Beyond bin Laden
In the United States they have already arrived at the conclusion that they do not have to be ashamed of the way they killed Osama bin Laden. If he was armed or not, if he used his third and youngest wife as a human shield to cover himself from bullets, if the operation violated Pakistan’s sovereignty — all of it is irrelevant. What is important is that the villain is good and dead and that his body is resting deep in the ocean. After taking into account all of the factors, I believe that they are right.
Bin Laden had no qualms about using the eight young Muslims who piloted the airplanes that destroyed the Twin Towers in New York as human projectiles. He also did not worry too much for the lives and the families of those who found themselves in the skyscrapers or in the hijacked airplanes. To him it was more than justifiable, even a heroic act, to plant explosives in the trains of Madrid, taking away the lives of nurses, teachers, citizens. If this terrorist did not value the lives of others, he should have been prepared to lose his. If we begin to develop the argument that the life of an American is worth more or worth less than the life of a believer in Islam we will have moved backward many centuries in history.
Some, including Mexican editorial writers, have manifested their indignation at the cold-blooded manner in which the Navy SEALs liquidated Osama bin Laden. They point out that he should have been arrested, taken to trial and been sentenced according to his case. Under judicial and human rights logic, this would have been the correct path to take. Under the logic of war — the war that was first declared by bin Laden — and the logic of politics, leaving him alive would have been a first-rate tactical error. There are crimes against humanity, and among them terrorism is one of the most predominant. The deaths that terrorism provokes do not differentiate between rich and poor, elderly and children.
But some have asked themselves: If the American forces had bin Laden in their hands and defenseless, wouldn’t it have been better to arrest him and bring him to trial? In the end, other similar criminals have been brought to justice, such as the Nazis in Nuremberg or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Maybe the United States would have received an extra moral point by sending the message: We treat you in a civilized manner, judging you and giving you the opportunity to defend yourself, while you — Osama bin Laden — did not give such an opportunity to those who had to throw themselves out the windows of the World Trade Center.
However, in the logic of war and politics, putting the terrorist on such an important platform would have been a great error. From the start, many questions about the value of the trial — above all in the Islamic world — would rule out that this individual could have true possibilities of defending himself under American laws. He would have said, like he said in his videos, that the United States deserved the bloodbath on September 11. The family members of those who died at ground zero, in the Atocha train station or in Nairobi would have been filled with frustration when they compared the justice and humane treatment that the terrorist would have received and the inhumane and unjust way that the terrorist massacred their loved ones. The Republicans, especially the tea partiers, would have destroyed the political image of Obama, marking him as a “flip-flopper” in the defense of his people. And finally, the most radical elements of Islam in the entire world would have reaffirmed their conviction that the West and the infidels represent a demon that should be fought at all costs, which would have fed new waves of terrorism.
In this context, the decision of the Washington government to order its special agents to drop down out of helicopters, enter into bin Laden’s house and execute him is interesting and even enigmatic. It would have been simpler to shoot the living quarters with missiles from the air at a short distance and then recover the ashes afterwards. What was the reason behind entering his bedroom? Was it a surgical operation to save the lives of the rest of bin Laden’s family, a way to preserve the terrorist’s documents and belongings, or both?
The eradication of Osama bin Laden does not imply the end of the al-Qaida network. As we have seen in Mexico, the deaths of important leaders of organized crime have not given way to the disappearance of the Juarez or Gulf Cartels. Although it is true that the deaths do distract and disorganize the cartels for a little while, normally these organizations remain active until their reason for being is resolved, such as in the cases of the IRA in Ireland, the Red Brigades in Italy or the Black September in Palestine. It seems that the time for al-Qaida to retire from the scene has not arrived yet. Although the death of bin Laden is significant in and of itself, other effects may soon come into play, such as a swift removal of American troops from Afghanistan.
Bin Laden had no qualms about using the eight young Muslims who piloted the airplanes that destroyed the Twin Towers in New York as human projectiles. He also did not worry too much for the lives and the families of those who found themselves in the skyscrapers or in the hijacked airplanes. To him it was more than justifiable, even a heroic act, to plant explosives in the trains of Madrid, taking away the lives of nurses, teachers, citizens. If this terrorist did not value the lives of others, he should have been prepared to lose his. If we begin to develop the argument that the life of an American is worth more or worth less than the life of a believer in Islam we will have moved backward many centuries in history.
Some, including Mexican editorial writers, have manifested their indignation at the cold-blooded manner in which the Navy SEALs liquidated Osama bin Laden. They point out that he should have been arrested, taken to trial and been sentenced according to his case. Under judicial and human rights logic, this would have been the correct path to take. Under the logic of war — the war that was first declared by bin Laden — and the logic of politics, leaving him alive would have been a first-rate tactical error. There are crimes against humanity, and among them terrorism is one of the most predominant. The deaths that terrorism provokes do not differentiate between rich and poor, elderly and children.
But some have asked themselves: If the American forces had bin Laden in their hands and defenseless, wouldn’t it have been better to arrest him and bring him to trial? In the end, other similar criminals have been brought to justice, such as the Nazis in Nuremberg or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Maybe the United States would have received an extra moral point by sending the message: We treat you in a civilized manner, judging you and giving you the opportunity to defend yourself, while you — Osama bin Laden — did not give such an opportunity to those who had to throw themselves out the windows of the World Trade Center.
However, in the logic of war and politics, putting the terrorist on such an important platform would have been a great error. From the start, many questions about the value of the trial — above all in the Islamic world — would rule out that this individual could have true possibilities of defending himself under American laws. He would have said, like he said in his videos, that the United States deserved the bloodbath on September 11. The family members of those who died at ground zero, in the Atocha train station or in Nairobi would have been filled with frustration when they compared the justice and humane treatment that the terrorist would have received and the inhumane and unjust way that the terrorist massacred their loved ones. The Republicans, especially the tea partiers, would have destroyed the political image of Obama, marking him as a “flip-flopper” in the defense of his people. And finally, the most radical elements of Islam in the entire world would have reaffirmed their conviction that the West and the infidels represent a demon that should be fought at all costs, which would have fed new waves of terrorism.
In this context, the decision of the Washington government to order its special agents to drop down out of helicopters, enter into bin Laden’s house and execute him is interesting and even enigmatic. It would have been simpler to shoot the living quarters with missiles from the air at a short distance and then recover the ashes afterwards. What was the reason behind entering his bedroom? Was it a surgical operation to save the lives of the rest of bin Laden’s family, a way to preserve the terrorist’s documents and belongings, or both?
The eradication of Osama bin Laden does not imply the end of the al-Qaida network. As we have seen in Mexico, the deaths of important leaders of organized crime have not given way to the disappearance of the Juarez or Gulf Cartels. Although it is true that the deaths do distract and disorganize the cartels for a little while, normally these organizations remain active until their reason for being is resolved, such as in the cases of the IRA in Ireland, the Red Brigades in Italy or the Black September in Palestine. It seems that the time for al-Qaida to retire from the scene has not arrived yet. Although the death of bin Laden is significant in and of itself, other effects may soon come into play, such as a swift removal of American troops from Afghanistan.