Who's a Greater Threat to You, Bush or Bin Laden?

The Bush Administration and Al Qaeda have a symbiotic relationship. Neither would be nearly as prosperous today if not for the other. If not for Bush's policies, Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be as popular as he is today in the Muslim World, nor would Al Qaeda's recruitment levels wouldn't be as high either. If not for Osama Bin Laden, Bush would not have been able to convinced Americans to go to war, get away with violating our civil liberties or, most importantly, win re-election in 2004.

While Neoconservatism and Jihadism are based on opposing worldviews (democratic liberalism, islamic fundamentalism), they are mutually beneficial. Neither movement would be able to justify its actions without the other.

Neoconservatism succeeds by convincing us that Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to our way of life; Jihadism succeeds by convincing Muslims that Democratic Liberalism is a threat to their way of life. The beauty of these ideologies is that adopting them causes them to be true. If we accept a neoconservative foreign policy and instigate wars, then Islamic Fundamentalism will be a threat to us; if Muslims participate in Jihadism and commit terrorist attacks against Westerners, then Liberal countries will be a threat to them.

This is a greater point of how warlike ideologies operate. One depends on another of a different philosophical base. It is a system that ensures both ideologies will prosper despite their apparent differences.

So in answering the original question, I would say that President Bush and Osama Bin Laden play equally vital roles in a dangerous phenomenon that is happening today.

Note: I used the term “Jihadism” rather than the more widely used “Islamofascism” because the latter term is entirely false. Radical Islam is neither corporatist nor is it nationalist, both key traits of fascism.