A Critical Analysis of the Washington Post article: ‘Bombs Explode at 2 U.S. Embassies in Africa; Scores Dead’ August 8th, 1998
Source: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/
stories/main080898.htm)
!
Summary of the Article
On the 7th of August, 1998, a coordinated attack against two US embassies was launched in
Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Trucks laden with explosives were almost
simultaneously detonated outside each of the embassies. Over 212 people were killed in the
Nairobi attack with around 4000 people injured. In comparison, 11 people were killed in
Dar es Salaam with around 85 people injured.1 The responsibility of the attack was later
claimed by Al Qaeda . Despite the attacks being credited to Fazul Abdullah Mohammed2,
these attacks primarily brought Osama bin Laden to the attention of the US public and
resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation placing bin Laden on its top ten most wanted
fugitives list3. For this reason alone, we can regard this incident as an important case in the
history of modern terrorism.
1
Online NewsHour, African Embassy Bombings, [online],1998, [viewed 30/11/2013], Available
from:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/embassy_bombing/map.html
2
Bennett B, Al Qaeda operative key to 1998 U.S. embassy bombings killed in Somalia, [online]
Los Angeles Times, 2011, [viewed 03/12/2013] Available from:http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/
12/world/la-fg-embassy-bombings-20110612
3
Romero, R Top 10 Notorious Fugitives, [online] Time Lists, 2011, [viewed 01/12/2013] Available
from: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/
0,28804,1971762_1971761_1971729,00.html
Page 1
! of 15
!
Through its emotive and descriptive use of language the article paints a picture of a war
scene. A scene similar to battle is laid out for the reader by describing people, “incinerated
in their seats… shattered cars smouldering in the street with passengers draped out the
windows, of dazed and bleeding survivors lying on the ground pleading for help.”4
Moreover, the scene of a war is exemplified by describing the victims as “slain Americans”5.
One could argue that the word ‘slain’ subconsciously conjures up images of slain soldiers in
battles. Moreover, it goes further, by giving unnamed quotes from general witnesses that
said the scene looked like a “war zone”6. The article quotes U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan who stated the incident
"indiscriminate terrorism.” The article builds upon the theme that these were helpless
victims. A direct reference to a child’s death is mentioned and numerous examples of
individual’s frantic attempts to save themselves and others who were left in a state of
“shock” are given. For example, it gives 4 references from witnesses who elaborately
explain the horror of the attack. As explained, the article in question is very descriptive of the attack and is high emotive in
it’s use of language. Yet only 1 paragraph, out of 34, goes into any possible reasons as to
why the attack happened. The article suggests that the attack was in retaliation to the
extradition of three islamic extremists from Albania. Yet, although possible motives are
4Claiborne
W, Bombs Explode at 2 U.S. Embassies in Africa; Scores Dead, [online] Washington
Post, [viewed 27/11/2013] Available from:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/
eafricabombing/stories/main080898.htm)
5
Ibid
6
ibid
Page 2
! of 15
!
explored, the article does not explore the logic in attacking a US embassy.
Defining Terrorism
There are a number of problems with defining terrorism. The varying types of terrorism
contribute to this problem of defining clearly what terrorism is. But also the word terrorism
has become inherently laden with emotion. There is a perception that acts of terrorism are
unjustified and evil. Therefore, it becomes difficult for any real debate within the media of
whether the terrorists had any justified grievances to be held. Thus, many definitions are
“value laden and can depend on one’s perspective as an actor in a terrorist environment”7
However, most definitions would cover the 1998 embassy bombings as a clear case of
terrorism. Nonetheless, an American influenced definition of terrorism is useful to bear in
mind; “Terrorism is a premeditated and unlawful act in which groups or agents of some
principal engage in a threatened or actual use of force or violence against human or property
targets. These groups or agents engage in this behaviour, intending he purposeful
intimidation of governments to affect policy or behaviour, with an underlying political
objective.”8 As further analysis will later show, the embassy bombings were premeditated,
violent, against human and property and had an intention to affect policy with an underlying
political agenda and can thus be considered a clear case of terrorism according to this
definition.
7
Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues 4th Edition,
(Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2012), p.51
8
Ibid p.38
Page 3
! of 15
!
Gus Martin’s typology of terrorism9 contributes to the categorisation of this incident.
According to Martin’s typologies this incident can fall within both ‘Dissident terrorism’ and
‘Religious terrorism’. It is dissident terrorism because the attack is aimed against the U.S
government, hence attacking a U.S government building. But it is also religious terrorism
because Al Qaeda had an “absolute belief that an otherworldly power has sanctioned and
command the application of terrorist violence for the greater glory of the faith.” 10
Motivation behind the attack
The motivation behind an act of terror can be complex, in the sense that it can have primary
motivations and secondary motivations. However, Martin explains this is an especially
prominent feature when dealing with acts of terror that fall under the religious typology11.
Thus, one must analyse to what extent is religion a primary motivation for this attack? The article alluded that the attack could have been a retaliation against US help in
extraditing Islamic extremists to Cairo from Albania. However, with hindsight and later
analysis, the US presence in Saudi Arabia was, in fact, the triggering motivation. Gunaratna
states “the US presence in Saudi Arabia remained the issue of primary concern, as was
clearly reflected when Al Qaeda planned, prepared and execute it’s first major successful
operation against the US”12 The attack clearly reflects the resentment of the US presence in
9
Ibid p.40
10
Ibid p.139
11
Ibid p.161
12
Gunaratna R, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror, (London:Hurst & Company, 2002) p.46
Page 4
! of 15
!
Saudi Arabia. Firstly the attack occurred on the eighth anniversary of the deployment of US
troops in Saudi Arabia. Thus, one could argue that western foreign policy has played a role
in the motivation for this attack. Secondly by attacking two embassies the terrorists tried to
convey their retaliation against the US presence in Saudi Arabia which is considered ‘Land
of Two Holy Places’.13 It is considered the ‘Land of Two Holy Places because it contains
Mecca and Medina, the two most holiest places in Islam. Hence, it becomes apparent that
the resentment of US foreign policy is partly rooted in the terrorist’s interpretation of
religion.
Furthermore, the individuals who carried out the attack were primarily motivated by their
interpretation of their religion. The act of violence and loss of civilian life has been
motivated by the belief that the violent act is the expression of the will of their deity, and in
return for their action, “awaiting them in paradise are rivers of milk and honey and beautiful
young women. Those entering paradise are eventually reunited with their families and as
martyrs stand in front of God as innocent as a newborn baby.”14 In addition, religion not
only motivates but legitimises the attack from the terrorists’ point of view. This is the reason
why Al Qaeda had issued a fatwa only 6 months before the bombings, “In Islamic law an
attack must be preceded by an Islamic decree, or fatwa”15. Thus religion, for the individual
perpetrators, was clearly an underlying factor that motivated and legitimised this act of
terror.
13
Ibid
14
Laqueur, W. The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1999), p.100
15
Gunaratna R, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror, (London:Hurst & Company, 2002) p.46
Page 5
! of 15
!
In order to determine the primary motive, one must consider, ‘if one factor were to be
deducted from the event would the attack still take place?’. Martin defines primary
motivations as “the very core of an extremist group’s political, social and revolutionary
agenda.”16 For AL Qaeda, religion is at the “very core” of its existence. For “Osama never
interpreted Islam to assist a given political goal. Islam is his political goal, his rhetoric,
philanthropy towards the Muslim poor and military oppressed”17. Without the terrorists
religious beliefs, it is questionable whether this form of attack, where civilians were the
main recipient, would have been considered justifiable by the terrorists. Therefore, one must
conclude that religion is the primary motivation for the individual perpetrators of the attack
and the organisation to whom they belonged. Cowardly or Rational Calculation?
The article suggests that the attack represents a cowardly approach from the terrorists. This
view is directly represented by President Clinton who angrily vowed to bring justice to
those who committed the "cowardly attacks.”18 However, one could argue from a dissident
terrorist’s perspective this form of attack is a rational calculation. Firstly, conventional
methods of warfare against a state, let alone one with the military strength of the U.S, is an
illogical decision for a dissident terrorist organisation. Martin states, “dissident terrorists
16
Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues 4th Edition,
(Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2012), p.161
17
Gunaratna R, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror, (London:Hurst & Company, 2002) p.87
18
Claiborne W, Bombs Explode at 2 U.S. Embassies in Africa; Scores Dead, [online] Washington
Post, [viewed 27/11/2013] Available from:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/
eafricabombing/stories/main080898.htm) !
Page 6
! of 15
!
avoid direct confrontation out of a pragmatic acceptance of their comparative weakness.”
Moreover, the choice of targets and logistics of the attack resembled a cost-benefit
calculation. Firstly, a passive symbolic target, such as an embassy, provides a highly
lucrative yet low risk opportunity for attack. By attacking an embassy, terrorists can exhibit
their demonstrations against the target nation. Thus, it is a symbolic attack because by
attacking the embassies the terrorists are a attacking a country. In addition, attacks against
embassies are likely to receive high media coverage in the home nation and thus the
intended terror will be amplified. The article recognises that the two embassies had been
“considered relatively low-risk diplomatic stations, perhaps making them more attractive
targets”19 However, the word “perhaps” suggests an cautious approach in determining why
the embassies were targeted. Whilst the article is cautious in suggesting this reason, with
hindsight there is no doubt that this factor was logically equated in the preparation for the
attack. In the BBC documentary “Age of Terror”, the vulnerability of Nairobi embassy was
even recognised by the American Ambassador to Kenya at the time, Prudence Bushnell20.
Furthermore, it has been stated that Osama bin Laden personally scrutinised photos of the
buildings 4 years before the attack occurred and from the photos he had identified the ideal
locations for a bomb21. This shows the extent to which prior planning had occurred and how
the attack was the culmination of rational calculations.
!
19
Ibid
20
BBC, The Age of Terror: War on the West, [online], [viewed 04/12/2013], Available from: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FialpR4t6IA
21
Ibid
Page 7
! of 15
!
Justified attack?
From a terrorist’s perspective they are “freedom fighters” rather than a terrorists22. This
implies that from a terrorist perspective their actions will inevitably be justified. With
regards to radical Islamic terrorists, their own perspective will justify their actions because
their interpretation of their faith indicates that they are fighting a justified holy war. Yet, it is
difficult to determine whether attacks are justified according to God due to the overtly
subjective and individualist nature of faith. Thus, I will analyse the justifiability according to
just war doctrine.
Fundamental to the ‘Just War’ doctrine is the differentiation between ‘jus in bello’ and ‘jus
ad bellum’. ‘Jus in bello’ is corrective behaviour whilst waging war, and ‘jus ad bellum’ is
having the correct conditions for waging war in the first place”23 Firstly, with regards to ‘jus
in bello’, the terrorists actions cannot be justified due to the loss of civilian life. The stark
fact that bombings killed more Africans than Americans is undeniable. Therefore, if the
attack was justified according to US presence in foreign soils, the killing of African civilians
can hardly be regarded as a proportionate response. If one’s counter argument suggested that
Kenya and Tanzania publicly supported the US and thus because their citizens elected their
officials it makes them directly irresponsible, one would point out that according to the 1998
Corruption Perceptions Index, Kenya and Tanzania were lowly ranked 74th and 81st
22
Wieviorka, M. Terrorism in context of academic research. In: Martha Crenshaw Terrorism in
Context. (Pennsylvannia : Pennsylvannia University State Press, 1995) p.598.
23Martin
G, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues 4th!
Edition, (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2012), p.15
Page 8
! of 15
!
respectively24. Hence, one could question how responsible are they for their elected officials
foreign policy. The fact that children, who cannot even vote, were killed further dismisses
this potential counter-argument.
However, Al Qaeda’s initial grievances against the US were not totally unjustified. The Gulf
war, that caused the instalment of US troops into Saudi Arabia, was not without controversy.
The increased use of warplanes and cruise missiles led to numerous civilian deaths. The lack
of consideration in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants is highlighted
by the bombing of a shelter in Amiriyah, that led to 408 civilian deaths25. These sorts of
injustices have led to the perception that, “the people of Islam have suffered from
aggression iniquity and injustices imposed upon them by the Zionist-Crusader alliance and
their collaborators”26. The US’s unwavering backing and support of Israel is major cause of
grievance. Even in incidents when Israel are considered to be the wrong by the majority the
US tends to back Israel. For example, the 1996 shelling of Qana is a prime case of a justified
grievance that was relevant to the time period of the attack. The shelling of the compound
by Israel resulted in 106 Lebanese, predominantly Muslim deaths. Israel was widely
condemned by the UN27, however the US symbolically voted against Israel paying
24
Transparency International, The Corruption Perceptions Index (1998), [online], 1998, [viewed
04/12/2013], Available from: http://archive.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/
previous_cpi/1998
25
Major-General Franklin Van Kappen, Letter dated 7 May 1996 from the secretary general
addressed to the president of the security council, [online], United Nations Security Council, 1996,
[viewed 02/12/2013] Available from: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/
0/62D5AA740C14293B85256324005179BE
26
Gunaratna R, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror, (London:Hurst & Company, 2002) p.89
27
Van Kappen, F, Letter dated 7 May 1996 from the secretary general addressed to the president
of the security council, [online], United Nations Security Council, 1996, [viewed 02/12/2013]
Available from: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/62D5AA740C14293B85256324005179BE
Page 9
! of 15
!
reparation costs28. Ultimately, US foreign policy has helped fuel a perception that, “the West
is perceived to be practicing neocolonialism through its Israeli surrogate and by its
unqualified support for existing "un-Islamic" and "illegitimate" regimes across the Arab
world”29
Did the terrorists achieve their aims?
In response to the bombings, the US ordered a series of cruise missile strikes on targets in
Susan and Afghanistan. The US claimed that their intention was to damage al-Qaeda’s
ability to excite terrorist attacks by hitting the infrastructure at the Khost facility in
Afghanistan and to deny al-Qaeda capability to attain chemical weapons from the El Shifa
plant in Sudan30. After the attack the US government the found itself defending the strikes
because not only were civilians killed but the strikes destroyed a factory where 50% of
Sudan medications for both people and animals were produced31. As a result, “In
predominantly Islamic areas, the response was primarily negative. Muslims felt this showed
America’s willingness to violate sovereign airspace and kill civilians.”32 For Al Qaeda this
was beneficial, US international prestige had been damaged and the incident could be used a
propaganda toll to lure more recruits into their organisation. 28
Williams, I, US votes against requiring Israel to fund rebuilding of Qana, [online] Wshington
Report on Middle East Affairs, 1997, [viewed 03/12/2013], Available from: http://www.wrmea.org/
wrmea-archives/188-washington-report-archives-1994-1999/august-september-1997/2666-usvotes-against-requiring-israel-to-fund-rebuilding-of-qana-un-camp-.html.
29
Ranstorp, M.. Terrorism in the name of religion. Journal of International affairs . Vol.50 (1),
(1996), p.22-41.
30
Phinney, T, Airpower versus Terrorism: Three Case Studies. Unpublished thesis (Major), Air
University, 2002-2003, p.35
31
Ibid
32
Ibid
Page 10
!
of 15
!
Al Qaeda claimed, “Before 9/11, its immediate goal was the withdrawal of US troops from
Saudi Arabia”33. Yet the US did not withdraw their troops from Saudi Arabia until 2003.
Therefore, one can strongly claim that the 1998 embassy bombing did not directly result in
the withdrawal from Saudi Arabia because there was significant time period between the
bombing and the withdrawal. Therefore, one could argue according to the goal set out by Al
Qaeda the act of terror was not successful.
On the other hand, it is arguable that this attack was carried out purely as a protest against
the US. As discussed, it is beyond coincidence that the attack occurred on the eighth
anniversary of US presence in Saudi Arabia and was a two pronged attack that resembled a
US presence in the “Land of Two Holy Places”. And thus, the preparation that had gone into
the symbolism of the act meant that in order for the act to be successful it simply needed to
be carried out. Since the attack, commentators have commented on this symbolism and
discussed why the attack took the form it did. Thus, one could consider the attack was
successful because Al Qaeda’ symbolic message had been conveyed to the Western public.
However, from the terrorist’s perspective the attack had not been successful enough in
conveying their message. According to Mike Scheuer, CIA Head of Alec Station which was
dedicated to tracking Osama Bin Laden and his associates, bin Laden had warned “I’m
going to take an incremental jump in violence every time we attack you, until we get your
attention”34 Therefore, one could argue the terrorists did not believe they had the US
attention because they felt the need for the next ‘incremental jump in violence’, i.e. 9/11.
33
Gunaratna R, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror, (London:Hurst & Company, 2002) p.89
34
BBC, The Age of Terror: War on the West, [online], [viewed 04/12/2013], Available from: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FialpR4t6IA
Page 11
!
of 15
!
Conclusion
In summary, despite the varied definitions and contentious nature of the word terrorism this
act is widely considered to be a clear case of terrorism. The attack was was premeditated
with reports suggesting that the planning had started up to 4 years before the attack35. The
attack was also violent against both humans and property. And lastly, it attempted to alter
US policy in Saudi Arabia because of an underlying agenda, i.e. ‘religion’.
The article suggests the US involvement in the extradition of three Islamic extremists from
Albania to Cairo could of been a reason for the attack. Since then, many have claimed that
the US presence in Saudi Arabia was a triggering motivation for the act of terror. Hence the
symbolic selection for the date of the attack. Yet this primary motive was fuelled by AL
Qaeda’s underlying and arguably primary motivation, religion. Religion was not only at the
core of Al Qaeda, as an organisation, but also acted as a primary motivation for the
individual perpetrators. The perceived reward for committing the act of terror was rooted in
their interpretation of religion and furthermore legitimised the use of violence in the act.
Thus, at first glance the triggering motivation resemble a resentment of US foreign policy,
however this resentment is founded in the terrorist’s interpretation of religion. Therefore
religion was the core primary motivation. Subsequently US foreign policy can be
considered a secondary motivation.
35
BBC, The Age of Terror: War on the West, [online], [viewed 05/12/2013], Available from: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhn0HBMvmeE
Page 12
!
of 15
!
Crucially, although the form of the attack is unjustified due to its indiscriminate nature, the
terrorists have justified grievances against the US. This means that although the US may not
be able eradicate all terrorists, it can reduce the appeal for individuals joining terrorist
organisations who oppose the US, such as AL Qaeda. “Raising awareness among Muslims
of the grievances that gave rise to Al Qaeda is essential for recruitment”36 Therefore, the US
can hinder Al Qaeda’s ability to recruit new members by being conscious of the implications
of their foreign policy decisions and acting accordingly. The response of the US to the
attack is a prime example of US foreign policy fuelling the flames of Al Qaeda.
36
Gunaratna R, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror, (London:Hurst & Company, 2002) p.88
Page 13
!
of 15
!
Bibliography
BBC, The Age of Terror: War on the West, [online], [viewed 05/12/2013], Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhn0HBMvmeE
Bennett B, Al Qaeda operative key to 1998 U.S. embassy bombings killed in Somalia,
[online] Los Angeles Times, 2011, [viewed 03/12/2013] Available from:http://
articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/12/world/la-fg-embassy-bombings-20110612
Claiborne W, Bombs Explode at 2 U.S. Embassies in Africa; Scores Dead, [online]
Washington Post, [viewed 27/11/2013] Available from:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/stories/main080898.htm) Gunaratna R, Inside Al Qaeda Global Network of Terror, (London:Hurst & Company,
2002)
Laqueur, W. The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999
Martin G, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues 4th
Edition, (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2012 Online NewsHour, African Embassy Bombings, [online],1998, [viewed 30/11/2013],
Available from:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/embassy_bombing/map.html
Page 14
!
of 15
!
Phinney, T, Airpower versus Terrorism: Three Case Studies. Unpublished thesis (Major), Air
University, 2002-2003
Ranstorp, M.. Terrorism in the name of religion. Journal of International affairs . Vol.50 (1),
(1996), p.22-41.
Romero, R Top 10 Notorious Fugitives, [online] Time Lists, 2011, [viewed 01/12/2013]
Available from: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/
0,28804,1971762_1971761_1971729,00.html
Transparency International, The Corruption Perceptions Index (1998), [online], 1998,
[viewed 04/12/2013], Available from: http://archive.transparency.org/policy_research/
surveys_indices/cpi/previous_cpi/1998
Van Kappen, F, Letter dated 7 May 1996 from the secretary general addressed to the
president of the security council, [online], United Nations Security Council, 1996, [viewed
02/12/2013] Available from: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/
0/62D5AA740C14293B85256324005179BE
Wieviorka, M. Terrorism in context of academic research. In: Martha Crenshaw Terrorism
in Context. (Pennsylvannia : Pennsylvannia University State Press, 1995)
Williams, I, US votes against requiring Israel to fund rebuilding of Qana, [online]
Wshington Report on Middle East Affairs, 1997, [viewed 03/12/2013], Available from:
http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/188-washington-report-archives-1994-1999/augustseptember-1997/2666-us-votes-against-requiring-israel-to-fund-rebuilding-of-qana-uncamp-.html.
Page 15
!
of 15
!