Misinterpreting Osama's Message: Erring on the Side of Danger
Terri
By Diane Perlman, AlterNet. Posted November 21, 2002.
Bin Laden's messages are mistaken for unconditional threats and vows to
attack. They are really conditional warnings that whatever we do, they
will respond in kind.
While media experts were preoccupied with analyzing Osama bin Laden's
voice, they failed to comprehend, or even read, his actual words.
Speculation about hidden meanings and secret clues totally ignored the
obvious intended message, which is so clear that it doesn't even need
decoding.
Because of the intense hate and fear evoked by Osama, because we are so
traumatized by him, we automatically block those dimensions of his
communication that are not pure threats. We simplify and reduce complex
messages, transforming them into plans to attack unconditionally.
Speculation is based more on fantasy than expertise.
We unconsciously refuse to perceive what he is actually saying, as if
understanding this evil person is a betrayal to ourselves and is
letting him win. Our dangerous assumptions can lead to self-fulfilling
prophesies.
The image of the enemy universally generates a powerful emotional
charge that distorts perception. Our narrow range of thinking, so
deeply ingrained, is shaped by a homogenous media, with constant
repetition of a simplistic worldview, characterized by black-and-white
thinking, egocentrism and psychological ignorance. Our inability to
receive meaning is tantamount to a collective cognitive disorder.
We see the enemy only as intent on destroying us, no matter what we do.
We believe that the only thing we can do is destroy him before he
destroys us; but that is an impossible endless game, because we will
always generate new recruits.
Understandably, we see the enemy as only hostile and aggressive, and
fail to see that he is also feeling anguish and desperation. There is a
serious threat to us, but the way we respond can either increase or
decrease the threat. We tend to leave out our participation in this
dynamic dance of terror.
Shifting to a Survivable Paradigm
Some people reading this will misunderstand my intention to attempt
psychologically sound ways of reducing the escalation of violence,
which is about to spin out of control. Those who are committed to
revenge and punishment, even if it provokes retaliation that endangers
us, will dismiss this article. They are operating on the axis of right
and wrong, good and evil, us and them. They will always be right, but
the violence will escalate.
As we used to say in the days of the Soviet-American arms race, it's
like shooting a hole in their side of the lifeboat. There is no way out
using this paradigm.
In order to emerge from the imminent cycle of retaliation, we are
required to operate from a new, transcendent paradigm principled upon
tension reduction, violence prevention and conflict transformation. It
is off the right-wrong axis.
When one is being threatened, understanding the psychology of the enemy
is a matter of life and death. Like it or not, our fates are
intertwined.
The Message of Reciprocity
We have received three clear, consistent messages from bin Laden in the
last year: on Nov. 11, 2001; Oct. 6, 2002; and Nov. 12, 2002. All are
credible, plausible, and make psychological sense. They have all been
grossly misinterpreted.
All of bin Laden's messages have a consistent theme, emotional tone and
logic. All are about reciprocity, expressed in many different ways. The
message from Nov. 12, 2002, began, "The road to safety begins by ending
the aggression. Reciprocal treatment is part of justice. The incidents
that have taken place ... are only reactions and reciprocal actions. "
I have not heard one commentator address this. Ironically, the AOL
headline for these excerpts said, "Bin Laden vows to attack." That is
not quite accurate.
As a clinical and political psychologist, I consider these
communications to contain information vital to our survival. Just
because bin Laden is our arch enemy, it does not follow that we should
not take his communications seriously, or accurately.
President Bush said on Nov. 13 that he would take bin Laden's messages
seriously. His interpretation was the opposite of the true meaning. In
fact the messages mean that if we do go to war, we will provoke a chain
reaction of terrorist attacks that would not occur if we do not go to
war. The CIA, political psychologists, terrorism experts, Middle East
analysts and social psychologists including Dr. Phil Zimbardo,
president of the American Psychological Association, expert on group
violence, speaking about the Psychology of Evil at the University of
Pennsylvania, Oct. 9, 2002, all agree that war will increase terrorism
globally, as well as many other catastrophic unintended consequences.
Bin Laden's messages are misinterpreted as unconditional threats and
vows to attack. This is incorrect. They are all conditional warnings
that whatever we do, they will respond in kind. What is missed by media
and political leaders, whether intentionally or unconsciously, is the
conditionality, the centrality of our role in provoking retaliation or
preventing retaliation and reducing terrorism.
Bin Laden's quotes listed below all say that our actions will determine
their actions. This is credible. The media responds to the first half
of a sentence without reading the rest. Entire commentaries are based
on fragments taken out of context, which is irresponsible and
dangerous. Commentaries promote an exaggerated sense of imminent
threats that have the effect of increasing fear, helplessness and
passivity. They create an irrational belief that we have to attack
first to prevent this. They ignore information about how we can behave
to reduce threats. We should wonder why these parts are left out.
Here are some of bin Laden's comments that were not reported in full.
Nov. 11, 2001: Bin Laden said that he had nuclear weapons. He said that
he was holding them only as a deterrent, and that he had no intention
of using them unless we did. If the U.S. used them, he would reserve
the right to use them in retaliation.
Most media obsessed about whether or not he really had them. Most
dismissed the possibility, saying he couldn't possibly have them, which
was irresponsible. Almost no one took this seriously enough to explore
what we should do if he did. The psychologically correct response would
have been to reduce tension by reassuring us and them that we had no
intention of using nuclear weapons. But that didn't happen because the
administration refused to renounce the potential use of nuclear
weapons, thereby increasing tension.
Sun Oct 6, 2002: "By God, the youths of God are preparing for you
things that would fill your hearts with terror and target your economic
lifeline, until you stop your oppression and aggression against
Muslims."
News reports said bin Laden was threatening our economic lifeline, and
planning an attack. All omitted the conditionality in the end of the
sentence: "So let America increase the pace of this conflict or
decrease it, and we will respond in kind."
Nov. 12, 2002: "If you were distressed by the deaths of your men ...
remember our children who are killed in Palestine and Iraq everyday ...
Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and
widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability and
happiness be your lot? This is unfair. It is time we get even. You will
be killed just as you kill, and will be bombed just as you bomb.''
What was reported, again, was plans to attack, missing the
conditionality. What is also missed is the excruciating suffering of
the people, the envy and humiliation, all ingredients for a destructive
response. Many, across the political spectrum, have said that economic
development of Afghanistan after the U.S. supported victory over the
Soviets might have prevented much misery, recruitment to terrorism and
the Sept. 11 attacks.
We should understand that the overriding sentiment in bin Laden's
messages is about the effects of our actions in provoking a reciprocal
response. This is credible. Reciprocity is guaranteed. There are two
ways to get even. The way to be more secure is to make your enemy more
secure. The humiliation of Versailles led to the Holocaust. The
Marshall plan turned enemies into allies. Envy and humiliation provoke
destruction. It is incumbent upon us to turn the tide.
Liberation from Retaliation
We are on the verge of going to war under the illusion of preventing a
threat. What has been sold as a "preemptive strike," a misuse of the
term, is actually a provocative strike. This war will unleash a cascade
of unintended consequences. Terrorist attacks are likely planned for
the onset of war.
Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare. There is no amount of
domination that cannot be turned against us, demonstrated by Sept. 11.
Counter-terrorism, attempting the physical elimination of terrorists,
only creates more terrorism, inspiring new recruits and new strategies.
There is no "end game." Attacking Afghanistan provokes al-Qaeda to
decentralization and better hiding. We have the illusion that if we
kill bin Laden we will be safer. Is it not likely that killing him will
magnify his power and influence? If we kill bin Laden then the
terrorists will have won. We are focused on the concrete and the
physical, and so miss the powerful psychological dimensions.
The connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda is created by us; we are
driving them into each other's arms. Osama has suggested that if we
invade Iraq, he will respond in kind. There is every reason to believe
him. The only way to reduce terrorism is to address the root causes and
to transform our use of power in the world.
History is filled with military blunders. Going to war would be a
megablunder. Misinterpreting Osama's message fuels the irrational drive
toward war. With asymmetrical warfare and weapons of mass destruction,
the consequences are unthinkable. By exaggerating the threat and
censoring the message of the conditionality of violence, we collude
with the forces that promise permanent world war.
Mutually Assured Survival: Erring on the Side of Caution
Bush has unwittingly resurrected the policy of "Mutually Assured
Destruction," MAD, except he is replacing a posture of deterrence with
provocation. We plan to attack you and your brethren. You have vowed to
respond in kind. This will lead to a global version of the
Israeli-Palestinian deteriorating cycle of retaliation. This is as
dangerous as can be. When people are suffering and feel dominated, when
they keep getting rejected and humiliated, they expel their suffering
and trauma into others, especially the dominators and the envied.
The alternative is a policy of "Mutually Assured Survival." We promise
we won't attack you and you promise you won't attack us. There is
nothing to lose by trying. Many will say this is foolhardy and we
cannot trust him. This may or may not be so. If we assume we can't
trust him and keep on the path we are going, we will be right, as we
provoke increased terrorism worldwide.
If we consider that bin Laden's theme of reciprocity could be authentic
and if we take that message seriously and accurately, we could shift to
strategies that will reduce tension, and have legitimacy in their own
right.
We could work to resolve the Palestinian problem, which has to be done
anyway, for many reasons. If we use alternative strategies to war in
Iraq, if we support economic development in Afghanistan and other
places, and reduce the suffering and the envy, we can begin to
de-escalate the cycle of violence.
If we act in good faith to reduce tension and to address just
grievances that fuel recruits to terrorism, we have everything to gain.
This win-win approach could promote mutual security. If it does fail,
we have lost nothing, and still have the capacity to retaliate.
This can be an effective strategy, called Graduated Reciprocated
Initiatives in Tension Reduction, or GRIT, by Charles Osgood. There are
historical examples where this has worked. I have coined a term for its
opposite: BITE, Bold Initiatives in Tension Escalation, which is what
we are doing.
We are steamrolling down a path toward endless escalation of global
violence and retaliation. We need to explore possible ways out of this.
Throughout history, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, wise leaders were
aware of the need to provide the enemy with face-saving ways out.
We have an opportunity to avert disaster. We need to clearly and
accurately hear messages even from our most hated adversaries. If we go
to war, we will create more Saddams and Osamas who will emerge in
future years. The stakes are as high as can be. It will take major
miracles to prevent this war, but we can start with consciousness.
I hesitate to end this by repeating bin Laden: "The road to safety
begins by ending the aggression." The choice is ours.
Diane Perlman, Ph.D., is a licensed clinical and political
psychologist, co-chair of the Committee on Global Violence and Security
for Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and author of
"Intersubjective Dimensions of Terrorism and its Transcendence" in The
Psychology of Terrorism, ed. Chris Stout. Email: Nine...@aol.com