Snake, Hydra or Mold?

A week after Osama bin Laden was liquidated with two SEAL bullets, my 12-year-old son asked me what exactly this terrorist had done to keep his name in the headlines indefinitely. Apparently he had discussed the topic with his classmates, ultimately reaching the consensus that they could not understand the reasons for such posthumous attention. For them the Sept. 11 attacks are events from another era that only partially justify the interest extended today. Moreover, in the last video released by the Pentagon, we see Osama sitting in front of an antediluvian television set switching the channels in a room with empty walls. Not a terrifying leader of international terrorism, but rather some retired man.

At first, I was surprised that American seventh graders would discuss such complicated matters instead of arguing about the pluses and minuses of Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. But then it struck me how difficult it actually is to determine the significance of the “bin Laden” phenomenon. Although Osama’s lifeless body became a feast for the fish in the Indian Ocean, the terrorist franchise he created was too successful to just write off at once. As of yet, nobody takes it upon him or herself to predict whether al-Qaida will be like a snake, Hydra or mold.

Bin Laden and Co.’s terrorist urges took the lives of many people in numerous attacks, the worst of which struck Manhattan 10 years ago.

This tragic bit of history is the easiest to explain, too, as it fits perfectly into the simplistic division of the world into good and bad. The indirect consequences of Osama’s evil genius, however, manifestly surpass the direct damages and are far harder to recapitulate. I think, for example, that the victims of the last two wars belong to this category. Not that bin Laden ordered the U. S Army’s invasion of Iraq, but if it had not been for him, Bush and Cheney would have found it hard to convince the world that such a military adventure was justified. The situation in Afghanistan is far from flourishing, either. The deepening crisis there is my personal greatest disappointment in Barack Obama. Are the American presidents to blame, or did al-Qaida put them in an impossible situation? You tell me. I have no short answer to this question — even if it is clear today that Bush certainly lied in 2003.

It’s a fact that the U.S. military expenses have increased by 70 percent since 2001. Right now they are $700 billion annually, or 40 percent of all the money the rest of the world spends on defense. There can be no arguing when it comes to the great profits that U.S. weapon manufacturers have made. Are we supposed to see a deep conspiracy there, or just fair opportunism?

Osama bin Laden changed the U.S. in the last decade, and not for the better. Security measures turned into a phenomenon sometimes leaning toward paranoia among the other problems it causes. This Monday alone, three flights were redirected on suspicions that a terrorist might be among the passengers. Days after Osama’s death, two Muslims were asked to deplane in Memphis, Tennessee, as the crew didn’t like their looks. When an al-Qaida plan for an attack on a U.S. train came to light, a senator suggested that a list of people not allowed to travel by train be compiled. A similar list concerning flight passengers was compiled a long time ago and continues to be a source of mistakes. Another indirect consequence of the terrorist psychosis is the wall that first Bush and then Obama built along the southern border chasing the illegal immigrants out of the country. Is this for better or worse? Each coin has two sides: We can have a long argument on the subject.

The topic of the deceased Osama’s global impact is enormous. I’m merely suggesting what some of the questions discussed may be. Here is one more: Can we say that the bloody persecution of the terror labeled al-Qaida has already irreversibly disgusted the large majority of the 1.5-billion-strong Muslim population of the world?

I’d say that what the Americans got from their revenge on bin Laden was just a transient satisfaction. The questions remaining outnumber the answers found — and not only the 12-year-olds are curious.