Why?

In the aftermath of the tragic attacks that occurred in September, the nation's largest newspapers have devoted countless articles to answering the questions that are on the minds of Americans: Who perpetrated this terrible act? Where and when was it planned? Why would anyone be driven to commit such a cruel deed?The latter question's answer remains one of the more elusive, and one of the most worrisome as well. It is the question on the minds of many Duke students, says Bruce Lawrence, chair of the Department of Religion. "All of my students have been asking why this happened, and why they might be drafted," he says.

That's not to say the other questions are unimportant. The quest for their answers are intertwined: In order to understand why these attacks took place, it is necessary to find out who made the decision to execute them.

Three-and-a-half weeks after the attacks, the foreign ministry of Pakistan officially proclaimed that the United States had enough evidence to back its assertion that Osama bin Laden was behind the acts. The first Muslim nation to affirm the U.S. charges, it lent much credibility to what had previously been a theory espoused solely by Western countries.

Meanwhile, worldwide evidence continued to mount, indicating that the attacks were a coordinated effort involving bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. It is in bin Laden's early life, however, that the roots of his violence can be found, and where he first began accumulating his current followers.

Chronicling a man and his mission

Forty-four years ago, bin Laden, the 17th of 52 children, was born in Saudi Arabia. His father, a Yemeni bricklayer named Mohammed bin Oud bin Laden, used his friendship with the Saudi king to win contracts to refurbish Mecca and Medina, two of the holiest sites in the Islamic world.

Upon his death in a plane crash in 1968, Oud bin Laden left his young son a staggering inheritance that has been estimated to be somewhere between $20 million and $300 million.

While bin Laden was a relatively pious youth, he did not always present himself as a future religious leader. He would frequently fly to Beirut to party in nightclubs and casinos, chasing women and occasionally brawling.

That year, bin Laden moved to Sudan, where he was able to grow his fortune under a friendly Islamic militant government. Al-Qaida grew, and through the combination of business tactics with the concept of Jihad, evolved into a well-organized terrorist organization.

Three years later, after being linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, bin Laden's Saudi citizenship was revoked. Many other Islamic countries, angered at his use of Islam to justify terrorism, followed suit by disavowing him. And on a more personal level, his family disowned him.

In 1996, the United States successfully lobbied for his expulsion from Sudan. Bin Laden went back to Afghanistan, where the Taliban government has been sheltering him since. He has used the country as what his former associate, Abdullah Anas, has called a "Jihad camp for the world."

Looking for answers

Bin Laden often highlights American presence in Iraq and the Gulf War as reasons for his hatred of the West. However, he and his extremist followers have also been unhappy with many other foreign policy decisions made by the United States and its allies.

But was this the motivation for the events of Sept. 11?

The debate over this question often takes the form of two opposing arguments: Some say the attacks were made for largely political reasons with a front of religious fervor. Others argue the opposite, that the political grievances are simply a front for a religious agenda.

Lawrence, backing the first school of thought, says that "religion is a mask, and not a motivation" of the attacks. He adds that while plenty of anti-American sentiment exists, one group decided that they would send out "a message that the world couldn't ignore: OWe hate what you've done in the world.'"

Sophomore Brian Davis describes the events as a "rage-based attack on the American way," but still sees them as primarily politically motivated. He also believes that, while the meticulous planning and execution of the terrorists' deeds do not suggest insanity, the way in which they manipulated their religion for their own ends would not likely qualify as sane.

Peter Feaver, associate professor of political science, takes a different angle on the situation. He says bin Laden would like to see regimes that impose strict religious standards upon their citizens, as well as the elimination of Israel.

He disguises these basic goals, says Feaver, "in a larger fabric of grievances about U.S. foreign policy."

Feaver explains that bin Laden is infuriated by cooperation between the United States and moderate Middle Eastern governments because he "wants to topple those regimes and replace them with extremist governments in the Taliban mode, and he sees U.S. support for the Saudis, the Egyptians, et cetera as blocking that goal."

Despite the core differences between views on bin Laden's motives, many agree on several issues. For example, there is a consensus that one of the core matters in the minds of the terrorists is definitely U.S. support of the state of Israel.

Israel is seen in the Arab world as a puppet of the United States, says Frederick Mayer, associate professor of public policy.

In addition to the political actions of the United States, Islamic fundamentalists also hate what the nation stands for, such as modernity and secularism, says Bruce Jentleson, director of the Sanford Institute of Public Policy.

He adds that they see the United States as "the Great Satan," and have simplified the struggle to the Islamic states versus the West, led by the United States.

It can be difficult to separate religious motivation from anti-American sentiment. Mayer says religious leaders in fundamentalist countries have used the feeling of anti-Americanism to manipulate the allegiances of their people.

Questioning U.S. policy

While no one denies the brutality of the attacks, some have begun to scrutinize U.S. policies that they say may have contributed to the terrorists' motivations.

Senior Merritt Johnson finds himself torn on the issue of whether the United States has acted responsibly in its foreign policy. He says that America has accomplished a great deal acting unilaterally, but that whenever a nation does so, it risks angering other nations and peoples.

He also believes that acting through the United Nations is not an easy solution. "Not a lot of people outside the [Group of Eight industrialized nations] feel the U.N. is an international organization," he says, because the Security Council's veto power basically gives control of the United Nations to the G8 nations.

Seumas Milne, a reporter at The Guardian, a British newspaper, says that there is plenty for developing nations to be angry about when it comes to Western actions.

"For 50 years Western countries have been involved in imposing despotic regimes on these people without regard to the populations affected," he says, adding that this is done largely to protect resource flows to the West. Others cite the United States' lack of uniformity in its policies as a reason for resentment.

Lawrence points to Israel as a symbol of the double standard that the United States employs in the Arab and Muslim world. America has attacked Iraq for annexing Kuwait, he says, but has stood idly by while Israel has doubled its settlements on the West Bank. Although Israel is a clear example of what many despise about U.S. foreign policy, it is not the only one.

"We have ostracized Sudan for its oppression of Christians, but Russia has bombed its Muslim minority in Chechnya, and we haven't acted against them," he adds.

Although Feaver admits that some of bin Laden's concerns are empirically based, he believes that they are "wildly exaggerated or distorted and, quite frankly, do not constitute the core of his motivations."

In fact, Feaver says American foreign policy has very little to do with what has befallen the United States, and he laments the "sloppy rhetoric" stating the contrary.

Senior David Marcus says he is personally conflicted about whether violence is an appropriate response to the situation, but agrees that America is not to blame for the attacks.

"The U.S. is bearing the brunt of all of the grievances of this group of extremists," he says. "As an American I'm pretty proud of what the U.S. stands for.... [It's] not perfect, but it's certainly the country that I'll always want to live in."

Lawrence, however, insists that all is not well with America's behavior abroad. "I have a conviction that something needs to change in U.S. foreign policy," he says. He emphasizes that the United States lacks balance and openness in its policies, but he is optimistic about its direction.

Charting a course

Since the terrorist attacks, there has been much debate about the proper direction of U.S. foreign policy.

Davis says the goal of being a world leader is a noble one, but in order to do that, the United States must help all peoples, and not base its decisions on the depth of its pockets.

Johnson is hopeful that future U.S. policy will create less antagonism abroad. He says the Bush administration has made some progress in adjusting foreign policy, but there is still more that needs to be done.

"We do need to take more responsibility with our actions internationally," he says, adding that one of the most important steps the government can take is to seek a greater understanding of Islam so the American public doesn't see it as "a dark Oother' opposed to our culture."

Mayer says another way to take responsibility for global interactions is to pay more attention to the needs of developing countries."In the last 20 years, there has been an enormous amount of neglect of developing nations," he says.

The nature of security has changed, he adds, and the United States cannot rely simply on its military to protect itself. It must take a global approach, working with other nations to develop international institutions to address the world's problems.

On the other hand, Feaver feels that terrorism should not be an impetus for change. "There are lots of things that could and should change about U.S. foreign policy," he writes. "But I would not look to bin Laden or his supporters for a road map for change."

He adds that since the attacks, much has changed about U.S. foreign policy, but emphasizes that this is not because past policies have been flawed.

"Some of the changes, especially vis-a-vis shifting international coalitions, are only now possible because of the changed environment wrought by the events of Sept. 11," Feaver writes.

While the future of the United States' foreign policy is still to be determined, and the definitive motivations of bin Laden and his al-Qaida network remain unknown, one thing seems almost certain: The dynamics of the global community have likely been altered forever.