Bin Laden’s Death: No Reward of Re-election

Bin Laden is dead, and the United States is turning back to its economic troubles again. In a paradoxical twist, the fact that fear of terrorism is fading in the United States could diminish Obama’s prospects of re-election.

The gesture was noble and right: Before president Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden late on Sunday evening, he had called his predecessor, George W. Bush, and personally informed him of the success in the fight against terrorism. Obama also explicitly mentioned Bush in his speech. Obama assured the nation “just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11,” that the United States “is not, and never will be, at war with Islam.” Bin Laden was “not a Muslim leader” but “a mass murderer of Muslims,” said Obama. Bush also said this on a regular basis.

In fact, Obama is only successful in the War on Terror — which, as a matter of fact, is no longer called that — when he proves to be an apt pupil of his predecessor. Obama intensified the drone war that was started by Bush against targets of the al-Qaida terrorist network and against the Taliban in Pakistan. The CIA intelligence services’ undeclared war has thinned out al-Qaida’s leadership and significantly reduced its operational effectiveness — in doing so, it has made the United States and the world a safer place.

The operation in Abbottabad was made possible by information obtained in interrogations of terrorist suspects in the Guantánamo prison camp and in secret prisons by the CIA years ago. Contrary to what Obama promised shortly after taking office, the prison camp still exists in Cuba, and will continue to exist for the indefinite future. It is not just in this respect that Obama has, as it were, made inner peace with Bush’s war on terrorism: In Afghanistan, Obama has copied Bush’s strategy on terror and counter-insurgency in Iraq, from troop reinforcement to leadership personnel. Obama had rejected this strategy vehemently as a new senator and presidential candidate.

Bin Laden’s death does not automatically mean the imminent end to the war on terrorism. The terrorist network, which has disintegrated into independent cells, remains dangerous as a matrix of evil, even under new — or even without — leadership. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States and its allies had to bring about peace and economic development so that these countries can develop self-supporting stability and sustainable growth. After all, failed states in the Muslim-Arab world are still breeding grounds and safe havens for Islamic terrorist organizations.

The Right Commands Given

There will be the usual debate in Washington about the pace of the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Obama will probably follow military advice and refuse to comply with the left-wing Democrats’ call for rapid withdrawal. So far, Obama has made the right choices in military decisions: In the liberation of hostages from pirates’ hands and in bomb and drone attacks in Libya. Even during a Special Forces operation against bin Laden, the president did not shy away from risk and gave the right commands.

However, Washington must re-examine the geo-strategic importance of the Hindu Kush. After bin Laden’s death, the question of whether Pakistan is part of the solution or part of the problem in the fight against Islamic terrorism is as pressing as ever. Washington has been lending billions of dollars of military and civilian aid to Pakistan for many years, so that the teetering, nuclear-armed country does not fall into the hands of radical Muslims. However, during the attack against bin Laden, Washington had to maintain the utmost secrecy for fear that the operation could otherwise still fail at the last second.

In the meantime, China is trying to get Pakistan and Afghanistan on its side and repress the influence of Washington in the Hindu Kush. Is Beijing putting up with the rise of Islam in Pakistan or even supporting it, just to virtually push Washington out of its neighboring countries? Was George W. Bush’s historic compromise with India, which sends troops to Afghanistan, the correct geo-strategic “bet” in the Hindu Kush and in South Asia at all?

The consequences of U.S. domestic policy following the death of U.S. public enemy number one are probably easier to predict than the consequences of U.S. foreign and security policy: they should be minor. George H. W. Bush lost the election against the largely unknown Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992 despite his magnificent victory against Saddam Hussein, because the economy did not pick up. For Obama, the courageous operation against bin Laden means little in the face of enormous national debt, the gaping hole in the budget and high unemployment rates.

In a paradoxical twist, the fact that fear of terrorism is fading further in the United States could diminish Obama’s prospects of re-election. The phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid!” led Clinton to the White House in 1992. This message is just as true in 2012.