Does bin Laden's Death Mean the End of al-Qaida? How Does the U.S. Transfer the Layout of Anti-Terrorism?
The death of bin Laden makes al-Qaida members lose faith in their goal and motivating force; the end is just around the corner. Bin Laden’s death also means that the United States will more comprehensively alter the layout of anti-terrorism, and more American armed forces will withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States will depend more on information-gathering to defend its global power.
On May 1, 2011, the world was watching President Obama live on television; they were listening to the words he spoke to the families of 9/11 victims: “bin Laden is dead,” and “Tonight, justice has been done.” That day was exactly the eighth anniversary of former President Bush’s controversial “Mission Accomplished” speech on the Lincoln warship. In some sense the “bin Laden is dead” speech is the real “Mission Accomplished”; and it marked the first time that Obama was seen as a real political leader by every faction of Americans. Like 9/11 opened a brand new era of anti-terrorism, after May 1, 2011 the world’s history will enter a “post-bin Laden” era.
Bin Laden has become past tense, but is the al-Qaida behind him still in the present tense and seeking opportunities for revenge? Is the anti-terrorism situation becoming more intense or much better now? Whether Obama himself or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed that bin Laden’s death was a huge success in the war on terror, it doesn’t mean the end of the war, and America will continue to spare no effort in clearing the remnants of al-Qaida.
Al-Qaida Is Dead
Currently the most obvious optimist of the post-bin Laden era is the well-known international political columnist Fareed Zakaria, whose book was placed on Obama’s bedside. His opinion to a large extent reflects the mainstream view of liberals in the government.
Zakaria thinks that the death of bin Laden is “the death of al-Qaida,” so it’s not unreasonable to say that it’s the end of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida under bin Laden didn’t have allocatable global sources itself or a huge army. Al-Qaida is a concept and an ideology, and it was led by an extremely charismatic political leader, bin Laden. and accomplished an almost impossible mission (9/11). 9/11 was condemned globally; it caused two wars in 10 years that spent several hundred billion dollars and killed 100,000 people; the attack itself is seen as an absolute evil. In those 10 years, al-Qaida lingered but launched attacks every once in a while; and bin Laden’s legendary status continued to hold a lot of appeal.
In al-Qaida followers’ eyes, bin Laden was a prince-like figure. He gave up millions of wealth in Saudi Arabia, travelling afar to the mountain caves in Afghanistan. First he fought against Soviet invaders, then protested corrupt governments in the Arabic world and supported a Palestinian state, and finally commanded global anti-United States activity. What kind of spirit is that? Additionally, this person lived safe and sound for 10 years, avoiding pursuit by the world’s most powerful country combined with Afghanistan and Pakistan’s governments; his elusiveness seemed like a fabulous effect. Objectively, bin Laden was the main motivator of al-Qaida’s recruitment.
Bin Laden, as a symbol and appealing figurehead, connected global organizations, cleared up conflicts among factions and comforted members’ depression that resulted from failure. His death made all of these abilities nonexistent. A faith-based group that lost its faith, an organization that has no motivation sees its demise just around the corner. Many pessimists point out that second-in-command Zawahiri and others are still there, and they will continue launching terrorist attacks — but the problem is that Zawahiri cannot motivate and move those suicidal believers; he’s just a manager of the terrorist group. The most logically possible result of bin Laden’s death is that “the monkeys scatter after the tree falls,” and no new member can be recruited.
Zakaria, who has long supported global democracy, suggested another, equally important reason for the disintegration of al-Qaida was this year’s Middle East revolutions. When bin Laden left his motherland Saudi Arabia, starting his anti-USSR, anti-U.S. career globally, his most fundamental logic was that Arab governments were extremely corrupt under the support of Western countries, ignored public demand, and could no longer represent their people’s interests. The resolution he sold to Arabs was to combat the West using terrorism, weaken western support for Arab political regimes and create an opportunity to overthrow the regimes, and recover the extremist fundamentalist rule. The rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan is the model project for bin Laden.
The series of revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt at the beginning of this year suddenly made the people, who have lived in the 10-year-shadow of the war on terror, find another, easier way to reach the same destination: by overthrowing the corrupt governments and letting people become the political center again. This way is not extreme and has no bloody and violent fight against the West. The most important thing is that this voice comes from Islamic world and Arabic countries. In this historical transformation, Al-Jazeera broadcasts, Facebook and Twitter became the strongest voice, and al-Qaida was not included — neither was the terrorists’ logic. In this year’s Middle East revolutions, those terrorists and their logic have all been discarded by the public.
Therefore, losing faith in ideology and encountering the death of the spiritual leader — who was not in Afghanistan’s mountain caves, but in a secret million-dollar mansion in a Pakistani city — al-Qaida will be in a recession that cannot be recovered from, losing its effective organizing power to attack the world.
Transformation of Anti-Terrorism
Bin Laden’s death proved to a large extent that Obama’s leading strategy in the war on terror was right. Obama is an anti-war president and the death of bin Laden testified to his determination on anti-terrorism. However, the largest difference between him and former President Bush is that the latter, encouraged by his assistants, suddenly decided that Iraq was the biggest target of the war on terror after only one and a half years, launching a new war that caused the collapse of the U.S. and deteriorated its power for pursuing the real culprit behind 9/11 and al-Qaida.
When Obama took office, he had two wars on his hands. He didn’t abandon either, but revised Bush’s strategy by giving up some big empty plans. These included “rebuilding the country” in Afghanistan and Iraq, and changing to unmanned aerial vehicle attacks and quick-turnover plans like cooperating with Pakistan on anti-terrorism information gathering. Obama is truly a pragmatist. He doesn’t have some super-ambitious new conservative think tank. He has focused on how to centralize resources and accomplish goals during the economic recession and the collapse of national strength caused by wars. To use a management phrase, he thought about how to “get things done.”
Therefore, the first and foremost goal of the war on terror was defined by Obama as “capturing or shooting bin Laden.” This strategic transfer finally paid off; the war on terror comes to an end. The United States will keep combating terrorism, but “the war on terror” will probably disappear from the media spotlight.
What we should see is that bin Laden’s death means that America will arrange the layout of anti-terrorism more comprehensively; more U.S. armed forces will be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and the United States will depend more on information-gathering to defend its global power. Obama has announced the appointment of former CIA Director Leon Panetta as the Secretary of Defense and the appointment of the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, as CIA director. The collaboration between the U.S. military and CIA is evident in these titles.
The retracement of U.S. armed forces and intelligence expansion around the world will change the world’s military political power all around. For example, if the previous United States was the world police and liked street patrols and combating hostile forces, the future United States will be the world police that rely on information and monitoring and depend on precise strikes by special forces at critical times.
The military and strategic transformation of America the superpower will spur other countries in the world to transform. In this sense, bin Laden took away an era of anti-terrorism and let the whole world have a new start.
On May 1, 2011, the world was watching President Obama live on television; they were listening to the words he spoke to the families of 9/11 victims: “bin Laden is dead,” and “Tonight, justice has been done.” That day was exactly the eighth anniversary of former President Bush’s controversial “Mission Accomplished” speech on the Lincoln warship. In some sense the “bin Laden is dead” speech is the real “Mission Accomplished”; and it marked the first time that Obama was seen as a real political leader by every faction of Americans. Like 9/11 opened a brand new era of anti-terrorism, after May 1, 2011 the world’s history will enter a “post-bin Laden” era.
Bin Laden has become past tense, but is the al-Qaida behind him still in the present tense and seeking opportunities for revenge? Is the anti-terrorism situation becoming more intense or much better now? Whether Obama himself or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed that bin Laden’s death was a huge success in the war on terror, it doesn’t mean the end of the war, and America will continue to spare no effort in clearing the remnants of al-Qaida.
Al-Qaida Is Dead
Currently the most obvious optimist of the post-bin Laden era is the well-known international political columnist Fareed Zakaria, whose book was placed on Obama’s bedside. His opinion to a large extent reflects the mainstream view of liberals in the government.
Zakaria thinks that the death of bin Laden is “the death of al-Qaida,” so it’s not unreasonable to say that it’s the end of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida under bin Laden didn’t have allocatable global sources itself or a huge army. Al-Qaida is a concept and an ideology, and it was led by an extremely charismatic political leader, bin Laden. and accomplished an almost impossible mission (9/11). 9/11 was condemned globally; it caused two wars in 10 years that spent several hundred billion dollars and killed 100,000 people; the attack itself is seen as an absolute evil. In those 10 years, al-Qaida lingered but launched attacks every once in a while; and bin Laden’s legendary status continued to hold a lot of appeal.
In al-Qaida followers’ eyes, bin Laden was a prince-like figure. He gave up millions of wealth in Saudi Arabia, travelling afar to the mountain caves in Afghanistan. First he fought against Soviet invaders, then protested corrupt governments in the Arabic world and supported a Palestinian state, and finally commanded global anti-United States activity. What kind of spirit is that? Additionally, this person lived safe and sound for 10 years, avoiding pursuit by the world’s most powerful country combined with Afghanistan and Pakistan’s governments; his elusiveness seemed like a fabulous effect. Objectively, bin Laden was the main motivator of al-Qaida’s recruitment.
Bin Laden, as a symbol and appealing figurehead, connected global organizations, cleared up conflicts among factions and comforted members’ depression that resulted from failure. His death made all of these abilities nonexistent. A faith-based group that lost its faith, an organization that has no motivation sees its demise just around the corner. Many pessimists point out that second-in-command Zawahiri and others are still there, and they will continue launching terrorist attacks — but the problem is that Zawahiri cannot motivate and move those suicidal believers; he’s just a manager of the terrorist group. The most logically possible result of bin Laden’s death is that “the monkeys scatter after the tree falls,” and no new member can be recruited.
Zakaria, who has long supported global democracy, suggested another, equally important reason for the disintegration of al-Qaida was this year’s Middle East revolutions. When bin Laden left his motherland Saudi Arabia, starting his anti-USSR, anti-U.S. career globally, his most fundamental logic was that Arab governments were extremely corrupt under the support of Western countries, ignored public demand, and could no longer represent their people’s interests. The resolution he sold to Arabs was to combat the West using terrorism, weaken western support for Arab political regimes and create an opportunity to overthrow the regimes, and recover the extremist fundamentalist rule. The rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan is the model project for bin Laden.
The series of revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt at the beginning of this year suddenly made the people, who have lived in the 10-year-shadow of the war on terror, find another, easier way to reach the same destination: by overthrowing the corrupt governments and letting people become the political center again. This way is not extreme and has no bloody and violent fight against the West. The most important thing is that this voice comes from Islamic world and Arabic countries. In this historical transformation, Al-Jazeera broadcasts, Facebook and Twitter became the strongest voice, and al-Qaida was not included — neither was the terrorists’ logic. In this year’s Middle East revolutions, those terrorists and their logic have all been discarded by the public.
Therefore, losing faith in ideology and encountering the death of the spiritual leader — who was not in Afghanistan’s mountain caves, but in a secret million-dollar mansion in a Pakistani city — al-Qaida will be in a recession that cannot be recovered from, losing its effective organizing power to attack the world.
Transformation of Anti-Terrorism
Bin Laden’s death proved to a large extent that Obama’s leading strategy in the war on terror was right. Obama is an anti-war president and the death of bin Laden testified to his determination on anti-terrorism. However, the largest difference between him and former President Bush is that the latter, encouraged by his assistants, suddenly decided that Iraq was the biggest target of the war on terror after only one and a half years, launching a new war that caused the collapse of the U.S. and deteriorated its power for pursuing the real culprit behind 9/11 and al-Qaida.
When Obama took office, he had two wars on his hands. He didn’t abandon either, but revised Bush’s strategy by giving up some big empty plans. These included “rebuilding the country” in Afghanistan and Iraq, and changing to unmanned aerial vehicle attacks and quick-turnover plans like cooperating with Pakistan on anti-terrorism information gathering. Obama is truly a pragmatist. He doesn’t have some super-ambitious new conservative think tank. He has focused on how to centralize resources and accomplish goals during the economic recession and the collapse of national strength caused by wars. To use a management phrase, he thought about how to “get things done.”
Therefore, the first and foremost goal of the war on terror was defined by Obama as “capturing or shooting bin Laden.” This strategic transfer finally paid off; the war on terror comes to an end. The United States will keep combating terrorism, but “the war on terror” will probably disappear from the media spotlight.
What we should see is that bin Laden’s death means that America will arrange the layout of anti-terrorism more comprehensively; more U.S. armed forces will be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and the United States will depend more on information-gathering to defend its global power. Obama has announced the appointment of former CIA Director Leon Panetta as the Secretary of Defense and the appointment of the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, as CIA director. The collaboration between the U.S. military and CIA is evident in these titles.
The retracement of U.S. armed forces and intelligence expansion around the world will change the world’s military political power all around. For example, if the previous United States was the world police and liked street patrols and combating hostile forces, the future United States will be the world police that rely on information and monitoring and depend on precise strikes by special forces at critical times.
The military and strategic transformation of America the superpower will spur other countries in the world to transform. In this sense, bin Laden took away an era of anti-terrorism and let the whole world have a new start.
Next article![]( "Snake, Hydra or Mold?")