Bin Laden’s Death, or the Opening of Pandora’s Box
Bin Laden’s death has allowed the 10-year-old American counterterrorism policy to yield positive results for Obama, who needs to deal with the issues of domestic economic recovery, expanding employment and the multiple foreign policy predicaments that the United States faces.
No matter how much the international media cheer the greatness of gunning down bin Laden, and no matter how vigilant America is in facing a possible terrorist attack, America in the near future will likely endure a wave of retaliatory terrorist attacks from al-Qaida. Even if terrorist organizations cannot take action in the continental United States, American targets overseas as well as other pro-American targets will likely become the first targets of retaliatory strikes.
Unlike Saddam, bin Laden has fanatical supporters around the world. According to his supporters, because the gunning down of bin Laden was so sudden, the sooner this fact is confirmed, the more western media can play it up, and the possibility of reprisal attacks will be greater and come even sooner. For retaliatory terrorist attacks, the target of choice will be especially symbolic.. Embassies, government posts and important politicians will be the first to face the unprecedented risk of a surprise attack and, because of a lack of careful planning and organization, this round of attacks will display, senselessly, all the so-called characteristics of a holy war.
Obviously, facing the post-bin Laden era, America is not only unprepared, but the entire world also lacks the required mental armament. The trend of counterterrorism in the future does not look promising. Looking at the present situation, the new American anti-terror strategy faces many uncertainties.
First, can the United States maintain a global coalition to fight terrorism? In 2001, the United States relied on the President Bush’s intrepid style of choosing sides to form an international coalition against terrorism. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” This unilateral and reckless style greatly displeased many countries in the world, but at the time of 9/11 and the heightened paranoia over terrorism, considering the sense that America had suffered greatly, many countries could not help but participate. Now that bin Laden has been gunned down, each country’s government has finally found a way out from under the bitterness of the deepening financial crisis. The coalition against terrorism faces risk of rupture; and Iran stated after bin Laden’s death that America no longer has an excuse to station troops in the Middle East as a signal to Iran. The United States alone wants to sustain a coalition of counterterrorism and peace; this is undoubtedly a wild fantasy.
Second, can Obama consolidate the Republican and Democratic parties’ consensus against terrorism? America’s counterterrorism posture has held until today with bin Laden as a unifying symbol of danger. As far as Americans are concerned, as long as bin Laden lives, the 9/11 nightmare will not disappear from their hearts. Bin Laden’s existence, to a certain extent, replaced the cold war mentality of previous years. No matter whether it is the Republican or Democratic, a party need only raise the topic of bin Laden and it will immediately breakthrough countless domestic political obstacles, and blaze a new path for its own foreign policy. Now that bin Laden has been eliminated, unless the United States suffers another 9/11- type terror attack, it will be very difficult to find a single factor to unify the country behind the president’s foreign policy.
Third, where should Obama’s counterterrorism strategy figure in his national security strategy? Ever since 2001, the previous administration’s national security strategy reports have all placed counterterrorism and the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons as the top goals, as well as preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is also closely linked to counterterrorism. In the post-bin Laden era, how will America prioritize counterterrorism in its national security strategy? How will it balance its counterterrorism goals and the relationships with other goals? These will likely be a hot topic in next year’s American presidential election. In this sense, even if Obama in his speeches does not reduce the counterterrorism position in American foreign policy, America’s counterterrorism nerve will likely be in remission, and this will likely again be the beginning of another lesson for the United States.
No matter how much the international media cheer the greatness of gunning down bin Laden, and no matter how vigilant America is in facing a possible terrorist attack, America in the near future will likely endure a wave of retaliatory terrorist attacks from al-Qaida. Even if terrorist organizations cannot take action in the continental United States, American targets overseas as well as other pro-American targets will likely become the first targets of retaliatory strikes.
Unlike Saddam, bin Laden has fanatical supporters around the world. According to his supporters, because the gunning down of bin Laden was so sudden, the sooner this fact is confirmed, the more western media can play it up, and the possibility of reprisal attacks will be greater and come even sooner. For retaliatory terrorist attacks, the target of choice will be especially symbolic.. Embassies, government posts and important politicians will be the first to face the unprecedented risk of a surprise attack and, because of a lack of careful planning and organization, this round of attacks will display, senselessly, all the so-called characteristics of a holy war.
Obviously, facing the post-bin Laden era, America is not only unprepared, but the entire world also lacks the required mental armament. The trend of counterterrorism in the future does not look promising. Looking at the present situation, the new American anti-terror strategy faces many uncertainties.
First, can the United States maintain a global coalition to fight terrorism? In 2001, the United States relied on the President Bush’s intrepid style of choosing sides to form an international coalition against terrorism. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” This unilateral and reckless style greatly displeased many countries in the world, but at the time of 9/11 and the heightened paranoia over terrorism, considering the sense that America had suffered greatly, many countries could not help but participate. Now that bin Laden has been gunned down, each country’s government has finally found a way out from under the bitterness of the deepening financial crisis. The coalition against terrorism faces risk of rupture; and Iran stated after bin Laden’s death that America no longer has an excuse to station troops in the Middle East as a signal to Iran. The United States alone wants to sustain a coalition of counterterrorism and peace; this is undoubtedly a wild fantasy.
Second, can Obama consolidate the Republican and Democratic parties’ consensus against terrorism? America’s counterterrorism posture has held until today with bin Laden as a unifying symbol of danger. As far as Americans are concerned, as long as bin Laden lives, the 9/11 nightmare will not disappear from their hearts. Bin Laden’s existence, to a certain extent, replaced the cold war mentality of previous years. No matter whether it is the Republican or Democratic, a party need only raise the topic of bin Laden and it will immediately breakthrough countless domestic political obstacles, and blaze a new path for its own foreign policy. Now that bin Laden has been eliminated, unless the United States suffers another 9/11- type terror attack, it will be very difficult to find a single factor to unify the country behind the president’s foreign policy.
Third, where should Obama’s counterterrorism strategy figure in his national security strategy? Ever since 2001, the previous administration’s national security strategy reports have all placed counterterrorism and the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons as the top goals, as well as preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is also closely linked to counterterrorism. In the post-bin Laden era, how will America prioritize counterterrorism in its national security strategy? How will it balance its counterterrorism goals and the relationships with other goals? These will likely be a hot topic in next year’s American presidential election. In this sense, even if Obama in his speeches does not reduce the counterterrorism position in American foreign policy, America’s counterterrorism nerve will likely be in remission, and this will likely again be the beginning of another lesson for the United States.
Previous article![]( "Pakistani Chutzpah")