International Relations Seminar
Laura Weiderhaft
Newspaper Analysis 3
October 7, 2011
“As the West Celebrates Awlaki’s Death, the Mideast Shrugs” Anthony Shadid and David D. Kirkpatrick The New York Times October 2, 2011
Western officials, commentators, and even the Obama administration are citing the recent assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki by a U.S. drone as a major blow to Al Qaeda. Although from the Western perspective Awlaki’s death was significant, few people in the Middle East were familiar with Mr. Awlaki and his role in Al Qaeda and few were concerned with his assassination. The American focus on Awlaki as a powerful figure in Al Qaeda and the disconnect between the Western perception and the Middle Eastern perception of his assassination is an indication of the international environment and the factors that influence international action by states. Whether Anwar al-Awlaki was an important enough figure in Al Qaeda to necessitate assassination is a compelling question. The article suggests Awlaki was not an influential member of Al Qaeda until he received American attention as a result of his role in influencing unaffiliated American terrorists like the “American Army officer of Palestinian descent who opened fire at Fort Hood in 2009, or the Pakistani-American who last year attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square.” It is clear that Awlaki was more influential as source of inspiration and his involvement in Al Qaeda was concentrated in recruitment and propaganda rather than operations. Awlaki’s importance was magnified by the United States as a result of his American upbringing and fluency in English. The emphasis on Awlaki demonstrates the potential for individual characteristics like language and background to shape international action, not only in the relationship between states but also in unilateral military decisions. It
was Awlaki’s background and personality that brought him to the forefront of U.S. attention and eventually led to his assassination. The fact that Awlaki’s assassination was met with different reactions by the U.S. and the Middle East suggests that the United States and the Middle East have different ideas about Al Qaeda. Much of the foreign policy of the United States is still shaped by the terrorist attacks of September 11th because these attacks are ever-present in the American mindset. For the United States, continued efforts to curtail Al Qaeda’s influence are essential because of the new foreign policy direction that the United States has taken since September 11th. The attacks of September 11th affect the mindsets of Middle Easterners to a much smaller degree and the focus of Middle Eastern attention is concentrated on the political turmoil that is currently affecting the region. This difference in attention is largely responsible for the differences in response to Awlaki’s assassination. While the United States hailed the assassination as a huge step in the international effort to combat terrorism, the Middle East was more concerned with the implications of the assassination in the United States’ relationship with Yemen and how that relationship could affect the uprisings in Yemen. The response to Awlaki’s assassination is representative of the role that public mindset has in the reaction to events that receive international attention and how this mindset can shape foreign policy decisions.