After reading an article last week about Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei condemning the bombing in Boston but criticizing the U.S. policy on drone attacks, the question came to mind as to just how relevant it was for him to associate the two so closely. He stated:
The Islamic Republic of Iran, which follows the logic Islam, is opposed to any bombings and killings of innocent people, no matter if it is in Boston,, , , or and condemns it…The US and other so-called human rights advocates remain silent on the massacre of innocents in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, but they cause a ruckus after a few blasts in the
This week an op-ed appeared in the Atlantic addressing this issue specifically. An important summary from the piece:
But propaganda is most powerful when it’s at least within shouting distance of the truth–and, unfortunately, that’s the case here. Obama’s drone strikes have killed, if not more civilians than mujahideen, lots of civilians, including women and scores of children. Every time such killing happens, the jihadist narrative, the narrative that seems to have seized the minds of the Tsarnaev brothers, gains a measure of strength.
This is a commonsensical realization but there is another underlying issue that would contribute to this argument: the evolution of Al Qaeda’s message.
What I mean by that is there seems to be a change in how Al Qaeda once presented its message and how it delivers it now. If we look at the issue of Inspire, Al Qaeda’s magazine, linked in the Atlantic piece, we see many articles addressing and encouraging lone wolf-types of attacks similar to what we saw in Boston. This comes along with ideas on how to attack as an individual, such as creating car crashes and, coincidentally, using ricin.
Overall, the emphasis in the rhetoric seems to be on attacking and terrorizing civilians. As noted by the author:
That’s where drone strikes can come in handy, and the latest issue of Inspire spells out the logic explicitly: Because America is “ruled by the people,” its “rulers (people) should pay for their country’s action till they change their system and foreign policies.” So “war on America including civilians” is legitimate, says Inspire, so long as Americans are killing Muslim civilians with drone strikes. “The equation should be balanced. Like they kill, they will be killed.”
But if we look back at some of Osama bin Laden’s rhetoric, he doesn’t seem to be as concerned with attacking civilians as he is with attacking what he sees as more symbolically important targets. And he even makes a distinction between the American people and the actions of the government. After describing many instances of what he sees as American oppression, he leaves the reader with these remarks:
In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.
Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn’t play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.
Bin Laden clearly had a eye on symbolism, along with casualty counts, when he targeted the U.S. for his attacks. America’s military dominance was attacked by hitting the Pentagon and the U.S.S. Cole. America’s economic dominance was attacked by bringing down the WTC. And America’s heavy hand in foreign affairs was attacked when Al Qaeda struck at U.S. embassies.
And therein lies the new evolution and difference with the Boston attack. It wasn’t an attack on a structure that also carried a certain symbolism for the U.S. It was specifically targeted at civilians and civilians only just as the rhetoric contained within the pages of Inspire would suggest. There may not be a direct link between the Boston bombers and Al Qaeda (and in all likelihood none will be found) but there is little doubt where the Tsarnaev brothers drew their inspiration.
As American tactics in finding and destroying Islamic extremists has evolved over the years with the expanded use of drone, the tactics used against us has gone through its own evolution. We are seeing the next phase in the War on Terror and the likelihood of more lone wolf attacks in the future is seemingly high. The question now becomes: how much longer will we let drone attacks be carried out in our name when we are being told they are the reason for the oncoming lone wolves?