Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 8, 2005 02:00 PM

  Where's the beef?

  I have not seen the flim, but none of the "revelations" here should be new to anyone. Also, we cannot lay blame for the public's ignorance on the government (perhaps on the administration, but not on the government itself). Rather, it is the result of lazy reporting across the spectrum (the Wall Street Journal excepted -- and I am referring to their reporting, not to their editorials)

  I covered security issues in Germany for one of the weeklies, and was always frustrated with the magazine's tendency to overstate the heirarchical structure of al-Qaeda. I also repeatedly heard from both US and American intelligence sources their frurstration with the over-use of the term "sleeper cell" in the media, as well as with the complete misrepresentation of the "structure" of al-Qaeda. They were making an effort to correct a common misperception, but when stories were suggested on how al-Qaeda REALLY fits together and the true nature of these so-called "cells", we were told, "I think we have a handle on that."

  Well, yeah, maybe they did - but I never saw it explicitly explained in the magazine I worked for or in any of the other weeklies.

  And it is not because they were part of some vast conspiracy to decieve. Basically, it's because the paradigm of a structured organization provides something that is easy to write about, so it gets written about.

  But to deny all structure is also a fallacy, because there was a well-structured and well-run inner core, and diffuse thousands of yound commers and goers.

  As for who planned 9/11, it is clear to anyone who attended the trial of Mounir al-Motassadeq that the members of the cell went to Afghanistan to train to fight the Russians, but were recruited to carry out this plan. Unfortunately, most reporters showed up on day one and then for the verdict. They missed a lot.

  Bin Laden's role appears to have been over-stated from the start as well -- ditto Mohammed Atta (If I see one more reference to him as the leader of the Hamburg Cell, I will scream). But to get hung up on when the name al-Qaeda was applied, and to confuse this with when and how the lose organization came into being, is a huge mistake.

  Everyone should know the backgrounds of both the neocon movement and the Islamist movemnt, and and both have been reported and explained well before this film ever came about -- even in the weeklies.

  Again, I have not seen the film -- but it sounds to me like the director simply took a lot of stuff that has been laying around and scooped it together in a comprehensive way. Good for him, if he presents an accurate picture of what happened and increases our understanding of current events.

  But if all it does is replace one illusory structure with another -- then we really have nothing but another Michael Moore on our hands.

  —Steve Zwick Read Steve Zwick's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel