U.S.-Born Al Qaeda Sets Peace Terms, Creates Problems for Peacebuilders

It's strange that you've probably never heard of Adam Gadahn. He defected from the U.S. to join al-Qaeda, and is now their spokesman. Given that al-Qaeda is still, some ten years on, U.S. global terrorist enemy number one (Osama bin Laden is still wanted dead or alive, right?), you would think this role would gain Gadahn some notoriety at least, perhaps even some name recognition.

Maybe his time has come, and in coming is creating major problems for peacebuilders, leaving aside the demonization of defection he embodies, once a paramount pacifist act.

"With the relatively small number of Americans we have killed so far," Gadahn says in a scathing and even Obama-mocking (at times) 24-minute message, "it becomes crystal-clear that we haven't even begun to even the score." There's a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction being offered by the FBI, but there has been no takers since Gadahn became "wanted" in 2004, just one among many Americans who have joined terrorist groups or participated in terrorist acts abroad, most prominently in Pakistan. The price on Gadahn's head could go up now that he has said new attacks will kill more Americans than previous ones.

But there's nothing new in what he proposes on behalf of al-Qaeda compared to the last set of peace terms (or "terrorist demands" depending on your perspective) the organization released in 2007, indicating a precarious pigheadedness on all sides. These include, most prominently, cutting support to Israel and withdrawing from Afghanistan, which brings us to the problems Gadahn is creating for peacebuilders, or rather giving new life to. The terms he sets out unfortunately run parallel to what many peace and human rights activists globally are advocating, though on a decidedly different basis.

The major difference is that peace and human rights activists (to their credit) generally don’t provoke fear through retaliatory threats if terms are not met, also known as ultimatums. "Next time, we might not show the restraint and self-control we have shown up until now," Gadahn added. Not paying much attention to this "Azzam al-Amriki" (Arabic for "the American") as he is also known, compared to earlier messages, or just poo-pooing him into oblivion, again runs eerily parallel to the apparently willfully blind or derogatory eye mainstream media and reelection-minded officials turn to peace and human rights professionals even, except when they are killed in action. Yet another problematic parallel between the treatment of terrorists and peacebuilders.

The obstinate inability of mainstream media professionals and elected officials to treat these two very different sets of people differently or to different degrees, not only when it comes to terrorism but in armed conflict zones globally, is a major if often unnoticed part of the problem of violence and the ineffectivness of counter-violence. Perhaps peacebuilders too set in their activist ways are partly to blame, with the Tea Parties offering valuable lessons in media management and electioneering.

So if making terrorist threats like this no longer has the effect it once did, and not making them still doesn't, how are terrorists supposed to gain the attention they need to be effective other than by bigger and more deadly attacks? And how are peacebuilders to get the attention needed to change public opinion and policies if their goals are put in the same basket as those of terrorists? As counter-productive as these pressing dilemmas are, not working them through immediately is more so.

Phot credit: redcell254 (Adam Gadahn, also known as Azzam al-Amriki)