After the Fall of Osama bin Laden, Now What?

The American TIME Magazine recently printed a picture of Osama bin Laden and across the picture they printed a red “X” mark, signifying that bin Laden had been gotten rid of, that he is gone forever. The publication had previously used this means of expression toward the end of World War II, when the very same mark fell upon the face of Hitler after he killed himself in his infamous bunker beneath the German capital of Berlin. But this symbol registers as a major enigma when unpacking the implied equivalence between two wars — the war against Nazism and the war against terrorism.

The first war was a war like any other, fought between political entities, between nations and empires, over economic interests and spheres of influence. Issues did not arise in World War II that had not arisen previously. Perhaps the mass killings were more severe, as the technology of homicide had developed greatly over time — also, perhaps, as the tenacious pursuit of ideological goals came to make mass killing seem more advantageous, even virtuous. The United States did not find any moral problem in using atomic bombs against Japan after they had put an end to Hitler.

This second war is certainly different. Gone are the states and nations, at least if we disregard the possible collusion between Pakistani intelligence, the Taliban movement, and the leaders of certain terrorist groups — among them Osama bin Laden, who lived within plain sight and sound of the Pakistani authorities. Nevertheless, the war against bin Laden did not pit the United States and its allies against Pakistan. What we know is that both of these countries considered the other to be an ally, if only strategically. The borders of this war are not defined by the place where the fighting is taking place as much as they are defined by the impetus that led to conflict. Over the last 20 years, and especially since Sept. 11, the war against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations became a war on terrorism itself, its abbreviated version being the war against Osama bin Laden.

The question now: Was the killing of bin Laden analogous to the killing of Hitler — which spelled the end of Nazism and fascism, even if there remained parties that continued to believe in their ideals — insofar as the fall of the amir, the mujahid, the shaykh will be taken to mark the culmination of one historical chapter and the opening of a new one?

Here we find two schools of thought. The first: that the killing of bin Laden was a sort of tautological redundancy. The al-Qaida organization was suffering from weakness and structural defects, as the CIA had succeeded in capturing its leaders one after another. Finally it was Osama bin Laden’s turn to be captured. Al-Qaida’s weakness had also arisen from a withdrawal of popular support, particularly following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, as well as from the inclination of groups within Afghanistan’s Taliban movement to distance themselves from the organization. Of all the things that presaged the downfall of this organization that strove to transform the Arab and Islamic worlds — or even the entire world — most significant was that young Muslims did not favor the ignorant and closed-minded methods of Osama bin Laden, which did not succeed in liberating any Arab or Islamic country. A more effective method of change was discovered in the recent “peaceful” protests participated in by millions. And change really is what happened in these recent months. Simply put, the ideology of bin Laden no longer has a market within its traditional circles of recruitment. It has met its replacement in the ballot box.

Yet in perfect contrast to that, equating the killing of Osama bin Laden with the end of the age of terrorism is not merely inaccurate or exaggerated; it is not in the least bit true. For what brought us Osama bin Laden as the leader of a global movement against the Western world and against the current notions of modernity in the Arab and Islamic worlds cannot be attributed to him personally. Nor can it even be attributed, strictly speaking, to the ideology that he embraced and convinced many Muslims around the world to embrace. Rather, fundamental contradictions exist between the interests of the Western and Islamic worlds, foremost among them the question of Palestine, and on the other hand we have witnessed disputes with the Arab and Islamic elites over the trajectory of life and politics in Arab and Islamic societies.

Now this entire issue may be extracted from its particular context and situated upon more objective grounds, relating back to the confusion felt by peoples and nations caught between their religion or way of life and the prevailing global systems promoting modernity, civilization, the separation between religion and state, and the equality of citizenship among people. Here we see there is not the slightest reason to claim the end of the war on terrorism, firstly because Osama bin Laden was a kidney disease patient and no longer an operationally effective leader of al-Qaida — there were other leaders handling the work in his stead. Secondly, because al-Qaida’s views were no longer being broadcast solely by the principal organization but also by various groups and associations in Iraq, the Levant, and North Africa, all of which had announced their affiliation with al-Qaida despite not having been asked by anyone to do such a thing.

Is al-Qaida alive or dead? And did the killing of Osama bin Laden mark the end of the organization or the beginning of a new life without its founding leader? The issue calls for observing, for monitoring, for remaining on the lookout for whatever comes to pass in the Arab public square. Perhaps it was the London magazine The Economist that best summarized the situation when, last week, it printed a picture of Osama bin Laden on its cover along with the title, “Now, kill his dream.” For the issue now is no longer a person suffering from kidney disease who emerges every now and again with recordings of his zealous rhetoric. The issue is that this man is a dream, and that this dream — for one reason or another — is able to move tens or even hundreds of young men to embrace death, as its givers as well as its recipients, in battles extended across the world.

The assassination of bin Laden came after a cost of about a trillion dollars to the United States, including the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq plus a war extending across the entire world that nobody knows how long will last. Yet the true cost cannot only be measured in material losses; an additional and enormous cost — larger than expected — came in the form of the thwarting of globalization, a process that might otherwise have continued. Put simply, Osama bin Laden and his cohorts succeeded in halting the wheel of history, or at least in forcing it into deceleration, by leading the world into an economic crisis. This may have been the primary objective of the Sept. 11 operation and the similar operations that followed it, to paralyze the global economy — which means, in large part, the economies of the United States and the European Union — while regarding the possible consequences of such a paralysis as mere details. The meaning of all this? Osama bin Laden will continue to be with us. We do not know much about this coming era, but the specter of this man will surely remain with us, overseeing everything.