Geronimo Was Killed in Action

One day, I heartily thanked one of the Pentagon chiefs serving under George W. Bush for the war in Iraq.

He looked at me in surprise, and I explained that the more of their own and the blood of others the Americans shed in this country, the less the Russians would have to shed at home. Nodules started to play on his cheeks, but he said nothing.

There was a note of “tease” in my words, but, in fact, I said what I thought at the time and still think today. In Chechnya, for example, the situation began to stabilize immediately after the Americans invaded Iraq, thereby diverting the jihadist’s attention on themselves. And there, in Afghanistan, Washington actually paid and is now paying for those facing the Islamist terrorist threat not just with blood, but money and international standing.

One of the recent U.S. intelligence operations in Pakistan aimed at destroying the odious leader of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, arouses similar feelings. The common good, paid for by the United States. And they [the Americans] deserve appreciation for the tenacity, perseverance and professionalism of their intelligence and military men, for the political courage of President Barack Obama, who gave start to operation Neptune’s Spear, while it was still not clear who was behind the five meter walls of the “home-fortress” in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Another thing is that the success has spawned many questions. Most of them are not of a complimentary nature. To some of them, there are no intelligible answers.

It is well known, for example, that the operation was prepared in the strictest confidence and that the U.S. hadn’t warned anybody in the world, let alone Islamabad. On the one hand, it is clear that they were simply afraid to scare away the prey which they had tracked down for many months. On the other hand, the surveillance and the night raid by the U.S. Navy SEALs were conducted on the territory of another sovereign state, a strategic ally of America.

The question of how all of this agrees with the norms of international law arises. I asked this question of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, making sure that our American colleagues were in no hurry to ask about it. The answer boiled down to the simple fact that the current and previous U.S. presidents publicly proclaimed the person who organized the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001 “а legitimate target”.

The Americans have backdated the approval of the U.N. Security Council for a punitive raid against their “enemy number one”. I can’t tell if it bears any legal significance. In any case, a little later the United Nations asked the United States to explain why bin Laden was shot on the spot.

George W. Bush once said that it was necessary to take him “dead or alive”. This time the assault group allegedly had just such an order. With time, the picture of the battle and the behind-the-scenes confessions of the Americans tell that the raid was arranged to secure the destruction of the chief terrorist. He had no weapon in his hands and received two fatal wounds in the head and chest before his teenage daughter’s eyes. After making sure he was dead, the group commander reported: “The enemy — Geronimo — was killed in action”.

Geronimo is known to Americans as the leader of the Apache Indian tribe, who fought unsuccessfully against the colonialists in the late nineteenth century. For his fellows he was, of course, not a bandit nor a murderer but a human rights activist. Some people in the United States were quick to resent that his name was given to a terrorist.

The news of the death of bin Laden caused rapid triumph in the United States. Certainly, the White House hoped for this. Obama is already campaigning for re-election, and, presumably, the accuracy of the first report about the incident was sacrificed to political PR.

Of course, nobody will take Obama’s winning laurels away now. Polls indicate a rise in his popularity up to 10 percent. But it’s more than a year before the election, and its outcome can’t be considered predetermined. First of all, the economic indicators have not yet given the White House grounds for being optimistic.

Actually, we can’t talk of the victorious end of the war against al-Qaida yet. Obama himself never stops reminding us about that. Formally, the organization was beheaded, but it was built on a decentralized network principle, and there is no “backbone” that could be “broken.” Incidentally, it [al-Qaida] has already threatened that the Americans will wash their faces with “tears of blood” for the death of bin Laden.

Nevertheless, many representatives of the U.S. media, especially the left-wing liberal media, showed disapproving moods. They vied with each other to write about the fact that the death of the terrorists’ ringleader was inglorious and useless, leaving no ideological or political heritage. In support of that they refer to this year’s “Arab spring” that allegedly showed that the masses in the Middle East and North Africa have turned their backs on home-grown Islamic fundamentalists and their faces to the overseas liberal-democratic fundamentalists.

From the outside, such conclusions seem, at best, premature and untimely. At worst, it’s just self-deception. Another mirage, one of those that the Americans have been chasing after since the end of the Cold War, not willing to part with the illusion that everything in the world should happen solely on their volition.

In fact, the most surprising thing is how strongly this Saudi Wahhabi, Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, over his 54 years of life, had influenced the course of world events. Early in life he had fought against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan, armed and paid by the United States. Then he turned his weapon against the West, as “crusaders” were, in his eyes, no better than the Communists, at least on Muslim land.

Eventually, he and his jihadist followers lured the Americans first to the Afghan mountains, and then to the Iraqi desert, where they were much easier targets to be killed. And in 2004, he announced that his goal was “to bleed America to a state of bankruptcy.” Today, that threat seems much less fictitious than it did seven years ago. After a severe economic crisis America is in debt as in silks. In particular, it sleeps and dreams of how to take on their heels to get out faster from Afghanistan and Iraq.

The White House also wants to put an end to U.S. dependence on the import of foreign oil. If the troops that are now “providing security” of oil production and transportation return from the Persian Gulf to their homeland, won’t it be the same thing Osama bin Laden tried to achieve? As for the “Arab spring,” there is no doubt the people in the affected countries have long been dreaming of escaping from the kleptocratic hereditary tyrannies. But they still remember those who promoted and supported these regimes during the Cold War and whose crumbling foundations are collapsing now in the region.

It’s very difficult to tell from the outside who is now closer to the Maghreb revolutionaries, Osama or Obama. The Americans admit it. Yes, they expect to turn the course of events to their advantage and are trying to influence the youth in the region. But, the rhetoric of democratization and modern information technology are just the form, not content. The Islamists, in their countries, are also fighting for the hearts and minds of the young generation. And, unfortunately, it is only too well known what happens when old bottles are filled with young wine.