U.S. Politics Post-Osama
America’s #1 most wanted person was finally killed early on Sunday, May 1 2011. This was Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who in the U.S.’s view was most responsible for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers in New York and the [attack on the] Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, which killed around 6,000 civilians. Osama bin Laden was officially declared dead by President Barack Obama.
Ten years was the time required by the U.S. to hunt this person, Osama bin Laden. It took a long time to attain peace and world security; meanwhile, Pakistan, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan were victimized. It must be underlined that this hunt, with the reward of $25 million or around Rp 200 billion, was the U.S.’s foremost policy, no matter who the president was.
President Obama might still enjoy the “honeymoon” of this extraordinary success for a four-month period in the future. For a short time it appears that there will be ripples of revenge from groups or even individuals that regard Osama as a fighter or even an inspirational idol; although, in fact, those actions in the end will be the perfect completion to close the history book on the al-Qaida organization.
Who Benefits
The death of Osama bin Laden in effect does not have too many implications for U.S. security. The most fundamental problem involving U.S. security is actually the domino effect from U.S. foreign policy itself. The death of Osama bin Laden is actually only a “micro-organic” solution to U.S. security, which might not even slightly touch the macro-global quantifications of terrorism that threaten Uncle Sam’s country.
Indeed, bin Laden’s death actually damages U.S. global political interests. With Osama’s death, the U.S. has reduced their reasons for panning the purses of money and sources of oil in the regions of the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, by turning the figure of Osama bin Laden into the main reason for imperialism in those regions.
It is a different matter with President Barack Obama. Clearly, the death of bin Laden is very positive, particularly for Obama’s image in the next U.S. presidential election, which will be held soon. The death of bin Laden also has added a bit to the confidence of the American public, which was earlier disappointed with the economic crisis that knotted up this superpower.
There are at least two reasons that it was important for President Barack Obama to grab the right moment for annihilating Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011: first, the political campaign to restore public belief in the performance of the Obama government — indeed, even more than that, getting off to a running start in the campaign for the U.S. presidential election that will be held two years from now. Second, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO troops’ bombing of Libya has received a negative evaluation from the international community.
When the beginning of the revolution got rolling in Libya, we still strongly remembered how we condemned the behavior of Moammar Gadhafi, who viciously killed his own people. However, the actions of NATO — under the command of the U.S., its director in the campaign to protect civilians — lately seem to be seen as dual-faced. This was the issue when the attack targeted his family and even Gadhafi himself. Indeed, in the end, the motivation of NATO’s attack is to attain control of Libya’s oil.
After the collapse of communism in 1989, the main agenda that was rolled out by the West, in this case the U.S. and its main ally Israel, was democratization. It started from Tunisia, Egypt and continued to resonate to Libya, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and other Middle East countries. With the spirit of democratization, the U.S. actually received a lot of fees and even tributes from countries that were undergoing democratic transition.
Looking at the symptoms of an emerging revolution, the process and the time after the collapse of the authoritarian regime in countries that experience revolution, it appears that democracy really is a “political product” that is offered by its sellers with the hope that many customers will order and even buy it. The symptoms of a revolution like that are usually easy to see from anywhere that the transfer of power does not disturb U.S. hegemony.
With the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama hopes to scoop up the sympathy of the international community, especially that of countries in the Middle East. If the sympathy of the international population can be regained, it is also hoped that NATO’s invasion of Libya can again receive a positive perception.
According to Jean Sasson in “Growing Up Bin Laden” (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009), the research of based on the account of Najwa Ghanem (Osama’s first wife) and Omar (his fourth son from his first wife), it appeared that the figure of Osama bin Laden was still a great mystery that had not yet been captured in a perfect and comprehensive way.
Osama bin Laden is only a party parody, an addition that livens up the U.S.’ argument for its main agendas — power over sources of oil and cynicism toward “the Third Heritage,”* to use the terminology of Professor Ahmad Suhelmi. This argument is considered to be irritating propaganda spreading the marriage between the civilizations of capitalism and Zionism. The slogan “world peace without Osama bin Laden” does not appear to be a cure for the disease of terrorism that has now spread.
*Editor’s note: The “third heritage” refers to the influence of Islam on Western political thought.
Ten years was the time required by the U.S. to hunt this person, Osama bin Laden. It took a long time to attain peace and world security; meanwhile, Pakistan, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan were victimized. It must be underlined that this hunt, with the reward of $25 million or around Rp 200 billion, was the U.S.’s foremost policy, no matter who the president was.
President Obama might still enjoy the “honeymoon” of this extraordinary success for a four-month period in the future. For a short time it appears that there will be ripples of revenge from groups or even individuals that regard Osama as a fighter or even an inspirational idol; although, in fact, those actions in the end will be the perfect completion to close the history book on the al-Qaida organization.
Who Benefits
The death of Osama bin Laden in effect does not have too many implications for U.S. security. The most fundamental problem involving U.S. security is actually the domino effect from U.S. foreign policy itself. The death of Osama bin Laden is actually only a “micro-organic” solution to U.S. security, which might not even slightly touch the macro-global quantifications of terrorism that threaten Uncle Sam’s country.
Indeed, bin Laden’s death actually damages U.S. global political interests. With Osama’s death, the U.S. has reduced their reasons for panning the purses of money and sources of oil in the regions of the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, by turning the figure of Osama bin Laden into the main reason for imperialism in those regions.
It is a different matter with President Barack Obama. Clearly, the death of bin Laden is very positive, particularly for Obama’s image in the next U.S. presidential election, which will be held soon. The death of bin Laden also has added a bit to the confidence of the American public, which was earlier disappointed with the economic crisis that knotted up this superpower.
There are at least two reasons that it was important for President Barack Obama to grab the right moment for annihilating Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011: first, the political campaign to restore public belief in the performance of the Obama government — indeed, even more than that, getting off to a running start in the campaign for the U.S. presidential election that will be held two years from now. Second, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO troops’ bombing of Libya has received a negative evaluation from the international community.
When the beginning of the revolution got rolling in Libya, we still strongly remembered how we condemned the behavior of Moammar Gadhafi, who viciously killed his own people. However, the actions of NATO — under the command of the U.S., its director in the campaign to protect civilians — lately seem to be seen as dual-faced. This was the issue when the attack targeted his family and even Gadhafi himself. Indeed, in the end, the motivation of NATO’s attack is to attain control of Libya’s oil.
After the collapse of communism in 1989, the main agenda that was rolled out by the West, in this case the U.S. and its main ally Israel, was democratization. It started from Tunisia, Egypt and continued to resonate to Libya, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and other Middle East countries. With the spirit of democratization, the U.S. actually received a lot of fees and even tributes from countries that were undergoing democratic transition.
Looking at the symptoms of an emerging revolution, the process and the time after the collapse of the authoritarian regime in countries that experience revolution, it appears that democracy really is a “political product” that is offered by its sellers with the hope that many customers will order and even buy it. The symptoms of a revolution like that are usually easy to see from anywhere that the transfer of power does not disturb U.S. hegemony.
With the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama hopes to scoop up the sympathy of the international community, especially that of countries in the Middle East. If the sympathy of the international population can be regained, it is also hoped that NATO’s invasion of Libya can again receive a positive perception.
According to Jean Sasson in “Growing Up Bin Laden” (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009), the research of based on the account of Najwa Ghanem (Osama’s first wife) and Omar (his fourth son from his first wife), it appeared that the figure of Osama bin Laden was still a great mystery that had not yet been captured in a perfect and comprehensive way.
Osama bin Laden is only a party parody, an addition that livens up the U.S.’ argument for its main agendas — power over sources of oil and cynicism toward “the Third Heritage,”* to use the terminology of Professor Ahmad Suhelmi. This argument is considered to be irritating propaganda spreading the marriage between the civilizations of capitalism and Zionism. The slogan “world peace without Osama bin Laden” does not appear to be a cure for the disease of terrorism that has now spread.
*Editor’s note: The “third heritage” refers to the influence of Islam on Western political thought.