, ‘ Re-Reading al-Qaeda, writings of Yusuf al-Ayiri’, ISIM Review, Vol.18, 2006, p.16-17.

MOGDAHAM Assaf, ‘Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaida, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide

Attacks’, International Security, Vol. 33, number3. , 2008/9, pp.46-78.

O’CONNELL Mary Ellen, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, The American Society of

International Law Task Force on Terrorism, 2002, p.19.

OWENS Patricia, ‘Beyond Strauss, lies, and the war in Iraq: Hannah Arendt’s critique of neo- conservatism’, Review of International Studies, 33, 2007, pp. 265-283.

SOAGE Ana Belen, ‘Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb: Continuity or Rupture?’ The Muslim

World, Hartford Seminary, 2009, pp. 294-305.

SOAGE Ana Belen  (b),’Islamism and Modernity:  the political thought of Sayyid Qutb, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol.10, No.2, 2009, p. 189-203.

SHEPHARD William E., ‘ Sayyid Qutb’s Doctrine of Jahiliyya, International Journal of Middle

East Studies, 2003, pp.521-545.

URBAN Hugh B.’ Machiavelli meets the religious rights: Michael Ledeen, the neoconservatives and the political use of fundamentalism, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 2007, 42,no.1, pp. 76-97. WILLIAMS Michael C., ‘What is the National interest? The Neoconservative Challenge in IR Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 2005, pp.307-329.

Documents and Reports

BLANCHARD Christopher M. Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology, 2005, CRS Report for Congress. George W.  Bush:  Declaration of War on Terrorism, 2001 (Accessed 15 February 2011)

Project for the New American Century, Letters, 1998 (Accessed 10 February 2011)

TWAIR Pat McDonnell “Carl Boggs, Chalmers Johnson Discuss Neocon Ideology and American Empire,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 2004, p.19. (Accessed 10 February 2011)

United State Department of State, Diplomacy in Action, Most wanted terrorists, (Accessed 10 February 2011)

Thesis

KHAN Shaji, Killing in the name of God, Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy thesis, Fletcher School, 2004.

Documentary

CURTIS Adam ‘The power of Nightmare’, The BBC, 2004, part 4 (Jason Burke’s talk) (Accessed 8 February 2011)

Internet sites

Washington post Information Clearing House The New Yorker

The New York Times

History News Network

International Herald Tribune

 

You might also want to read

[srp srp_number_post_option=’5′ srp_widget_title=’ ‘ srp_thumbnail_wdg_height=’60’ srp_thumbnail_wdg_width=’60’ srp_include_option=’1353′ srp_thumbnail_option=’yes’ srp_content_post_option=’titleonly’]
  1. Washington post, November 15-16,2003
  2. Christina Hellmich, Here come the Salafis, The Framing of Al- Qaeda within Terrorism Research, University of Reading, 2010, p.2.
  3. Encyclopedia Britannica, Bush declaration of War on Terrorism (Accessed 10 February 2011)
  4. Jean Francois Staznak, ‘Other/Otherness’, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2008, Elsevier p.1.
  5. Rohan Gunaratha, op. cit, p.64.
  6. Jason Burke, The True Story of Radical Islam, Penguin Books, New York, 2003, p.8.
  7. Ibid, p.10-13.
  8. Jonathan Clarke, ‘The end of the neo-cons?’ BBC News Viewpoint, 2009, (Accessed 9 February 2011)
  9. Pat McDonnell, ‘Carl Boggs and Chalmers Johnson Discuss Neocon Ideology and American Empire’, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 2004, p.19.
  10. The Power of Nightmare, op. cit.
  11. David Harvey, New imperialism, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.66.
  12. Mahmood Mamdani, Iyi Musluman, Kotu Musluma; Amerika, Soguk Savas ve Terorun Kokenleri, 1001 Kitap, 2004, p.134. According to official history, the US began to support the Muslim militants after the Soviet invasion in 1979.
  13. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke use the term ‘patron saint’ for Reagan in America alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p.17.
  14. The power of Nightmares, op. cit.
  15. Bin Laden states that the US was unjust, criminal and tyrannical. See Luis S.R. Vas, Osama Bin Laden, King of Terror or savior of Islam, Pushak Mahal, 2001, p.43.
  16. The Power of Nightmare and Gunaratha, p.60.
  17. Luis S.R. Vas, op. cit., p.44.
  18. Rohan Gunaratha, op. cit, p.64.
  19. Christopher M. Blanchard, Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology, 2005, CRS Report for Congress, p.8.
  20. Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli, Al Qaeda in its Own Words, Harvard University Press, 2008, p.76.
  21. Christina Hellmich, op. cit, p.2.
  22. Ibid. The war was unpopular is US because of Vietnam syndrome.
  23. The Power of Nightmares, op. cit.
  24. Ibid. The signers of the Letter:  E. Abrams, R. L. Armitage, W. J. Bennett, J. Bergner, J. Bolton, P. Dobriansky, F. Fukuyama, R. Kagan, Z. Khalilzad, W. Kristol, R. Perle, P. W. Rodman, D. Rumsfeld, W. Schneider Jr., V. Weber, P. Wolfowitz, J. Woolsey and R. B. Zoellick.
  25. Power of Nightmares, op. cit.
  26. Jason Burke, op. cit, p.29.
  27. Ibid.
  28. Major Erik A. Claessen Jr, ‘Learning from moderate governments approaches to Islamist Extremism’, Military Review, March-April , 2009, p.117.
  29. Ibid. p.118.
  30. Shajid Khan, Killing in the name of God, Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy thesis, Fletcher School, 2004, p.32.
  31. Ana Belen Soage, ‘Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb: Continuity or Rupture?’, The Muslim World, Hartford Seminary, 2009, p. 302.
  32. William E. Shephard, ‘ Sayyid Qutb’s Doctrine of Jahiliyya, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 2003, p. 524, 525.
  33. Ibid. p. 529.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Patricia Owens, ‘Beyond Strauss, lies, and the war in Iraq: Hannah Arendt’s critique of neoconservatism’, Review of International Studies, 33, 2007, p.271.
  36. Alain Frachon and D. Vernet, ‘ The Strategist and the Philosopher’, 2003. (Accessed 10 February 2011)
  37. Ibid.
  38. Ibid.
  39. Michael C. Williams, ‘what is the National interest? The Neoconservative Challenge in IR Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 2005, p.309,310.
  40. William Pfaff, op. cit.
  41. Michael C. Williams, op. cit. p.312.
  42. The power of Nightmares, op. cit.
  43. William E. Shephard, op. cit., p. 527, 529,532 and Ana Belen Soage, op. cit., p. 304. and Ana Belen, op. cit., pp.297, 298.
  44. Jason Burke, ‘ Think again: Al Qaeda’, Foreign Policy, No. 142,2004, p.20.
  45. Ibid.
  46. Ana Belen Soage, op. cit., p.297
  47. Ibid.
  48. Ana Belen Soage (b),’Islamism and Modernity: the political thought of Sayyid Qutb, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions,Vol.10, No.2, 2009, p. 192.
  49. Patricia Owens, op. cit., p.266.
  50. The war party, op. cit.
  51. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, op. cit. p.18.
  52. Ibid,. p. 52.
  53. Mahmood Mamdani, op. cit.,  p. 264.
  54. Stephan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, op. cit. p. 38.
  55. The war party, op. cit.
  56. Ana Belen Soage, (b), op. cit., p. 192.
  57. Ana Belen Soage (a), op. cit. p. 304.
  58. Shajid Khan, op. cit., p.31.
  59. Ibid. p. 38.
  60. Ibid. p.143.
  61. The Power of Nightmare, op. cit.
  62. G. John Ikenberry, ‘ The End of Neoconservative movement’, Survival, vol.46, no.1, 2004, p.9.
  63. Samuel Huntington, ‘The clash of Civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, summer,1993, p.22.
  64. Brad K Berner, Quotations from Osama bin Laden, Book Surge, LLC, 2006, p.39.
  65. Douglas Kellner, op. cit., p.16.
  66. Ibid. p.19.
  67. John Gray, El Kaide: Modern Olmanin Anlami, Everest, Istanbul, 2004, p.18.
  68. Shajid Khan, op. cit., p.35.
  69. John Gray, op. cit. p.22.
  70. Jason Burke, ‘ Think again: Al Qaeda’, Foreign Policy, No. 142,2004, p.20.
  71. Francis Fukuyama, , Neo-conslarin sonu: Yol  ayrimindaki Amerika, Profil, Istanbul, 2006., pp.28, 29.
  72. Assaf Mogdaham, ‘Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaida, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide Attacks’, International Security, Vol. 33, number3. , 2008/9, p. 55.
  73. George W. Bush: Declaration of War on Terrorism, 2001(Accessed 15 February 2011)
  74. Mary Ellen O’Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism, 2002, p.19.
  75. Anne Aly, ‘The historical roots of Al Qaeda’s political ideology: Understanding Ayman Al Zahawiri’s vision and developing an appropriate response, presented at the terrorism history conference (RNSA), Canberra, 2007, p. 2.
  76. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, op. cit. p.17
  77. John Ikenberry, op. cit., p.10.
  78. Francis Fukuyama, op. cit. p.38.
  79. Assaf Mogdaham, op. cit. p. 58
  80. ibid.
  81. Ibid. p. 60.
  82. Mahmood Mamdani, op. cit., p.264.
  83. Roel Meijer, ‘ Re-Reading al-Qaeda, writings of Yusuf al-Ayiri’, ISIM Review, Vol.18, 2006, p.16.
  84. Hugh B. Urban’ Machiavelli meets the religious rights: Michael Ledeen, the neoconservatives and the political use of fundamentalism, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 2007, 42,no.1, p. 80.
  85. Ibid.
  86. The Power of Nightmares, op. cit.
  87. Hugh B. Urban, op. cit. p. 85.
Tags from the story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

TUGCE COMERT
Comparison and contrast the ideological worldviews of al-Qaeda and US neoconservatives" />