HOME / moneybox: Commentary about business and finance.

A CEO of Terror?

By Rob WalkerPosted Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001, at 11:36 AM ET

A miniature trend in using business-world metaphors to describe the operations of Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network reached a sort of climax over the weekend. Bin Laden had already been described as using the venture capital model (by a Forbes columnist) and as being an "entrepreneur" (by The New Yorker). On Sunday Colin Powell called him "the chairman and CEO" of al-Qaida, and the New York Times ran a story headlined "Running Terrorism as a Business," which manages to suggest that al-Qaida is similar both to a struggling startup and to "a coolly efficient corporation" with a new economy flavor.

RSS

Evidence? "Like new economy C.E.O.'s, Mr. bin Laden is constantly searching for ways to cut costs," the Times asserts. Yes, but then so are librarians, newspaper editors, public radio station managers, mayors, and whoever is in charge of your office holiday party this year. Still, a fancy university expert chimes in to say that the idea that al-Qaida operatives are compensated largely with the promise of a rewarding afterlife is a "perfect example of bin Laden agreeing to pay the operatives the opportunity costs for their time, which is exactly what a C.E.O. does." Sure. But then even fancy universities have been known to pay the opportunity costs for their affiliated experts' time, haven't they?

Anyway, the bottom line is that al-Qaida is not set up to earn profits, which would seem to pretty severely undermine the idea that it's "run as a business." But if we must have a business-related metaphor for al-Qaida, I guess the venture capitalist variation is the most plausible one. It was advanced in Forbes by Richard Karlgaard, whose column is a guilty pleasure of mine, even though it's a bit repetitive and at times overheated—and even though one recent, silly installment actually called for Slate's closure. Karlgaard contends that, like a VC, Bin Laden backs decentralized and unrelated disruptive ventures that "change the rules of engagement." At least this metaphor more or less holds up.

Still, in the end I think all these comparisons are not only pointless, but also dangerously misguided. All pick up a theme that's become distressingly commonplace in the business world, and that is placing way too much emphasis on the power of one individual. In the same way that people unthinkingly credit Jack Welch as being singly responsible for the success of General Electric, the Osama-as-business-titan theory implies that if you get rid of the Great Leader, the organization falls apart.

This theory has actually undermined many more ventures than it has supported. In fact, if it's true that Bin Laden is like a typical new economy CEO, what that would actually mean is not that his terror network is a model of cool and unstoppable efficiency, but rather that it's a self-deluded venture built on wishful thinking, a blind cult of personality rather than anything truly sustainable. If that proves to be true, we will be lucky indeed.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Rob Walker writes the Ad Report Card for Slate.

COMMENTS

Notes From The Fray Editor:

A poster with the (possibly wisely-chosen) name Anonymous User says "If we're using business metaphors, I would describe Osama bin Laden and his organization as performing pro bono work, since it is not for profit." A post from Sandra has this starting point: "I notice little difference in the mainstream media when they describe business, sports, terrorists or other war activities: the baddest guy gets the most respect."

Comments:

Sure, people are thinking of al Qaeda as a business. People have become accustomed to thinking of any organization as a business. Universities are in the education business; governmental agencies ask who their 'customers' are; people read books on how to brand themselves. Business is the universal American metaphor.

--James Grimmelmann

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

Considering the underlying fact that people tend to have a certain respect for an enemy who has hurt them, I find it more troubling that so much credit is given to CEOs in comparing Bin Laden to them.

On the other hand, I do not find this surprising at all. Since the early 1980s, we have had nothing but constant vilification of civil society, of "government" and at the same time, the private sector has been catapulted to heights of innate goodness that rival the role of the Catholic Church and Pope in feudal Europe.

The underlying reasons, of course, beyond zealotry, have to do with the rise of the global economy, and the fact that there are few institutions to arbitrate, much less match, the power of global economic capital formations and their control. Ergo, the CEOs, and the "elite" in general are just running amok, are without constraints (including to their very great egos).

I would compare Bin Laden more to our own wild west outlaw gangs in the territories seeking to roll back the farmers and other "intruders," maybe Billy the Kid types…

--Pauline Moore

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

(11/14)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES