Julian Borger writes: "Bin Laden's end comes at a time when al-Qaida's influence is on the wane in the Arab and wider Islamic world. It has been conspicuous by its absence in the Arab Spring. To most of the revolutionaries in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, Bin Laden was irrelevant."
People cheer and wave US flags outside the White House after President Obama delivered remarks to the nation on the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, 05/01/11. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
Is the World a Safer Place?
02 May 11
Declarations of outright victory in the 'war on terror' may be premature.
he killing of Osama bin Laden provided a moment of catharsis that had eluded America for a decade. Flag-draped crowds spontaneously gathered outside the White House and at Ground Zero in Manhattan, singing the national anthem. On television, Peter Bergen, an expert on al-Qaida and one of few people in the field to have actually met its leader, declared: "Killing Bin Laden is the end of the war on terror."
The mood this morning is likely to be more sober, as Americans cast their minds back on past premature declarations of victory, in Afghanistan at the end of 2001 and at George W Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" triumphalism over Iraq in 2003.
The struggle against terrorism does not give itself easily to neat beginnings and endings. In one sense, the "war on terror" ended in March 2009 when the incoming Obama administration decided it was a counter-productive phrase in the first place, bringing America's enemies together rather than dividing them.
After being driven from Afghanistan in 2001, al-Qaida's response was to transform itself into a far looser global network that would be harder to destroy. In its most dilute form, al-Qaida is little more than a franchise that alienated groups around the world can sign up for, exchanging formal oaths of allegiance for the dread that the name inspires in their enemies.
The most likely short-term impact of Bin Laden's death is an increase in al-Qaida attacks around the world, as the martyr effect kicks in and these disparate groups carry out attacks to ensure that the killing of their spiritual leader does not go unavenged. If they fail to do so, their supporters and enemies alike could rightly question whether they are still in business at all.
The biggest question is: how long will Bin Laden's martyrdom last? Will it flame out and die in a blaze of small attacks or will it feed on itself and create a new generation of committed jihadists?
Bin Laden's end comes at a time when al-Qaida's influence is on the wane in the Arab and wider Islamic world. It has been conspicuous by its absence in the Arab Spring. To most of the revolutionaries in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, Bin Laden was irrelevant. But the Arab revolt is still in its early stages and its outcome is unclear. It is still possible that disillusion, protracted violence and the failure of the Nato intervention in Libya could create an opportunity for jihadists.
If and when that moment comes, much will depend on whether the martyrdom of Bin Laden is a more powerful factor than the absence of any plausible successor. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the aged, mumbling Egyptian doctor who has fulfilled the role of deputy since he brought his Egyptian Islamic Jihad into the al-Qaida fold in 1998, has none of Bin Laden's charisma. The group's Libyan ideologue, Abu Yahya al-Libi, also lacks the stature and respect necessary to take up the mantle.
The most likely outcome is fragmentation, with the possible rise of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as the leading 'brand' leader. The Yemeni-based group showed its ingenuity last November by smuggling pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) bombs inside printer cartridges onto FedEx and UPS planes flying to the West.
AQAP's strategy is to attempt frequent small attacks, to inflict a death by "a thousand cuts" on its western enemies. But Yemen is a narrow base to operate from and easier to isolate.
What does seem probable is that al-Qaida is today less able to mount a spectacular mass-casualty attack on the West, because it has lost Bin Laden's grand ambitions and the necessary cohesion he instilled. Furthermore, as it now appears he was living in a well-guarded compound in the heart of Pakistan and not in a cave in the remote tribal areas, he may well have been playing more of an operational role than many observers had thought possible.
But while the threat of a devastating attack on the West, possibly involving a new weapon like a "dirty" radiological bomb, has almost certainly receded, there remains the constant menace of the bomb in a cafe, as in Marrakech last week, or once more on a plane. That threat may never go away.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |












Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
The answer to that question could conceivably be "yes," IF Oswald actually had been JFK's assassin.
And is the parallel of him hiding in a mansion while sending others to die, and our own "leaders" hiding in their mansions sending others to die, or at least PAY, lost on people as well?
Our President at least used the intelligence to do the gutsy and correct thing on behalf of all Americans. GWB and Cheney used the system for personal gain and to retain power, while holding America hostage themselves.
This wasn't "revenge" and but a necessary operation carried out for very commendable reasons in a very commendable way. Now let's see what Obama does with the victory and how it really affects America in the future.
The real "justice" part of the equation is yet to play out.
"It [al Qaeda] has been conspicuous by its absence in the Arab Spring." That is where our long term goals should be; enabling and supporting open democratic societies in the Arab world, and let the Taliban and al Qaeda wither away.
Now rumors will begin claiming he and Ken Lay (we didn't see his body either) are in Grand Cayman or Sri Lanka playing ping-pong.
When Borger writes "safe" he is thinking only of "us" of of white people. He does not care at all of the safety of Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Kenyans, Somalis, Pakistanis and dozens of more nations which are constantly under US overt and covert war, terrorism, subversion, killing, and devastation.
The great source of terrorism and violence in the world is the US government and all of its terrorists apparatus in the Pentagon and CIA. It was these terrorists gangs who murdered Osama -- so how can anyone say the world was made safer. If anything, these international murderers will feel empowered.
Our archaic CIA/Pentagon - thinks in hierarchical terms -
we bombed any cafe in Baghdad that Sadam visited ... hundreds innocent death.
we bombed/destroyed villages in Afghanistan/Pakistan that "informers" provided to get Bin Ladin ..
We are bombing houses in Libya killing grandchildren ....
USA is in assassination business - this is criminal.
"The lights are on but no one's home."
Check out Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
First; These guys didn't need to be "airline pilots" at all. They just needed to be able to "drive" the jet into a building. Ever even had a lesson before? The first thing an instructor does is put you behind the controls and, after getting airborne, let you "steer" the plane around the sky.
Second;
The danger of overstressing a jet was probably not in their mind. It's a testament to the good design and safety of American commercial planes that they can hold together, even if stressed beyond "safe" limits. No surprise there.
And last;
I saw the two dimensional radar image of those "impossible" tight turns. Ever hear of a chandelle before? Do you really think these guys were trying to make 15 degree, "standard" turns?
Wikipedia definition:
...The chandelle is an aircraft control maneuver where the pilot combines a 180° turn with a climb.[1]
It is now required for attaining a commercial flight certificate in many countries..
Would you guys just go and get an education from some place other than a conspiracy video or blog?
I have flown with my uncle, who still flies his small plane in his late 80's, and he let me take control numbers of times. Most certainly no amateur could handle an aircraft as large as commercial jets willy nilly. And at what point do you think these "Al Quaeda" people took control?
The evidence submitted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth is researched by certified pilots. You cannot even contribute to the research and opinion without being certified with a huge number of hours in the air.
There is plenty of evidence that no amateur could pull off your Wikipedia definition, and in fact it states that it is now required for COMMERCIAL FLIGHT CERTIFICATES, not some small plane being controlled by someone like myself.
What you saw was probably not the flight path of the "airplane" that hit the Pentagon.
RSS feed for comments to this post.