In Focus:

Undeclared allies?

Despite their apparent differences, jihadist groups and US occupation forces often appear to be working towards the same ends, writes Galal Nassar

---

Many analysts believe there is something in common between the goals of Islamic movements and those of the US. Some even argue that the Americans are actively fanning the flames of jihad in order to use turbulence as an excuse to control our region.

What gives some credibility to this argument is that the US has in the past used political Islam for its own purposes. The US used Islamists to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan, a feat that ultimately gave the Americans the upper hand in today's world. Another example: the US capitalised on 9/11 to cajole the world into submission in the name of fighting terror, using the airspace and territories of supposedly sovereign states to illegally transfer detainees and attack other countries. The US faced no opposition, not even from other major states, in its handling of the much-vaunted war on terror.

In the Arab and Muslim region, where violence and bombings are turning into common occurrences, parallels abound between the actions of the US and those of jihadist groups. Iraq has been torn apart by continual carnage in which jihadist fighters and US occupation soldiers compete to outdo each other's outrages. The US is hoping to impose its agenda on various countries in the region through violence, which just happens to be the same thing jihadist groups are doing.

So is it true that the US and some Islamist groups have one and the same purpose? Is it true that they both want to undermine the infrastructure of various countries while spreading chaos and turbulence? Are we looking at two accidentally compatible agendas? Are their signs of actual collaboration? Are we talking about two strategies that just happen to have a lot in common?

The international jihad movement and the US were on the same side when the Soviet Union was still around. Communism was the sworn enemy both of jihadist groups and the US government. The conflict with the Soviet Union gave rise to a ferocious arms race as well as an endless search for allies on both sides of the East-West divide. When Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan in late 1979, both the Islamists and the US saw their chance. The US provided logistical support and the Islamists sent in volunteers from across the world to expel the Soviets.

The Islamists had been failing in their quest for power at home. They must have seen Afghanistan as a gift of God, a chance to acquire organisational and fighting skills, and a place to lay in wait until power became more accessible at home. The White House had no trouble at all reconciling its ideological aims with the religious agenda of the anti-Soviet fighters.

Some of the top figures of Al-Qaeda were the product of the Afghanistan war. Sheikh Khaled Mohamed, alleged to be the mastermind of 9/11, told US federal investigators that he helped plan over 30 attacks on the US and its facilities around the world. Almost in the same breath, he admits that he used to be an ally and friend of the Americans. There was a time indeed when Afghan jihad leaders were close to US leaders. When Burhanuddin Rabbani met Ronald Reagan, the Afghan mujahideen cheerfully declared that Rabbani urged Reagan to convert to Islam.

Once the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, Arab jihadist groups became part of the power struggle in Kabul. Experts say that 15,000 or more Arab fighters were in Afghanistan at the time. Most of those had trouble going home or living anywhere else. Seeking an outlet for their military talents, they rediscovered their animosity to the US.

It is possible to surmise that both the jihadist groups and the US were using each other. It is also possible to speculate that the Americans knew all along what they were doing. In other words, they knew how to drag the Arabs and Muslims into a war with the Soviets, and they also knew that once that war was over, the jihad fighters would have either to turn against their own governments or wage war on the West.

The 9/11 attacks brought up the question of whether any group, regardless of how resourceful and disciplined it is, can break through the layers of US defences with such ease. Some researchers claim that the 9/11 attacks were little more than a "big deception" staged by the US administration in order to spread chaos, control energy sources, and make the whole world bow to US national security needs. The occupation of Iraq -- as we know now conducted under false pretences -- wouldn't have been possible without 9/11, it has been noted.

Some commentators see the 9/11 attacks as nothing but the culmination of a big US scheme to control oil sources in the Gulf and get a foothold in the region. The war on Iraq, many say, was only the first move in a US quest to redraw the geopolitical map of the region on a scale reminiscent of what happened following World War I. Official remarks from the US seem to support that claim. Take, for example, the suggestion that a new Middle East is being born, or that "constructive chaos", a favourite expression of Condoleezza Rice, would propel the region into a better future.

Parallels abound on both sides of the international terror equation. Americans and jihadist groups seem to be acting according to plan. In Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Sudan or the Arab Maghreb, wherever the Americans go, jihadist fighters follow. And whenever jihadist fighters appear, Americans follow.

The US still claims that it wants to bring about democracy, following a period of "turbulence". Meanwhile, jihadist groups seem intent on spreading their own "constructive chaos" as a way of grabbing, or exercising, power. Neither of these two models can be a prelude to much-needed reform in our part of the world. Foreign intervention doesn't sit well with our aspiration for sovereignty, dignity and progress. And violence is hardly a reassuring option.