Bin Ladin Dead. What now?

It's been all over the news ever since President Barack Obama's sudden address last night, around 11:40pm EST (4:40am GMT). Usama bin Ladin, the elusive leader of Al Qaeda, is dead. Responsible in part for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the 1994 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in addition to numerous acts of terrorism around the world, bin Ladin has been on both the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List and Most Wanted Terrorists List and the target of the CIA's manpower. The documentary "Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?" poked fun of our inability for over nine years to find this one man. Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni father and Syrian mother, bin Ladin was the seventeenth of fifty-one children of a business mogul who died in a plane crash when bin Ladin was ten. Bin Ladin was university educated and the wealthy scion of the Bin Ladin family, if an outcast one. During the Soviet war in Afghanistan, bin Ladin traveled several times to provide financial and material support to the mujahideen fighting the Soviets, which is where he made his reputation supposedly engaging in combat against the "godless Communists." It was through this war that the organization known as Al Qaeda, "the base," emerged.

Rumors have had it that after being ousted by Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and after leaving Sudan and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, bin Ladin had been hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. To the contrary, American intelligence officials say that bin Ladin had been living in a unique, luxurious compound in Abbottabad, outside Islamabad. Heavily fortified and lacking both telephone and internet service, it was believed to hold an individual of high value, possibly bin Ladin. It was the name of a trusted courier, who also died, that led to bin Ladin's positive identification. Four men, including the unnamed courier and one of bin Ladin's sons, died along with bin Ladin (reportedly shot in the left eye after engaging in armed resistance to the Special Operations team) and an unidentified woman who was used as a human shield. Bin Ladin was buried at sea within twenty-four hours, as is Islamic custom. (Evidently, no country wanted his remains, for pretty obvious reasons.)

What does this mean now? Will America face greater threat of retaliation? Even if bin Ladin has essentially been a figurehead for the past several years, providing a source of morale for would-be jihadists around the globe, there are many others within Al Qaeda who will take on the mantle of leadership, be that directing operations and logistics or providing a new public face for the organization. (Two names that come to mind are Ayman al-Zawahiri and Anwar al-Awlaki.) Al Qaeda certainly will not splinter and disintegrate. It will not cease to be a threat to the international community, and terrorism will not go away. Bin Ladin's death, instead of providing a crucial blow to Al Qaeda, may serve as the impetus the organization needs to redirect its energy and operational capabilities at Americans in retaliation for its founder's death at the hands of Americans.

Does this also mean that Obama stands a greater chance of re-election? Perhaps, as it could render null the claim by some conservatives that Obama and other liberals are weak on terrorism and unable to act decisively and effectively to neutralize terrorist targets. At the same time, it could also be viewed as his attempt to save face in light of his inability to reduce the federal deficit (already exceeding $14 trillion) and keep promises made during his campaign and in the beginning of his presidency--namely, to close Guantanamo Bay Prison, to end the use of military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees, and to shift directions entirely away from many of the Bush-era policies. Bin Ladin's death is certainly a political statement and one that will elicit many more emotional responses than rational ones. Because bin Ladin was responsible for the deaths of over three thousand Americans, many Americans will and have expressed emotional responses of happiness or relief in his death.

Looking forward both short-term and long-term, we need to worry about two primary threats. Firstly, as alluded to earlier, the threat of retaliation against Americans or American targets, either by Al Qaeda operatives or by other jihadist sympathizers. Secondly, we need to continue to treat Al Qaeda as a significant threat. Our intelligence community will now be charged with the task of identifying key leaders in Al Qaeda and working to neutralize these other threats in order to continue preventing terrorist attack and bringing to justice those who do engage in acts of terrorism. Bin Ladin's death is a milestone in the War on Terror, but with an invisible, scattered enemy -- as most terrorist organizations differ in specific points of doctrine or ideology, and many more are led by non-state actors as opposed to being state-sponsored, as opposed to in the past -- and a constant threat of continued terrorist attacks, it is imperative that all Americans remain vigilant.







(also posted to my blog at Fugitive Seeking Truth)

Ding dong, the witch is dead.

Edit: sorry I had to say it. On a more serious note, I agree with the points you have made in your article, Ylanne.

I think you can go even further and make the argument that killing Osama may have actually been a mistake. This is all obviously speculation, but consider that up unti this point, there could have been one main thing on the minds of al Qaeda members: protecting their leader and make sure he stays in power, which means preventing those second tier members from trying to wrest control away from him while he hides. After 9/11, arguably their magnum opus, maybe they hadn't considered another attack of that size and were satisfied doing (by comparison) less significant operations while Osama hid. Now, as we have killed him, their priorities have not only shifted back to attacking the US, but we may have allowed an even more extreme and militant person to take control of the organization. The US people seem to have a belief that once we killed Osama, al Qaeda would crumble and all our problems would disappear. They've failed to acknowledge that an organization like al Qaeda may not work that way; that is, chopping off the head may not render the body useless. Had we instead pursued Osama with just enough fervor to keep him in hiding but not enough to actually make killing him a possibility, we may have come out better in the long run. With Osama in hiding but still alive, he is only able to exert limited control of al Qaeda. By killing him, we let his right-hand men take over, who are able to control it without limits.

The US may have just reignited a flame that could have been dying down, all for a moment's satisfaction that may have far more negative consequences than positive ones.

I do not believe that Osama Bin Laden is truly dead, only his name. For all we know, he could still be out there, laughing his a** off at the world, and plotting who knows what? My reason for thinking this quite simple, the USA claims to have killed and secured the body of Osama, but have not shown any such pictures to show us that he is dead. Yes, I do understand that it was all done in the Middle East, however, we do have the technology to take pictures and upload them onto the web over there.

The US will claim, over and over, that he is, in fact, dead, but we shall never know for certain until evidence is placed within our reach. Unfortunately, even if they do provide us with evidence, we can never, truly, be certain that it was, in fact, the real Osama Bin Laden who was killed on the other side of the world.

Macabre Legion wrote:I do not believe that Osama Bin Laden is truly dead, only his name. For all we know, he could still be out there, laughing his a** off at the world, and plotting who knows what? My reason for thinking this quite simple, the USA claims to have killed and secured the body of Osama, but have not shown any such pictures to show us that he is dead. Yes, I do understand that it was all done in the Middle East, however, we do have the technology to take pictures and upload them onto the web over there.

The US will claim, over and over, that he is, in fact, dead, but we shall never know for certain until evidence is placed within our reach. Unfortunately, even if they do provide us with evidence, we can never, truly, be certain that it was, in fact, the real Osama Bin Laden who was killed on the other side of the world.

While it is certainly a possibility that bin Ladin is not in fact dead, there are two reasons I do in fact believe our government. If in fact bin Ladin were not dead, then Obama would not have given the public address last night. There are too many political career killers out there and a lie is one of them. If bin Ladin were not dead and Obama announced that he were, it is almost certain that he or someone close to him would have released a statement calling Obama and the American government liars. (It would also, of course, be possible that Al Qaeda would let the lie stand, but it would probably be more beneficial to them to debunk it and prevent any loss of morale over bin Ladin's "death," while promoting morale in would-be jihadists by reassuring them that bin Ladin were alive and untouchable.) It would also mean the end of any respect for Obama either personally, politically, or internationally. There is no way that a lie of bin Ladin's death would stand to close inspection in the coming weeks and months; thus it would be absolutely disadvantageous to make the lie.

The second reason is that the White House did mention that it has photographic and other evidence of bin Ladin's death, including DNA. DNA tests are being run against samples collected from bin Ladin family members. One of the news articles mentioned that a senior official (Pentagon or CIA, I don't remember which offhand) identified bin Ladin from a post mortem photograph, suggesting that these photographs do exist. The White House also noted that it was debating how and when to release this evidence of bin Ladin's death. It would not have made that statement if it were not willing and able to share that evidence. I will refer you to the first point as the two are inter-connected.

There is also the thought that Osama had died before the US troops had supposedly shown up, but I shall give that to the conspiracy theorists to ponder upon it.

Ylanne, I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph, but not the second. The idea of a DNA test will prove nothing, because we do not fully know if it is actually from the real Osama. Yes, I understand that the US have made such claims that it is Osama's DNA, but none of us can ever be sure. Even when the evidence is placed under our nose, many of us will remain skeptic til the very end.

We both have our ideas on the manner at hand, and we can discuss it to the fullest, but I shan't be convinced by words alone, and you might not be swayed to my way of thinking. I need to see physical evidence before I can agree with any statement about the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Macabre, what sort of "physical evidence" is there that is more convincing than DNA? You've never met the guy, so even if they show you a body that looks just like him, how can you ever be sure it's him? By your logic, there is no way anyone can ever prove to you he's dead.

Pseudosyne wrote:By your logic, there is no way anyone can ever prove to you he's dead.

I think that's the point.

This pretty much sums up my response.

"Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live... "
~ Ezekiel 33:11

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Resurgam, thank you for your post.

As a Christian I wholeheartedly agree with Resurgam. There was an excellent article yesterday entitled "Is it O.K. to be happy about Bin Laden's Death?" or something very similar although I don't recall which website published it. A friend of mine wrote the most cogent response to the euphoria about bin Ladin's death on Facebook of all places and gave me permission to use his remarks in an upcoming blog post later tonight or tomorrow. No matter how evil a person or a person's actions, it can never be morally right to celebrate death, no matter who has died. Can there be relief? Certainly. Can there be some emotional closure for the families of September 11 victims? Perhaps. But to take joy in anyone's death is sickening.

Pseudosyne wrote:I think you can go even further and make the argument that killing Osama may have actually been a mistake. This is all obviously speculation, but consider that up unti this point, there could have been one main thing on the minds of al Qaeda members: protecting their leader and make sure he stays in power, which means preventing those second tier members from trying to wrest control away from him while he hides. After 9/11, arguably their magnum opus, maybe they hadn't considered another attack of that size and were satisfied doing (by comparison) less significant operations while Osama hid. Now, as we have killed him, their priorities have not only shifted back to attacking the US, but we may have allowed an even more extreme and militant person to take control of the organization. The US people seem to have a belief that once we killed Osama, al Qaeda would crumble and all our problems would disappear. They've failed to acknowledge that an organization like al Qaeda may not work that way; that is, chopping off the head may not render the body useless. Had we instead pursued Osama with just enough fervor to keep him in hiding but not enough to actually make killing him a possibility, we may have come out better in the long run. With Osama in hiding but still alive, he is only able to exert limited control of al Qaeda. By killing him, we let his right-hand men take over, who are able to control it without limits.

The US may have just reignited a flame that could have been dying down, all for a moment's satisfaction that may have far more negative consequences than positive ones.

I agree with you 100%. I've seen it in video games, television, books both fiction and non-fiction. Taking off one head won't kill the body as long as there are more heads to take its place. If anything, dying made Osama a martyr to his people. Something to motivate them to work harder, like when Martin L. King Jr. died. In short what I'm trying to say is, I think we've started a war with them. i think they'll target America again and I'm truly afraid. The area I live in could become a target. I live next to one of our countries biggest health facilities, where the higher class goes to be treated. It's been known to have treated foreign royalty and such.

CherrySwirl wrote:

Pseudosyne wrote:I think you can go even further and make the argument that killing Osama may have actually been a mistake. This is all obviously speculation, but consider that up unti this point, there could have been one main thing on the minds of al Qaeda members: protecting their leader and make sure he stays in power, which means preventing those second tier members from trying to wrest control away from him while he hides. After 9/11, arguably their magnum opus, maybe they hadn't considered another attack of that size and were satisfied doing (by comparison) less significant operations while Osama hid. Now, as we have killed him, their priorities have not only shifted back to attacking the US, but we may have allowed an even more extreme and militant person to take control of the organization. The US people seem to have a belief that once we killed Osama, al Qaeda would crumble and all our problems would disappear. They've failed to acknowledge that an organization like al Qaeda may not work that way; that is, chopping off the head may not render the body useless. Had we instead pursued Osama with just enough fervor to keep him in hiding but not enough to actually make killing him a possibility, we may have come out better in the long run. With Osama in hiding but still alive, he is only able to exert limited control of al Qaeda. By killing him, we let his right-hand men take over, who are able to control it without limits.

The US may have just reignited a flame that could have been dying down, all for a moment's satisfaction that may have far more negative consequences than positive ones.

I agree with you 100%. I've seen it in video games, television, books both fiction and non-fiction. Taking off one head won't kill the body as long as there are more heads to take its place. If anything, dying made Osama a martyr to his people. Something to motivate them to work harder, like when Martin L. King Jr. died. In short what I'm trying to say is, I think we've started a war with them. i think they'll target America again and I'm truly afraid. The area I live in could become a target. I live next to one of our countries biggest health facilities, where the higher class goes to be treated. It's been known to have treated foreign royalty and such.

Bin Ladin did start a war with America. He declared war on us several times. The September 11 attacks were an act of war, and Bush treated them as such. Whether that was right or not is of course left to debate. But the war is not starting now. It has already started.

It seems that killing Osama may just be a bad thing all around. We've pissed al Qaeda off, we've shown a horrible side of the American people in that we're so so happy about killing someone, and we now have to live in the same kind of fear we did just after 9/11.

Macabre Legion wrote:Ylanne, I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph, but not the second. The idea of a DNA test will prove nothing, because we do not fully know if it is actually from the real Osama. Yes, I understand that the US have made such claims that it is Osama's DNA, but none of us can ever be sure. Even when the evidence is placed under our nose, many of us will remain skeptic til the very end.

As much as it may dismay conspiracy theorists around the world. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. This means you have to prove there's reasonable doubt as to the evidence that was provided. We've got our government telling us DNA tests gave us results. DNA tests are actually really darn good at this sort of thing. So yeah. I honestly don't see reasonable doubt.

It's also my personal opinion that keeping Al Qaeda happy is just delaying a problem at best.

Ylanne wrote:

CherrySwirl wrote:

Pseudosyne wrote:I think you can go even further and make the argument that killing Osama may have actually been a mistake. This is all obviously speculation, but consider that up unti this point, there could have been one main thing on the minds of al Qaeda members: protecting their leader and make sure he stays in power, which means preventing those second tier members from trying to wrest control away from him while he hides. After 9/11, arguably their magnum opus, maybe they hadn't considered another attack of that size and were satisfied doing (by comparison) less significant operations while Osama hid. Now, as we have killed him, their priorities have not only shifted back to attacking the US, but we may have allowed an even more extreme and militant person to take control of the organization. The US people seem to have a belief that once we killed Osama, al Qaeda would crumble and all our problems would disappear. They've failed to acknowledge that an organization like al Qaeda may not work that way; that is, chopping off the head may not render the body useless. Had we instead pursued Osama with just enough fervor to keep him in hiding but not enough to actually make killing him a possibility, we may have come out better in the long run. With Osama in hiding but still alive, he is only able to exert limited control of al Qaeda. By killing him, we let his right-hand men take over, who are able to control it without limits.

The US may have just reignited a flame that could have been dying down, all for a moment's satisfaction that may have far more negative consequences than positive ones.

I agree with you 100%. I've seen it in video games, television, books both fiction and non-fiction. Taking off one head won't kill the body as long as there are more heads to take its place. If anything, dying made Osama a martyr to his people. Something to motivate them to work harder, like when Martin L. King Jr. died. In short what I'm trying to say is, I think we've started a war with them. i think they'll target America again and I'm truly afraid. The area I live in could become a target. I live next to one of our countries biggest health facilities, where the higher class goes to be treated. It's been known to have treated foreign royalty and such.

Bin Ladin did start a war with America. He declared war on us several times. The September 11 attacks were an act of war, and Bush treated them as such. Whether that was right or not is of course left to debate. But the war is not starting now. It has already started.

Let me rephrase that again. I feel like they're going to bring the war's battleground back to our country on a whole new level.

Well, either we need to eliminate enough of al Qaeda so that they can't possibly recover or all we can do is delay the problem. Works the same way with countries, companies, pretty much every organized group of people. You need to destroy its ability to reorganize before you can really consider the threat neutralized.

Well it's only obvious something chaotic will happen because of this.

The US will claim, over and over, that he is, in fact, dead, but we shall never know for certain until evidence is placed within our reach. Unfortunately, even if they do provide us with evidence, we can never, truly, be certain that it was, in fact, the real Osama Bin Laden who was killed on the other side of the world.

I'm very certain Osama bin Laden is dead. The skepticism is nothing more than a lack of ability to accept what is the truth. Even with evidence, skeptics will always doubt because they feel they're worth the time to warrant pulling the whole nine yards just to convince one person we killed him. That's not how the world spins.

Let me rephrase that again. I feel like they're going to bring the war's battleground back to our country on a whole new level.

The possibility of an American invasion, by Islamic factions or anyone else, is a nightmare that is just that, something that will only happen in a dream. The network of Muslim extremists and the global terrorist network as a whole has been dealt a blow by the dispatch of Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda was never as strong as it had ever been than following the attacks on America, and other nations allied with us. The attacks on the Twin Towers instilled a fear of continued assaults on not only America, but every location on the planet that would not subscribe to radical Islam. In displaying the decision that because of what we did, kill someone who murdered thousands in one single day alone, we're absolutely mortified of a reprisal only reinforces the suspicion that terrorists can get what they want from scaring people into complacency.

Saying you fear a reprisal from Islamic extremists or jihadists only let's them know they had the right idea in perpetuating the attacks against the United States and our allies. If the fear of being killed for defending your own countrymen is enough to dissuade someone from justice, I would rather die in the dirt of some foreign country fighting for the ones I love than watching everyone at home shrug and say "Oh, we killed him and they're angry now, it's time to give up."

This is all obviously speculation, but consider that up unti this point, there could have been one main thing on the minds of al Qaeda members: protecting their leader and make sure he stays in power, which means preventing those second tier members from trying to wrest control away from him while he hides.

To the contrary, there is evidence that Al-Qaeda, minus Osama as a combat leader, was directed towards more attacks across the globe and maintaining their waning territories in northern Afghanistan and Pakistan. They had their hands full with a NATO military breathing down their throat, Osama made the decision that he would not be captured fighting, he would hide and occupy American forces trying to find him with a nine-year goose chase. We caught up with him. Without a doubt, Al-Qaeda will be pissed about losing their zealot, but that's no reason for us to suddenly get 9/11 fever all over again and clam ourselves up. Al-Qaeda hardly ever went through power-struggles while Osama was alive, they were an expertly organised and motivated fighting force. These are not trained soldiers answering to a known commander, these were insurgents and armed combatants that were willing to die where they stood; they are unlike any other force the American, or global military powers, had ever fought before -- do not assume that Al-Qaeda is just some backyard militia that spends more time cleaning their guns than they do fighting.

It seems that killing Osama may just be a bad thing all around. We've pissed al Qaeda off, we've shown a horrible side of the American people in that we're so so happy about killing someone, and we now have to live in the same kind of fear we did just after 9/11.

Taking a human life is bad, certainly. The fact that the American people were moved to the point of fervor and jubilation at the death of a man that has propagated hatred, and murdered innocent people -- I don't mean American exclusively -- shouldn't be viewed as a "horrible side". Sure, rejoicing to the point of crowding the streets with signs and celebrations reflects a lack of consideration for the deceased and the ones he was associated with, but what that's suggesting is that we should've left him alive, kept him in power and shake off the 3,000+ casualties. I'm proud, as an American, of the Special Forces that risked their lives, probably more times than just this once, to kill a man who murdered people on little incentive of different religious convictions. Not just Americans, or British, or Muslim, or European, but people; Osama bin Laden, even if he hadn't perpetuated the attacks against America, was still an extremist and a volatile personality that, if left unattended an in power, could have easily rebuilt the Al-Qaeda network and further more assaults on ideals and organisations other than his own.

I think you can go even further and make the argument that killing Osama may have actually been a mistake.

Strategically speaking, from a completely military standpoint, Osama's value in the later years of the conflicts was the absolute figurehead of the Al-Qaeda network, and countless other extremist organisations across the globe. Removing this link disconnects the global connection these factions have enjoyed over the past decade. The United States has developed an effective Counter-Insurgency doctrine, and has easily been the greatest tool against terrorism since the initial invasion of Iraq, which is another argument in-and-of itself. Killing Osama bin Laden was more effective than capturing him.

“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
~ Martin Luther King Jr.

The truth of this statement is undeniable, that outwardly celebrating the death of even an enemy only shows that we weren't interested in justice, or closure, but simply the act of destroying a human life.

Sure, they can attack us again, and yes, I do suspect that there will be residual after effects of this operation, but the complacency and determination to stop because you've accidentally offended an organisation that detests you because of nothing more than your choice of beliefs is reminiscent of the same American conviction that we're entitled to exist as we have without ever earning our right as a people. This is a conflict that has gone far beyond the diplomatic channels, and it goes without saying that attempting to find a peaceful outlet, without any indications from either party, is just going to waste time and possibly get more people killed. In stalling the drive to dismantle Al-Qaeda, America is doing little more than showing to the world that we will cower behind an ocean and let the world churn away around us, and it goes without saying that the Atlantic isn't our Great Wall any more. There will be more dying and there will be more fighting, probably more than any of us ever imagined, but this is the price of being a nation. There will be people that don't like us, and there will be people that want to see America, as a people, removed from the face of the earth with impunity.

It's time for the American people to realize that this possibility is nowhere near as bleak as people portray it as. This is the one of thousands of victories not just Americans, but countries involved in NATO, the UN and the globe as a whole, have claimed against the extremism that has been threatening to topple countries and continents for the past five decades. This is our moment to display that we will not allow ourselves to be attacked based simply on how we choose to live; nations all across the planet are realizing there is no safety in extremism, and that they can't scare people into silence with weaponry or otherwise. I'm disgusted that people are still unwilling to address the sacrifice thousands of soldiers, American, German, British, or one of the dozens of other nations that have valiantly defended America when they had no need to, in the name of freedom and humanity.