9/11 and the concept of 'Evil'

9/11 and the concept of ‘Evil’

The term ‘evil’ can be seen to be applied to many of the other terms mentioned, the ‘evil terrorists’ or ‘America’s evil Empire’, the word 'evil' is a common theme in the 'War on Terror'. The way in which both Osama bin Laden and Donald Rumsfeld use this term, not only shows another way in which they try to de -legitimise their opposition, but can offer an interesting insight to how they view the world and each other. This will show whether the two sides have opposite ways of judging ‘good’ from ‘bad’ and therefore, whether there is a fundamental difference in the way they perceive and relate to the world.

The attacks on the TwinTowers of the World Trade Centres brought it a new and more prevalent life. As Meyer put it “the attacks of 9/11 have brought to the surface a hitherto unknown quality of evil”[1], pointing out that after September 11, the term ‘evil’ took on a new and more powerful meaning. However, this is as useful as Meyer’s theories get, he cleverly notes the explosion of language that accompanies the events but draws rather conspiratorial conclusions from them. Bernstein also notes how “Overnight (literally) we were bombarded with images and talk of evil.”[2] This shows the idea of ‘evil’ has had great importance to how people view the events surrounding the attacks.

The importance of analysing the concept of ‘evil’ is because the term “contains ambiguities and evokes fears” and the use of this idiom in “social institutions” can “generate fear to manipulate people’s attitudes and behaviours.”[3] However, though it is one word there are different views upon the theory of ‘evil’, some would even argue that there can not be an outright theory on ‘evil’, including Bernstein “because we cannot anticipate what new forms of evil or vicissitudes of evil will appear.”[4] Rediehs theorises that there are two main concepts of ‘evil’. On the one hand you have the more religious theory of ‘evil’; not that it is intrinsically religious but that it can be seen as stemming from a religious outlook on ‘evil’. This concept depicts ‘evil’ as “an irrational force that inheres in people”, therefore, ‘evil’ is an almost living power that festers in individuals who then will carry out ‘evil’ deeds, not because they have any rational political, or even misguided, reasoning behind their actions. The other theory disputes this idea, though still argues that there is ‘evil’, it is not this “irrational force” that is almost channelled through certain individuals and related groups. “Rather, the kinds of actions or events that get called evil arise from a complex of psychological, relational and social – structural factors that ultimately could be identified and correctively transformed.”[5] It can be argued that this form of ‘evil’ became popular due to events such as the Holocaust of the Twentieth Century, though it may seem that Hitler was ‘evil’ like the first concept, it is hard to tar a whole nation in such a way so this explanation fits nicely with the fact that so many people could act in such an ‘evil’ manner. Though it could be argued that ‘evil’ is infectious and that is why we must destroy all ‘evil’ people.

Rumsfeld has used the word ‘evil’ to describe the attackers of September 11^th, a month after the attackers he described the men involved as “the attacker’s, the evil doers correctly sensed that the opposite of all they were, and stood for, resided here.”[6]This sounds perfectly reasonable with the level of death and casualties, however, it also shows that Rumsfeld not only sees their actions as ‘evil’ but the individuals involved as actor’s of a ‘forced-based’ ‘evil’. This can be cooperated by the fact that he relies throughout his speeches on that ‘evil’ is the explanation of their actions. This as well as reminding people that American’s are the opposite of ‘evil’, the ‘good’, allows him not to address other reasons for the attacks. It should be pointed out that though Bernstein himself is not convinced by theories on ‘evil’, he does realise that people do assign themselves to these theories, and not surprisingly he sees members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, as adhering to the first concept by stating that “Bush and those who sympathise with him, are constantly ‘justifying’ their discourse of good and evil by an appeal to their religious convictions and faith in the Almighty.”[7]This shows how the nature of the narrative has been moulded, throughout so much of Rumsfeld’s own speeches and that of his administration there are constant references to ‘evil’ not just in the general but in a way that can be directly linked to the force-based theory of ‘evil’.

Osama bin Laden can also be linked to this concept of ‘evil’; though he uses this word a lot less then the American rhetoric it still has great relevance to his position. He believes that he, like Bush, is carrying out the will of God/Allah. This means that if you do not side with either of these views then in their own eyes you must be ‘evil’. As you can see with this next quote, Osama bin Laden’s view that America and their allies are forces of ‘evil’ allows him to legitimise al Qaeda’s attacks against the ‘West’ and use it to de-legitimise any of the ‘West’s’ actions. In bin Laden’s ‘Declaration of Jihad’ he states that “We seek refuge in God from evil of our soul and our bad deeds. He whom God guides will not go astray, an he whom He leads astray can have no guide.”[8]This sentence does not only de-legitimise the U.S.’s attempts within the Middle East as, according to bin Laden, do not follow God’s guide, it also simultaneously legitimises his fight against them and allows attacks to be aimed at all ‘non-believers’. The U.S.A. and its allies did not enter Afghanistan or Iraq for humanitarian reasons or in self defence; they did it to spread their ‘evil’. Just as bin Laden’s al Qaeda did not attack the World Trade Centre’s because of America’s involvement in the Middle East, but due to the ‘evil’ nature of al Qaeda which attacked “because … they were Americans. They died because the way they lived – as free men and women.”[9]

There is a compelling argument that the narrative of ‘evil’ attached to the attacks on September 11, 2001, was not the natural consequence. Rediehs takes a different outlook to Jackson; Jackson would argue that the events of September 11, 2001, left a ‘void of understanding’ and that it was then filled by the narrative of the Bush administration, he draws this conclusion as when the events unfolded the only facts people could know was that planes had been crashed into several buildings[10]. However, they would also be able to tell that this was deliberate, the idea that this could be accidental, especially after watching more than one plane crash, seems farfetched. Therefore the position of theorists, like Rediehs, that “When the events of September 11 unfolded, many people felt that they were witnessing evil. In the anger, fear, and sorrow that they felt, many wanted the comfort and clarity of the evil – force theory.”[11] This statement can be applied to Bush, as he witnessed the events, second hand; it is not unreasonable to suggest that he too found comfort in this simplistic, black and white, way of viewing these shocking events. This explains how the narrative was conceived and how that affects its nature, however, this is not to say that the speeches that the Bush administration are free from construction. Throughout many speeches produced there are rhetorical themes put across to do as Jackson states, to ‘justify’ their political aims but it can be said that one of those political aims is to rid the world of ‘evil’.

As stated there is a massive use of rhetoric in the narrative that the Bush administration has developed on the ‘war on terror’. This use of rhetoric is “an exercise of power” and if this kind of power is not confronted it will become cruel and vicious and “This is never more true than during times of national crisis when the authorities assume enhanced powers to deal with perceived threats.”[12] The rhetoric of the ‘evil terrorist’ is an attempt by the Bush administration to “define who they are, what their essential nature is and how they are viewed and treated.” There is also the important counter to the ‘evil terrorist’ which is personified by the phrase the ‘good American’.[13] This is an important political strategy to ‘justify’ Bush’s government’s political aims, the ‘terrorists’ have been constantly demonised as being ‘evil’. This rhetoric allows the ‘terrorists’ to be judged by “identity rather than deliberation” and this construction of establishing that the ‘terrorists’ are evil and the Americans are freedom loving ‘good guys’ “was essential to making the national story of America’s war understandable to the wider public.”[14] The use of force based ‘evil’ is much more easily accepted by all, including Bush, because perceiving the event in this manner allows us to “feel comforted by our own sense of moral superiority and do not have to go through the painful work of examining our own conscience and dealing with guilt, sorrow, or remorse.” It also means that the people in charge do not have to communicate and negotiate with such hated and feared individuals.[15] This is less relevant to bin Laden; there has been great interest to how members of the American government have used words as they have to legitimise their action to their people. Bin Laden, though has to legitimise his actions and views, he does not have to be worried about being re-elected, this shows why there is a lack of analysis on the way he uses language, at least in the ‘West’.

The history of Bush and his religious outlook on life has been well documented and though it is more than common knowledge that Osama bin Laden was a Muslim it is important to establish his views. He has from a very young age always been highly religious and considered to be a pious man. According to one of his old friends stated that “He was a very religious guy and everyone else was behaving like there is a sheikh around”[16]. It was not just how he was treated according to a university friend, bin Laden was “More religious, more literal, more fundamentalist. For example, he would not listen to music. He would not shake hands with a woman. He would not smoke. He would watch television, unless it was news. He wouldn’t play cards. He would not put a picture on his wall.”[17] Bin Laden even whilst at university, obviously, took and still takes a highly religious look on the whole world this includes the concept of ‘evil’ and see’s himself as acting on the will of God, is this a fundamental difference between bin Laden and Rumsfeld. The actual word ‘evil’ appears far less frequently within bin Laden’s speeches, when it is used it is used to frame what he is saying as, in his eyes, breaks from the ‘true’ path. This can be seen by his comments on the banking institutions within Saudi Arabia. “It can no longer be a secret to anyone that various evils have spread, as detailed advisory memo submitted by select group of scholars and reformists. Among the most serious things the scholars highlighted in this memo was the setting-up rival authority to God.”[18]Though bin Laden uses the word less then Rumsfeld, in his speeches there is the very clear distinction drawn between what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’. Bin Laden’s belief’s can be seen as a ‘force-based’ theory of ‘evil’, bin Laden does not consider the usefulness of manmade laws nor the potential benefits to the people, if it acts in any manner that does not conform to his understanding of Islam he denounces and any supporters of it as ‘evil’.

Though this work is predominately looking at Rumsfeld, it is Bush who has the final line on the government’s view, so it is important to see what influences the man that Rumsfeld answers to. Does Bush see himself as on a mission from God? Bernstein quotes Bruce Bartlett, the domestic policy advisor to Reagan and a treasury official under Bush senior’s government, who establishes Bush’s belief in a divine calling. He goes on to say that Bush (junior) has absolute faith, which overwhelms a need for analysis and that the “whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.”[19] This highlights that Bush believes he knows the answers already and that he does not need evidence and discussion to guide him in his actions, therefore he has a “reliance on clichés and empty rhetoric”[20] to convince the public to condone his actions. It can be asserted, as Jackson states, that this language has been cleverly constructed, and it would be wrong to say that the only interest of the Bush administration in the Middle East is to rid the world of ‘evil’. However, the understanding of how Bush views the world can highlight another reason why Rumsfeld’s speeches on the ‘war on terror’ contain many references to ‘evil’.

Though these people are from the two different ‘civilisations’, characterised by Huntington in a manner that invokes the idea of completely isolation from one another, they are both working on similar preconceptions of what ‘evil’ is. Both sides take the view of ‘evil’, that it is something that needs to be challenged, destroyed and never allied to. They both see each other through this idea, they both disregard that each others positions and the actions they have taken are moulded and formed by their pasts. There is no understanding of each others plights, Rumsfeld disregards bin Laden as he, supposedly, was directly responsible for the thousands of dead in America. Bin Laden views the Bush administration in a similar view; he does that consider that America’s political and economic involvement in the Middle East is either inevitable or meant with good intentions. Bin Laden can not accept any military action by the U.S. in the Middle East, even when ousting Saddam Hussein, who bin Laden himself has offered to do. This may make these two sides sound inconsolably polarised, this is true, but the main source of contention between the two parties arises from a similar understanding of the world. That there is true ‘evil’ in the world and that they must to do everything in their power, with the blessing of God, to remove it, allowing no room for negotiation. As stated before there was much more available literature on Rumsfeld’s position, within the Bush administration, then Osama bin Laden and the word itself is much more prevalent within American rhetoric than al Qaeda’s. However, this essay on ‘evil’ allows their to be a comparison to be made that transcends cultural, social or civilisational barriers that is reciprocated by both parties and can be argued is a major antagonism for today’s conflicts. A clash of similar fundamentalist mentalities then a clash in the difference between two civilisations.

by Steven Lake

[1] Meyer, T., Reality, Truth and Evil: Facts, Questions, and Perspectives on September 11, 2001, Temple Lodge Press, Forest Row, 2005, p.viii

[2] Bernstein, R., The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2005, p.vii

[3] Rediehs, L., Evil, ed., Collins, J., & Glover, R., “A user’s Guide to America’s New War: Collateral Language, New York University Press, London, 2001, p.65

[4] Bernstein, R., The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2005, p.vii

[5] Rediehs, L., Evil, ed., Collins, J., & Glover, R., “A user’s Guide to America’s New War: Collateral Language, New York University Press, London, 2001, p.65

[6] Rumsfeld, D., speech at the Pentagon, Arlington, October 11, 2001, ed., Crane, L., “Donald Rumsfeld: Speaking out for America: Public Addresses”, Pavilion Press, Philadelphia, 2003, p.56

[7] Bernstein, R., The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2005, p.68

[8] Bin Laden, O., published in several Arab newspapers, Hindu Kush Mountains, Afghanistan, August 23, 1996, ed. Kepel, G., Milelli, G., “Al Qaeda in its Own Words”, Harvard University Press, London 2008, p.24

[9] Rumsfeld, D., speech at the Pentagon, Arlington, October 11, 2001, ed., Crane, L., “Donald Rumsfeld: Speaking out for America: Public Addresses”, Pavilion Press, Philadelphia, 2003, p.55

[10] Jackson, R., Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics, and Counter-Terrorism, ManchesterUniversity Press, Manchester, 2005, p. 29

[11] Rediehs, L., Evil, ed., Collins, J., & Glover, R., “A user’s Guide to America’s New War: Collateral Language, New York University Press, London, 2001, pp.67-68

[12] Jackson, R., Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics, and Counter-Terrorism, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2005, p.3

[13] Jackson, R., Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics, and Counter-Terrorism, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2005, p.18

[14] Jackson, R., Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics, and Counter-Terrorism, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2005, p.59

[15] Rediehs, L., Evil, ed., Collins, J., & Glover, R., “A user’s Guide to America’s New War: Collateral Language, New York University Press, London, 2001, p.67

[16] Batarfi, K., interviews by author, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, September 5 and 9, 2005, ed. Bergen, P., “The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda’s Leader”, Free Press, London, 2006, p. 14

[17] Kashoggi, interviewed by author, London, United Kingdom, June 13, 2005, ed. Bergen, P., “The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda’s Leader”, Free Press, London, 2006, p. 21

[18] Bin Laden, O., letter to Chief Mufti, Saudi Arabia, December 29, 1994, ed., Lawrence, B., “Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden”, Verso, London, 2005, p.6

[19] Bernstein, R., The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp.83-84

[20] Bernstein, R., The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2005, p.85