What we will see in the next few days and weeks will be further investigations, arrests of individuals and intense speculation about which groups or states did this and how the United States should respond. Unfortunately, if the pattern of past responses to such attacks is repeated, we will probably not learn a great deal about the reasons behind why this attack happened, or the broader sources of violence against the United States over the past decade. Instead the usual array of retired generals and military analysts will be trotted out to explain the tactical elements of their favored military response.

We now have seen substantial evidence of a Middle Eastern connection to this attack and media coverage has frequently mentioned the name of Osama bin Laden as the number one terrorist suspect and mastermind of this operation. As we are inexorably led down the road to military confrontation in the Middle East, it is necessary to gain clarity about the specific actors and their motivations before one can even think about how to respond. For Americans who like their hero's and villains portrayed in simple dichotomies of good and evil, the result of this kind of clarity will be disturbing because the United States has created many enemies through its policies in the Middle East over the past century and bears a significant amount of responsibility for creating a fertile soil for anti-American hatred. Any American response that does not address this truth is doomed to further the cycle of violence.

Who is behind the attacks?

The recent attacks on U.S. soil are most likely related to an escalating series of attacks and bombings on U.S. targets over the past 10 years. In order, these attacks include: the recent bombing of the USS Cole in October, 2000 that claimed 17 lives; the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in which hundreds were killed; the 1996 car-bomb attack on a U.S. barracks in Dharahan, Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans; the 1995 car-bomb attack on an American National Guard Training center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that took 4 lives and, of course, the 1993 World Trade Center truck-bombing that killed 6 people and injured over a thousand others.

All of these attacks have been attributed to Islamic radicals based in the Middle East and Central Asia under the rubric of a very hazy notion of "Islamic fundamentalism." Indeed a number of people from these regions with links to certain militant Islamic groups have been arrested and charged in some of these actions. Breathless reports of a shadowy Islamic conspiracy against the U.S. led by Osama bin Laden have generated a steady stream of cliché's about this new enemy and its hatred of the U.S., but unfortunately precious little light has been shed on understanding why this is happening and what exactly these people believe. Their enmity towards the U.S. is explained as little more than the product of a fanatical and inherently anti-Western and anti-American world view. Stephen Emerson, a so-called terrorism expert who frequently appears in the media, claims that "the hatred of the US by militant Islamic fundamentalists is not tied to any particular act or event. Rather, fundamentalists equate the mere existence of the West-its economic, political and cultural systems-as an intrinsic attack on Islam."

Any explanation of Middle Eastern violence that relies upon the notion that Islam is an inherently violent or inherently anti-Western religion is false and misleading. First, Islam is one of the world's largest and most diverse religions and like Christianity or Judaism there are thousands of views within Islam about the religion and also about violence and the West. Secondly, there are major differences even among explicitly Muslim militants and activists regarding these issues-some insist upon non-violent struggle and others regard violence as a legitimate tool. There is no way one can generalize about Islam or any religion for that matter.

So who are the perpetrators and what drove them to carry this horrendous act? The most likely perpetrators of these attacks are related to an extremely small and fringe network of militants whose motivations do not derive from Islam so much as from a common set of experiences and beliefs that resulted from their participation in the U.S. backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's. These militants were recruited by the CIA and the Saudi Arabian and Pakistani intelligence services to fight against the Soviet Union during the 1980's. They came largely from the poor and unemployed classes or militant opposition groups from around the Middle East, including Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and elsewhere in order to wage war on behalf of the Muslim people of Afghanistan against the communist enemy.

Among the many coordinators and financiers of this effort was a rich young Saudi named Osama Bin Laden, who was the millionaire son of a wealthy Saudi businessman with close contacts to the Saudi royal family. Although accounts vary regarding his actual participation in the war, he played an important role in helping these groups recruit volunteers and build extensive networks of bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan after 1984.

This network of conservative Sunni Muslim militants, who became known as "the Afghans" in the Middle East, also served another purpose for the U.S. and its allies in the region. Not only were they anti-Communist due to their rejection of its atheism, they were also opposed to the brand of Islamic radicalism promoted by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and its leader Ayatollah Khomeini largely because it was based on Shiite rather than Sunni Islamic doctrine, a major doctrinal cleavage within Islam. The revolution had had toppled a major ally of the U.S., the Shah of Iran, who played a major role as a pillar of U.S. hegemony in the oil rich Persian Gulf and was threatening key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil rich states. Therefore, the clear aim of U.S. foreign policy therefore was to kill two birds with one stone: turn back the Soviet Union and create a counter-weight to radical Iranian inspired threats to U.S. interests, particularly U.S. backed regimes who controlled the massive oil resources.

The failure of U.S. policy in the Middle East

But this policy has now turned into a nightmare for the U.S. and has likely led to the recent attacks against the U.S. in New York and Washington D.C. After the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan in 1989 the "Afghan" network became expendable to the U.S. who no longer needed their services. In fact, the U.S. actively turned against these groups after the Gulf War when a number of these militants returned home and moved into the violent opposition against U.S. allied regimes and opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991. They were particularly opposed to the unprecedented positioning of U.S. ground troops in Saudi Arabia on the land of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina. As a result, in the past decade there has been a vicious war of intelligence services in the region between America and its allies and militant Muslim groups. Many Egyptian Islamists believe the U.S. trained Egyptian police torture techniques like they did the Shah and his brutal Savak security police. Moreover, the CIA has sent snatch squads to abduct wanted militants form Muslim countries and return them to their countries to face almost certain death and imprisonment.

The primary belief of this loose and militant network of veterans of the Afghanistan war is that the West, led by the United States, is now waging war against Muslims around the world and that they have to defend themselves by any means necessary, including violence and terrorism. They point to a number of cases where Muslims have born the brunt of violence as evidence of this war: the Serbian and Croation genocide against Bosnian Muslims, the Russian war in Chechnya, the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the UN sanctions against Iraq and the U.S. backing of dictatorships in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, for example. They claim that the US either supported the violence or failed to prevent it in all of these cases. It is these beliefs that enable them to justify not only targeting U.S. military facilities but also its civilians.

It should be clear that this network is only a very radical fringe of militants who have decided that they must use armed tactics to get their message out to the U.S. and others. They differ in important ways with the wider current of Islamic activism in Arab world and more globally which in addition to its Islamic orientation has an agenda about social justice and social change against the dictatorships and corruption in many of the pro-Western countries in the region. They are anti-Iranian. They are now anti-Saudi. Their actions have sometimes even been condemned by militant Muslim organizations ranging from the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt to the FIS in Algeria to HAMAS in Palestine. They are somewhat disconnected from these movements in that they do not locate their struggle in a national context, but rather in a global war on behalf of Muslims. Nevertheless, they certainly share many common sentiments with this wider current of Islamic activism. There is no question that the one-sided U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. sponsorship of sanctions against Iraq as well as U.S. support for dictatorships across the region have created a fertile ground for some sympathy with such militancy.

Osama bin Laden is not the mastermind of these attacks as is often claimed in the media; he just facilitates these groups and sentiments with logistics and finances, as do others. He is simply a very visible symbol of this loose network and the U.S. obsession with him most likely works to increase his standing as an icon of resistance to the U.S. The network with which he is linked has no geographical location or fixed center; it appears to be a kaleidoscopic overlay of cells and interlinkages that span the globe from camps on the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands to immigrant communities in Europe and the U.S.

The rise of this militant network and their adoption of violence against the United States represents a clear failure of U.S. strategy in the region, especially the U.S./Saudi/Pakistani model of alliance between conservative Sunni Islamic activism and the West. The problem is that US has no alternative political strategy because they see all Islamic activists as their enemy and refuse to address the root causes of anti-American sentiments in the region. Moreover, the U.S appears to have no long-term strategy to address the sources of grievances that the radical groups share with vast majority of Muslim activists who abhor using violent methods that would include, for starters, a more balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ending the sanctions on Iraq, moving U.S. military bases out of Saudi Arabia, and supporting the legitimate aspirations of regional peoples for democracy and human rights.

How to truly defeat terrorism

Many of us accept the premise that terrorism is a phenomenon that can be defeated only by amelioration of the conditions that inspire it. Terrorism's best asset, in the final analysis, is the anger and desperation that leads people to see no alternative to violence.

While only a fringe element has seized upon violence as their solution, many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslim people are understandably aggrieved by double standards. The U.S. claims that it must impose economic sanctions on certain countries that violate human rights and/or harbor weapons of mass destruction. Yet the U.S. largely ignores Muslim victims of human rights violations in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya. What's more, while the U.S. economy is propped up by weapon sales to countries around the globe and particularly in the Middle East, the U.S. insists on economic sanctions to prevent weapon development in Libya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the crippling economic sanctions cost the lives of 5,000 children, under age five, every month. Over one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of over a decade of sanctions. Finally, the U.S. pro-Israel policy unfairly puts higher demands on Palestinians to renounce violence than on Israelis to halt new settlements and adhere to U.N. resolutions calling for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands.

That anger cannot be extinguished by Tomahawk missiles or military operations. The present U.S. strategy for ending the threat of terrorism through the use of military force will only exacerbate this anger and desperation. When innocent U.S. citizens are killed and harmed by blasts at US embassies or bases, or used as cannon fodder for suicide hijackings, the U.S. government expects expressions of outrage and grief over brutal terrorism. But when U.S. Cruise missiles kill and maim innocent Sudanese, Afghanis, and Pakistanis, the U.S. calls it collateral damage. Even if Osama bin Laden is killed or captured, the fertile soil that creates such figures will still be there. Moreover, any attacks may simply serve to inflame passions and create hosts of new volunteers to their ranks

There is no justification for the horrendous attacks on innocent American civilians in New York or Washington. These attacks have served no cause; they have likely set back efforts to build popular movements and international solidarity that, in the final analysis, are the best chance of achieving social justice and change in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet, at this difficult time, Americans should critically examine policies with which Arabs, Muslims and many others have legitimate grievances. Instead our leaders refuse to admit the flaws in their policies and find it easier to demonize those in the Arab world who oppose them as a way of diverting attention from their own mistakes.

Military solutions to the problems in the Middle East and the terrorism that has resulted from these problems is not a policy but a recipe for more violence and bombings.

Steve Niva teaches International politics and Middle East Studies at the Evergreen State College.

###