The Second Death of al-Qaida's Founder
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 2 May 2011
by (link to original)
Luck can sometimes result in good things. The man who embodied international jihad died at the moment when the “Arab Spring” had just dealt a blow to the totalitarian fantasy. Since the Arab peoples are revolting in the name of democracy — and not in the name of Islam or for a return to the caliphate advocated by al-Qaida — Osama bin Laden represented a dying political breed.
It’s almost as if it were the al-Qaida founder’s second death that President Barack Obama announced on Sunday night when he stated that U.S. commandos had killed bin Laden in Pakistan.
The first death notice — the political one — of the Saudi dissident could be read in the slogans of demonstrators in Tunisia and Cairo. What was seen there was not hatred of the West, hatred of the “crusaders and the Jews,” hatred of America, or any of the usual rallying cries of bin Laden; rather, there was a desire for freedom and democracy — two “values” abhorred by the jihadist leader.
In the Arab world, at least, bin Laden had lost the battle; the current revolt doesn’t celebrate Islamism, the deadly illusion that, according to the head of al-Qaida, called for a return to a caliphate and to the origins of Islam as the answer to all of the problems in Muslim countries — even those of the world.
Bin Laden died at the moment when the capacity for mobilization and training of Islamism is in decline. This does not mean that there won’t be more attacks. Nor does it mean that al-Qaida and its Maghreb and Saharan affiliates will no longer hold sway. There will always be groups reclaiming the mark to kill and to ravage. Morocco has just experienced this.
This blind cult of violence is not the only legacy left by bin Laden. The man who disappeared left a deep impression — for the worse — at the beginning of the 21st century. Osama bin Laden, the son of a wealthy Saudi family who made his debut in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, has shaped our strategic landscape.
Because they felt obliged to respond to the 9/11 attacks with war, the United States is still embroiled in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These sagas have not only exhausted them militarily and fiscally, but also permanently tarnished their image in the Arab-Muslim world.
President Obama is going to profit immensely in the United States with the elimination of bin Laden; nevertheless, he remains no less entangled in Afghanistan.
The legacy remains. Al-Qaida has shown that a small group can commit a large-scale crime. If bin Laden, armed with a chemical or biological weapon, could have killed not only 3,000 but three million people in New York, he would have done so.
This prospect has raised the fight against terrorism to a top priority. And, on behalf of it, in America, Europe and elsewhere, the obsession with security has led to limiting civil liberties.
We aren’t finished with bin Laden just yet.
It’s almost as if it were the al-Qaida founder’s second death that President Barack Obama announced on Sunday night when he stated that U.S. commandos had killed bin Laden in Pakistan.
The first death notice — the political one — of the Saudi dissident could be read in the slogans of demonstrators in Tunisia and Cairo. What was seen there was not hatred of the West, hatred of the “crusaders and the Jews,” hatred of America, or any of the usual rallying cries of bin Laden; rather, there was a desire for freedom and democracy — two “values” abhorred by the jihadist leader.
In the Arab world, at least, bin Laden had lost the battle; the current revolt doesn’t celebrate Islamism, the deadly illusion that, according to the head of al-Qaida, called for a return to a caliphate and to the origins of Islam as the answer to all of the problems in Muslim countries — even those of the world.
Bin Laden died at the moment when the capacity for mobilization and training of Islamism is in decline. This does not mean that there won’t be more attacks. Nor does it mean that al-Qaida and its Maghreb and Saharan affiliates will no longer hold sway. There will always be groups reclaiming the mark to kill and to ravage. Morocco has just experienced this.
This blind cult of violence is not the only legacy left by bin Laden. The man who disappeared left a deep impression — for the worse — at the beginning of the 21st century. Osama bin Laden, the son of a wealthy Saudi family who made his debut in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, has shaped our strategic landscape.
Because they felt obliged to respond to the 9/11 attacks with war, the United States is still embroiled in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These sagas have not only exhausted them militarily and fiscally, but also permanently tarnished their image in the Arab-Muslim world.
President Obama is going to profit immensely in the United States with the elimination of bin Laden; nevertheless, he remains no less entangled in Afghanistan.
The legacy remains. Al-Qaida has shown that a small group can commit a large-scale crime. If bin Laden, armed with a chemical or biological weapon, could have killed not only 3,000 but three million people in New York, he would have done so.
This prospect has raised the fight against terrorism to a top priority. And, on behalf of it, in America, Europe and elsewhere, the obsession with security has led to limiting civil liberties.
We aren’t finished with bin Laden just yet.
Next article![]( "Al-Qaida: The Next Generation")
