Why Zawahiri Does Not Matter
The headlines read: Al-Qaeda "organization" names new leader. The truth is, of course, that al-Qaeda has never been an "organization." Rather, they are a phenomenon. An ideology. An almost metaphorical group that strikes fear into its western adversaries. Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor who served as Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, will persist with al-Qaeda’s ambition of driving western forces from Arab land and continue their "fight against apostate invaders". Already a $25 million sum has been placed on his head, along with the threat to "capture and kill" this somewhat irrelevant individual.
Whilst the news has sparked a plethora of Washington reaction and anxiety, the reality is that this man is extraneous. Al-Qaeda – whether the western world likes to admit it or not – have merely become an abhorrent excuse to invade Middle Eastern nations. Worryingly, even Arab dictators have begun using al-Qaeda as a propaganda tool in their violent suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators. Both Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Muammar Gadhafi in Libya have accused al-Qaeda of plotting the uprisings seen in their countries. Bizarrely, the two leaders have also accused the United States of engineering the Middle Eastern protests. What a hybrid! Al-Qaeda and America working side-by-side. I think not.
But let us not deviate from the real issue here. Despite al-Qaeda being used as justification for various criminal deeds being enacted across the globe – drone strikes, unlawful assassinations, suppressing civilians etc – they no longer pose the misconceived menace they once did, if indeed, they ever did. Al-Qaeda is not – and has never been – the ‘organization’ it is represented as. There are no headquarters. There are no member’s badges. You can literally wake up one morning and declare yourself a ‘member’ of al-Qaeda. There is no application process. And this is what the western world – especially America – fails to recognize.
Yes, al-Zawahiri, during a recent speech, declared his admiration for the uprisings sweeping the Middle East. But this does not mean that al-Qaeda is behind them. It is merely a sophisticated propaganda technique being utilized in order to rally anti-western sentiment. But what al-Qaeda fails to interpret is that many of the protests are civil disputes. They are not about western occupation of Arab land. They are not concerned with US-Arab relations. Instead, they are about equality, fairness and representation. The western-educated youth have risen and no longer accept the status quo.
‘Experts’ have been expressing how al-Zawahiri "lacks charm" and is not as "dynamic" as his predecessor. What baloney. Who cares? This is not the real issue. Whoever took over the reigns as al-Qaeda’s main spokesman – which is essentially what they are – was going to receive widespread media attention. After all, it makes a good story, right? It ignites that famous Chomsky filter; fear. Without al-Qaeda – and their supposed relevance and peril – there would be no excuse for western forays onto foreign soil. There would be no excuse for the continued support offered to out-of-touch Arab tyrants. And without validation, people – God forbid – may start asking questions.
So undoubtedly, the al-Zawahiri ‘appointment’ will awaken discourse over the need to destroy al-Qaeda. And undoubtedly many of the general public shall fall for this hyperbolic posture. But let us not be fooled into thinking that al-Qaeda offers the humongous threat that Washington officials would like us to believe. Interestingly, since bin Laden’s killing, were we not supposed to be on "red alert" for terror attacks? Yet – unsurprisingly – all reported al-Qaeda attacks since their martyr’s death have occurred in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan. But – apparently – it is us who should be fearful.
The only answer – as ever – remains that we must get out of the Middle East. Take our troops, our tanks, our Apache helicopters and leave. What excuse would al-Zawahiri and his cronies have then? When al-Zawahiri speaks of aspirations to free the Muslim world, what better way to belittle him than by actually granting him his wish and ending this preposterous "war on terror"? The Arab awakening has highlighted how a peaceful mass has the potential to topple corrupt regimes. Mubarak and Ben Ali can certainly vouch for that. Al-Qaeda has been demeaned by this concept. Their methods have been proven ineffective in comparison to the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions. And any right-minded Muslim can see that.
Read more by Scott A. Hill
- Transparent and Trustworthy Israel – June 30th, 2011
- West to Syria: Do as I Say, Not as I Do – June 10th, 2011
- If Libya Is a Success, What Would Be a Failure? – June 8th, 2011
- How Dare They Bomb Pakistan, That’s Our Job – May 20th, 2011





fedupandsick
June 18th, 2011 at 6:11 am
Why is so hard to believe america and al qaeda are working side by side? After all, the cia created al qaeda and we have no problem working side by side with terror groups in Iran in our quest for regime change.
camus10
June 18th, 2011 at 6:11 am
AQ operations are weak and disparate, is it coincidence they only serve Israels interest in dividing moslems thru sectarian conflcits between shiites and suni, Iran group Vs saudi influence
OBL execution remains propaganda, there is yet no public evidence. AQ selecting a new leader makes one wonder if they share US intel playbook and we are just pandering to a grand psyops
skulz fontaine
June 18th, 2011 at 6:41 am
So the al-Qaeda Inc. Board of Directors meets at al-Qaeda Central somewhere in the vast and sprawling Corporate Headquarters in Secret AfPakiscam and you know, after lengthy corporate back-scratching and old-boy kibitzing after a round of al-Qaeda golf, it's decided. Ayman al-Zawahiri is the MAN.
You know, cause ABCBSCNNBCMSNBC AND the Washington/Jerusalem Post says so.
GLOBAL WAR OF TERROR CONTINUES… unabated.
karlof1
June 18th, 2011 at 8:11 am
"Al-Qaeda and America working side-by-side. I think not."
Al-Qaeda was formed by the CIA and financed by the Saudis to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. They were also used by the CIA to help the Chechen rebellion as part of the continuing destabilization policy toward Russia and its elements are still active in Daghestan. Then there's Kosovo, where they fought with NATO, and now Libya, where the US and NATO-backed "rebels" have freely admitted their al-Qaeda links. Zawahiri may be "irrelevant," but lets get the basic facts about his organization correct.
Mark
June 18th, 2011 at 10:29 am
I think everyone is aware that the CIA and/or Pentagon would engage in marriages of convenience with Islamic militant groups, from the mujahadeen in 1980s Afghanistan to those 'Al Qaeda' affiliated rebels in Libya. But the author's rhetorical point still stands. That is, 'Al Qaeda' is a name which both the US and Arab dictators deploy to signify an internationally recognised enemy, leading to absurdities such as Gaddhafi's blaming both the US and Al Qaeda for the uprisings against his regime. No, bin Laden (or now Zawahiri) did not work 'side-by-side' to engineer the Libyan uprising, though both entities have for their own purposes tried to weigh in on the action. Moreover, anyone can refer to themselves or others as Al Qaeda with little consequence, so unless there has been some well-concealed conspiracy between, say, bin Laden/Zawahiri (ie. 'Al Qaeda central') and the US since the two have been publicly at war with one another, the idea that they are collusion remains absurd.
As an aside: I like what this Scott A. Hill writes. A welcome addition to Antiwar.com!
Frank
June 18th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I enjoyed this piece as well. If he removed those 3 words ("I think not."), it would be flawless.
Wootie Berster
June 18th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The frightening name means, apparently, "the base" ie "the database". Stop calling it by its foreign name and begin calling it "the database" and the absurdity becomes crystal clear. How about "the rolodex" or "the filing cabinet" as a name for this not "almost metaphorical" but utterly metaphorical entity. Just a thought.
David Smith
June 18th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
The story I heard was that the U.S. wanted to use the anti-racketeering laws to go after terrorist groups' finances. The law required that the target have a name, so Al-Qaeda was pulled out of a hat.
Emilyrose
June 19th, 2011 at 2:51 am
So Zawahiri is the new leader of Al Qaeda.
Interesting.
Can we presume that Zawahiri is actually a CIA operative as was Bin Laden?
After all Al qaeda is nothing more than a CIA creation. Would they hand it over to a genuine terrorist?
If I was opposing American mass murder and all its works in central Asia and the middle East I wouldn't trust Zawahiri.
Ah! but is that why they have appointed him?. A subtle and cunning plan worthy of Baldrick not to mention Maxwell Smart.
But are the Yanks and NATO that brainy? They act like murderous thugs but who knows?
morleyevans
June 19th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
You are absolutely right, Scott A. Hill. Al Qaeda is an idea, a phantom. It was undoubtedly dreamed up by the CIA. It is a bogyman that provides an excuse to invade Muslim countries and give our heroes something to do, namely kill people and steal their stuff. Al Qaeda is used to terrorize a gullible public with ridiculous stories like some guy found wandering around Arlington Cemetery the other night. Was he trying to destroy the Pentagon, the reported asked? How would he do that? The troops should be brought home and decommissioned, the military industrial complex should be defunded and disbanded, and our "leaders" should be locked up in the rubber room or put in a zoo.
R.C.
June 19th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
It makes sense. This "Al Qaeda" ruse works out marvelously for the MIC. Unlike the very real former Soviet Union, they've now conjured up a phantom enemy who is stateless and can never be defeated. As long as we have a terrorist event stateside every decade or so to keep the public on it toes and frightened, they'll have a "gift" that'll keep giving for decades.