After Osama Bin Laden…

May 2, 2011, 12:00 AM
After Osama Bin Laden…
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
President Obama has just announced that the United States killed Osama bin Laden today in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and recovered his body. It has been nine years and seven months since Osama orchestrated 9/11, but an American team finally killed him. His body is in American hands. This is revenge, but it’s also deterrence and also means that bin Laden won’t kill any more Americans. This is the single most important success the United States has had in its war against Al Qaeda.

So what does this mean? First, it is good for the United States reputation, power and influence that we finally got bin Laden. Bin Laden’s ability to escape from the U.S., and his apparent impunity, fed an image in some Islamist quarters of America as a paper tiger — and that encouraged extremists. Bin Laden himself once said that people bet on the strong horse, the horse that will win, and the killing underscores that it’s the United States that is the horse to bet on. Moreover, this sends a message that you mess with America at your peril, and that there will be consequences for a terror attack on the United States.

That said, killing bin Laden does not end Al Qaeda. Ayman al-Zawahri, the Egyptian No. 2, has long played a crucial role as Al Qaeda’s COO. And Al Qaeda is more of a loose network than a tightly structured organization, and that has become even more true in recent years. AQIM, the version of Al Qaeda in North Africa, is a real threat in countries like Mali and Mauritania, and killing bin Laden will probably have negligible consequences there. The AQIM terrorists may admire Osama and be inspired by him, but they also are believed to be largely independent of him. And Anwar al-Awlaki, the Qaeda-linked terrorist in Yemen, likewise won’t be deterred by bin Laden’s killing — Awlaki’s ability to engage in terrorism will be affected more by the upheavals now taking place in Yemen and whether that country has a strong and legitimate government that takes counter-terrorism seriously.


It’s also true that bin Laden’s killing might have mattered more in 2002 or 2003. At that time in countries like Pakistan, many ordinary people had a very high regard for bin Laden and doubted that he was centrally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Over time that view has changed: popular opinion has moved more against him, and you no longer see Osama t-shirts for sale in the markets. Some people still feel a bit of respect for his ability to outwit the United States, or they are so anti-American that they embrace anybody we don’t like, but bin Laden has been marginalized over time.

Osama’s declining image also means that he won’t be a martyr in many circles (although if Americans appear too celebratory and triumphant, dancing on his grave, that may create a sympathetic backlash for Osama). Many ordinary Pakistanis, Yemenis and Afghans will simply shrug and move on. His death won’t inspire people, the way it might have in 2002. And Al Qaeda is already going through a difficult time because it has been sidelined by the Arab Spring protests; on top of that, losing its top leader will be a major blow.

It will be fascinating to see what the Pakistani reaction is to a U.S. military operation on their soil. It seemed to me that President Obama was going out of his way to sound deferential to Pakistan — and to emphasize that Osama was an enemy of Pakistan as well as of America — precisely because he was concerned that Pakistanis might react with outrage at an American military operation.

President Obama said that he had word last August that Osama might be in a compound in Abbottabad. It took a long time to evaluate that information, and last week it was confirmed enough to order a strike. Then today there was an assault by American forces (perhaps a C.I.A. team or special forces?) and after a firefight bin Laden was killed and his body recovered. I can’t help wondering if Raymond Davis, the American who was arrested by Pakistanis after shooting people in Lahore while apparently on a C.I.A. operation, was somehow involved in this operation to confirm bin Laden’s presence, and if that wasn’t a reason for the hush-hush nature of his work. And of course this also raises questions about how Osama got to Abbottabad from Afghanistan and what if anything the Pakistanis knew. President Musharraf and others always told me and others that Osama was in Afghanistan, not Pakistan, and even suggested that he might have died. So much for Musharraf.

One question is whether the Osama killing will lead to intelligence that will help track down Zawahri and other Al Qaeda leaders or operatives, whether in Pakistan or elsewhere in the world. It might also help work out terror financing networks. Imagine the effort to go through Osama’s laptop.

Will there be a reprisal attack by Al Qaeda? Maybe. But after all Al Qaeda has already been trying to hit us. It’s not as if it has shown any restraint.

The larger challenge is whether we can press this gain and further dismantle Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. If so, it may be easier to end the Afghan war by working out a deal in Afghanistan between the Karzai government and the Taliban. For while they are noxious in a thousand ways, the Taliban themselves are inward looking and not linked to foreign terrorism except through their hosting of Al Qaeda; if foreign fighters like bin Laden are out of the picture, an agreement becomes more feasible.

The United States and Afghan governments alike pretty much believe that the only way out of the problems in Afghanistan is some kind of a political deal, in which the Taliban stops fighting and joins the government, and in turn is allowed a measure of influence in Pashtun areas. That will be more feasible if bin Laden is gone — and if other foreign fighters also fade from the scene.

Of course, allowing the Taliban a role in southern Afghanistan raises all kinds of questions, not least the impact on Afghan women. The Taliban would be a catastrophe for Afghan women. On the other hand, the war is also a catastrophe for Afghan women. And there are some indications that the Taliban are willing to compromise on some elements of policy toward women, such as girls’ schooling. That would all have to be negotiated.

Finally, what does this mean for President Obama’s political prospects? I don’t think very much. November 2012 is a long way away, and the main political issue is likely to be the economy. After all, George H.W. Bush was a hero after the Gulf War victory in early 1991, and by Nov. 1992 was defeated by Bill Clinton because of the economic slowdown.

These are my quick thoughts, rushed together as President Obama speaks. So what do you think this means? Your thoughts most welcome.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/after-osama-bin-laden/?ref=opinion