While the Islamic militant organisation al-Qaeda is no doubt an effective fighting force, it is unlikely that it is as powerful and extensive as its opponents argue.

Since the Sept11 attacks, the United States has blamed nearly all acts of aggression by Islamic radicals in some part on al-Qaeda; whether these attacks take place in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Iraq or the Philippines makes no difference.

Opponents of al-Qaeda - mainly the US, the group's prime target - are attempting to exaggerate its power, scope and threat in order to create the perception that all attacks against the US and its allies are the result of al-Qaeda.

This simplified attitude creates an "us vs them" phenomenon, giving the Bush administration more leverage and support, both home and abroad, in furthering their foreign policy objectives.

Iraq invasion

The current US intervention in Iraq is a great example of this simplification. Before the toppling of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, the country was a secular state that was a major opponent of Islamic radical groups such as al-Qaeda.

Indeed, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden frequently denounced Saddam's regime, castigating the fascist leader as an 'infidel'. However, despite animosity between the two, the Bush administration's main focus before the invasion of Iraq was to paint these two ideological rivals as allies in a crusade against the US and the West.

Once Saddam Hussein was toppled, the Bush administration failed to show evidence tying his regime to al-Qaeda simply because that evidence most likely does not exist or, if it did, would be highly anecdotal.

Presently, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the US occupation of Iraq has been challenged by constant attacks. The Bush administration has continuously attempted to link al-Qaeda to any individuals or groups attacking US interests in the war-torn country.

The majority of the time the evidence used to make this connection is based on assertion, rather than evidence. For example, recently the top US administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer, argued that al-Qaeda is alive and well in Iraq because US forces have "seen foreign fighters who sort of fit the al-Qaeda profile - people traveling on documents from Syria, Yemen, Sudan, in some cases Saudi Arabia."

In addition to Bremer, President Bush himself has tried to tie attacks against the US' main ally in the Middle East, Israel, to al-Qaeda. He recently claimed in his weekly radio address that the devastating suicide blast in Jerusalem was part of a terrorist campaign to establish Taliban-style governments across the Middle East.

Given these examples, one would believe that al-Qaeda was a powerful force that could send militants to countries all over the globe, from Central Asia, to the Middle East, to Southeast Asia in a highly orchestrated and efficient manner.

However, it is extremely dubious that al-Qaeda is indeed this powerful. For instance in Iraq, the chief of US Central Command, General John Abizaid, did not claim that US occupational troops were under attack on a daily basis by al-Qaeda, but instead said that they were victims of a "classical guerrilla-type campaign."

These guerrilla tactics are being followed by individuals who know the terrain and who are able to gain support from the Iraqi populace; while there may be foreign fighters operating in Iraq, it would be an exaggeration to claim that many such fighters are connected to al-Qaeda.

In Israel, the attacks by Palestinian militant groups have a long history, dating well before the formation of al-Qaeda. Furthermore, Palestinian militant groups call for a Palestinian state or, in extreme cases, the dissolution of the state of Israel, not the Taliban-style government that the Bush administration claims is their intention.

Internal revolts

In the Philippines and Southeast Asia, the US has contended that al-Qaeda may have been involved in multiple bombings throughout the area through its alleged link with the Indonesian group Jemaah Islamiah.

However, most of the militant activity in the area is completely independent of al-Qaeda and is ensconced in its own political and social contexts. Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front are examples of such groups.

Therefore, the argument that the main opponent of US interests is al-Qaeda is based more on assertion rather than actual evidence. Instead, what the US is facing is a series of internal revolts and movements targeted at US-friendly governments and, when possible, the US itself.

The aim of each disparate group is different according to its location - sometimes the goal is establishing an Islamic government, other times it merely happens to be Muslims fighting for a certain cause but willing to target and kill civilians to reach their end goal.

The fact that there are multiple, diverse groups threatening US interests highlights the extreme weaknesses found in the US' 'war on terrorism'. Without a clear enemy, there can be no clear strategy to achieve victory.

Dismantling one militant group, such as al-Qaeda, will do nothing to stop attacks from other militant groups.

If the Bush administration continues its current policies, they may find themselves getting involved in a plethora of internal movements and revolutions in which intervention and interference by the US will merely make it a target for local armies.

Indeed, members of the Defence Science Board, who report directly to the US Secretary of Defence, released a 1997 report warning, "historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."

Therefore, such an interventionist foreign policy will amplify the threats to US interests and make the 'war on terrorism' a war with far too many fronts to fight on and too many enemies to defeat.

Report drafted by: Erich Marquardt

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe.