Home
|
Trend Lines
|
Commentary Week In Review
By Guy Taylor
|
15 Sep 2007
The Commentary Week in Review is posted on the blog every Friday. Drawing from more than two dozen English-language news outlets worldwide, the column highlights notable op-eds on major issues from the past week.
Bin Laden's New Image
The sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks prompted a surge of op-eds analyzing how Osama bin Laden's image has changed since 2001, why he hasn't been captured, and what the future may hold for him.
Fawaz A. Gerges argued in the Sept. 13 Christian Science Monitor that a recent bin Laden videotape showed how he is now "venturing into a new ideological terrain" and "blurring the lines between jihadist messianism and Marxist utopia, which might, in turn, throw his die-hard Salafi supporters off balance."
In the tape, according to Gerges, bin Laden projects a younger look that past tapes. He also:
Gives his most ideological address since the early 1990s with an assault on capitalism and liberal democracy loaded with Marxist and socialist terms. Indeed, this new bin Laden sounds more like Che Guevara, the Marxist revolutionary, than some of his rifle-toting Al Qaeda cohorts. ...He has exchanged his fatigues and Kalashnikov for a white robe, circular cap, and beige cloak, giving him an aura of clerical wisdom. The new bin Laden portrays himself as a spiritual figure, not a grizzled soldier. His gray beard is dyed black and trimmed neatly, which is actually an old tradition dating back to the birth of Islam; the prophet Muhammad reportedly dyed his hair and recommended, while at war, that his commanders and soldiers dye theirs to strike fear in the enemy.
Osama at Large
Ian Williams maintained in the Sept. 10 Guardian that "the latest OBL tape -- which apart from its invocation to Islamic conversion could indeed read like a Guardian editorial on geopolitics -- does raise the question of what he is still doing at large, with access to video cameras, hair dye and barbers?"
Williams went on to ponder:
Is it significant that OBL did not discourse on issues such as gay marriage, evolution, abortion and faith-based organizations, where his black heart beats in close harmony with those of the conservative right? Conspiracy theorists should be asking the question: "Objectively, who benefits from allowing this malevolent, self-confessed mass murderer to remain at large?"
Williams asserted:
On the realist side, the spectacular incompetence and mendacity of this White House is demonstrable. They did indeed get the wrong man and go after Saddam Hussein who had nothing to do with 9/11 -- while letting the man in the turban escape.
Scarier Than Bin Laden
Bruce Hoffman, meanwhile, wrote in the Sept. 9 Washington Post that "it's time to recognize the strategic vision that has driven and shaped the terrorist movement for the past six years."
"We need to drop our preoccupation with Osama bin Laden, which is once again being fueled by his latest video," wrote Hoffman. "Bin Laden's days as the movement's guiding star are over. The United States' most formidable nemesis now is not the Saudi terrorist leader but his nominal deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri."
Hoffman asserted that al-Zawahiri "has not only revived the movement's fortunes but has also made it once again the global threat poised to strike the United States that was depicted in the National Intelligence Estimate released in July."
Also, according to Hoffman:
Over the past two years, the Egyptian terrorist has issued about 30 statements on a range of subjects ... [and] overseen a quadrupling of al-Qaeda video releases ... He may lack bin Laden's charisma, but ... thanks to Zawahiri, instead of al-Qaeda R.I.P., we're facing an al-Qaeda that has risen from the grave.
Mexico's Established President
Away from the subject of Osama bin Laden, Marifeli Perez-Stable caught our attention with her assertion in the Sept. 13 Miami Herald that Mexican President Felipe Calderón "deserves high praise for his part in bringing Mexico back from last year's political brink."
She explained:
Once in office, he deployed the military against organized crime. Even if controversial and with uncertain results, the decision earned him the majority's respect. He also worked with Congress to pass the 2007 budget and a reform of the federal pension system. Mexicans once again have a resolute president.
Perez-Stable maintained that credit is also due elsewhere, including within the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). For instance:
The PRI -- old fox that it is -- rose from the ashes of the drubbing in last year's presidential race. The PRI elected as its president Beatriz Paredes, a savvy and honest politician who has a good working relationship with Calderón.
But, still, "not all goes well in Mexico," according to Perez-Stable, who noted that "for the second time in two months, the Popular Revolutionary Army attacked state-owned oil and gas installations."
"Thankfully no one was hurt, but the economic losses are steep," she wrote, adding that "Calderón must act to protect Mexico's vital interests lest the guerrilla group resurface yet again."
What Israeli Aggression?
Reflecting on the alleged Sept. 6 violation of Syrian airspace by Israeli fighter jets, Larry Derfner wrote in the Sept. 10 Jerusalem Post that "for once, Israelis seem to believe that Syria is telling the truth ... that Syria fired at [the Israeli] jets but missed."
"The reason Israelis believe the Syrian story is because if it wasn't true, Israel would deny it," wrote Derfner. "So Israeli leaders have nothing to say about the Syrian reports. This is the diplomatic equivalent of a wink. Everyone understands."
"What is hard to understand," he wrote, "is how the Israeli media can be so docile, so obedient, in the face of such a reckless Israeli act."
Reflecting on what he'd seen on Israeli television, Derfner asserted:
None of the journalists, who clearly assumed that this incident had really taken place, thought it worth mentioning that Israel had just risked starting a war with Syria. None of them challenged Israeli officials on the wisdom of this. All they talked about was what Syria might do now, whether Syria would go to war. That Israel had just provoked Syria, had just escalated the conflict, was the elephant in the newsroom that they pretended not to see. ...It's almost surrealistic. It's like there's a conspiracy of silence. The people who are supposed to ask questions act as if they've been lobotomized. I feel a little bit like I'm living in a police state.
What would have happened if Syria had shot down one of [Israel's] jets? We would have been at war with a country on our northern border that has biological and chemical weapons as well as lots of missiles -- and Israel would be guilty of having provoked the war.
The Commentary Week In Review draws from links aggregated every weekday morning in WPR's Media Roundup, which you can receive by email for free by registering now.