Osama Bin Laden: The Militant, The Myth

Osama Bin Laden’s death was a stunning development for people around the world. We are faced with many questions about what comes next. Is the world a safer place? Yes. Nevertheless, will soldiers in Afghanistan stop worrying about improvised explosive devices? Will airport security no longer require passengers to remove their shoes? Can the U.S. pull troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow? Is the War on Terror over? No, unfortunately. The clearest take-away from Bin Laden's death is some measure of solace for the victims of 9/11, the men and women of the armed services, and their families.

The emotional celebrations in front of the White House are understandably an important part of a national catharsis. However, the media's eagerness to capitalize on the charged national mood by offering a tidy summary is misleading. Although Bin Laden's death is undoubtedly a landmark in the War on Terror, it by no means represents crossing a finish line. We do not yet know how involved Bin Laden was in the training, financing, and planning of Al-Qaeda's operations in recent years. If he had become disconnected from the core leadership while on the lam, then his death may not cause a serious operational disruption to the group. The symbolic significance is undeniable, but on its own, still may not be sufficient to cause the collapse of the organization. Audrey Kurth Cronin, author of "How Terrorism Ends," argues that "decapitation" is usually not enough independent of other factors. The recent democratic uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa have done a great deal to de-legitimize Al-Qaeda's founding premise that only asymmetrical holy war can bring about change. Couple that shifting landscape with the dramatic increase in drone strikes  in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Bin Laden's death may be enough to end Al-Qaeda as we know it.

9/11 was the most spectacular and traumatizing terrorist attack this generation has ever seen. After the attacks on New York and Washington, Bin Laden's legend grew to iconic status as the head of a terrorist organization with global reach and an agenda to take down the world's only super power. Before that terrible day, Bin Laden had been on par with the likes of Joseph Kony, the MRTA, Muammar Gaddafi, Idi Amin; murderous oddities on the fringe of American consciousness. Then entire world then knew the name Osama Bin Laden, a mass murderer and ideologue who delusionally strove for a transcontinental religious empire. For jihadist wannabes, he became an oversimplified brand whose subtext was deliverance from injustice, disrespect, and the ruin brought about by modernity. Other extremists took his mantle and started their own Al-Qaeda franchises in Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and even China. Terrorist groups similar to Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda will not stop targeting Americans. Extreme ideologies without the capability to confront a juggernaut like the U.S. military will always rely on ambushes, hiding amongst civilians, prying opportunities in open, cosmopolitan societies. As Bin Laden became more notorious, his role in directing attacks diminished, but the spread of his ideas is what made him most dangerous.

The death of Osama Bin Laden is certainly worth celebrating and while watching the revelry outside the White House I was struck by how young some of the people were. Some must have been children in 2001. It dawned on me that we too had bought into an oversimplified, grandiose idea of who Bin Laden was and what he stood for. As if all these extremist militants under his mantle would quietly go away, as if in an action movie. After 9/11, sympathy and support poured in from around the world and it was squandered in a wasteful war that had nothing to do with the attacks on two cities most emblematic of the United States. While rousing support for the War on Terror the United States became shamefully at ease with the blanket suspicion of Muslims. Islam was portrayed as a hateful monolith. There was no distinction made between secular dictators, militant groups with local agendas, and those touting a global holy war. Americans were told that breaking a tradition of anti-torture that was as old as their country was beyond question. Patriotism was said to trump the trampling of civil liberties. The United States had killed its boogieman, but terrorism did not start with Bin Laden and it will not end with his death. Justice has indeed been done, but the ideals that make the United States so great have been stained.


 

1: "Year of the Drone" New America Foundation

Syria: Father Like Son?

Protests against the Syrian government have escalated significantly since tame protests in Damascus about heavy handed police in February. Various human rights groups estimate the number of deaths to be around 200 since then. The tone of protests has changed dramatically from portraying the rowdy secret police as a couple of bad eggs to demanding a complete overhaul of the government. Some of the protesters are openly calling for Assad to leave, but it is not clear that this is the majority opinion. 40 years after his father took power in a coup and more recently claiming that Syria was immune to the tumult affecting Tunisia and Egypt, Assad stands at a crossroads, does he step down or does he put quash the protests with the kind of brutality that will extinguish any inkling of revolution?

What he chooses largely depends on the military's willingness to kill its countrymen. There have already been reports of the secret police shooting soldiers who refused to fire on protesters. Assad has already gone through the standard progression of blaming foreign troublemakers, raising wages of government employees, promising reforms, firing his cabinet, and lifting the emergency law. The regime has taken to Twitter to fight the protesters by flooding the microblogging site with inane posts using the #Syria hashtag in order to dilute pro-reform tweets. None of this has worked to quell the protests and killing civilians has poisoned any chance that Assad could negotiate a compromise. The escalation forebodes Friday and Saturday to be the most violent days yet in Syria.


* The emergency law is gone in name only, Assad put in new laws that prohibit any political dissenters.

UPDATE: Instead of referencing back to an older post, here an excellent account of the Hama Massacre, in which the current president's father quashed a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood and razed the town. He killed upwards of 10,000 people and Hama served as a deterrent for those who would challenge the Assad regime. "Hama Rules." (The chapter starts on page 76 and the analysis starts on 87.)

Top Reads

The Pakistan government is pissed about Raymond Davis and drone attacks. Spencer Ackerman has a good insight into why nothing will really change.

Gaddafi's Ukranian nurse (now retired) talks about her time in Libya.

A scout for the Mumbai massacre says he is tied to Pakistan's intelligence service.

A handy guide to insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Two Somali women in Minnesota are going to trial for sending money to terrorist groups in East Africa.

Nautical Nomads

The Guardian has a feature by Johnny Langenheim with photos from James Morgan about the Bajau people, nomads who have in boats for hundreds of years. The piece brings up several interesting themes that are common in tales of globalization: a unique culture in a changing world, environmental concerns confronting modernity, a unique place in international trade, and unusual pets, to say the least.

Enal, photographed playing with his pet shark in Wangi Wangi, Indonesia

There's a great video from the Guardian after the jump

Egyptian Dissident Sentenced by Military Court

This does not bode well for the people who came out and supported the Tahrir Square protests that lead to the ouster of long time dictator Hosni Mubarak. Maikel Nabil Sanad, an Egyptian blogger who was arrested by Egyptian intelligence and interrogated during the protests, was just sentenced to three years in jail for a blog post attacking the military regime. One of his biggest accusations is that the military was secretly arming the police who were shooting protesters. He also accuses the junta of trying bamboozle the pro-democracy movement into believing that the military is supporting the revolution while they plan to replace Mubarak at the top instead of replacing the entire system.

One swallow does not a summer make, but it will certainly make pro-democracy factions in Egypt nervous of the new regime implementing genuine reforms.

Here is a picture of Maikel holding a sign saying, "we refuse the army stealing the people's revolution!"

Thanks to SO for translating.

Book Review: The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday

Having just finished Neil MacFarquhar’s excellent book, The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday, I am impressed at the true breadth and depth of his experience in the Middle East and North Africa. The book is an absolute must read for anyone intrigued by the recent unrest in the Arab world.

MacFarquhar worked as a journalist in the region for the better part of 30 years. The bookopens with his upbringing in Libya on whatamounted to an Texas oil company colony. From this vantage point, he relates funny anecdotes and explores cultural phenomena that are widely misunderstood in the United States. He covers a range of topics: the impact of satellite TV, the intrusiveness of secret police, fatwas, jihad, tribal relations, and the capacity and tolerance for reform in several countries. MacFarquhar illuminates causes of Arab ill will towards the U.S. and areas where the people of the region agree with American policy. The latter part of the book examines the potential for U.S. policy goals (i.e. American national security, democracy, human rights, security for Israel, etc.) and how the U.S. government could better cooperate with their Arab counterparts. He has three big policy shifts that would require a great deal of bravery for a politician of any stripe, as well as an earnest effort to recognize differences in political currents within the meaningfully diverse nations in the Middle East and North Africa.

1. Speak to the citizenry about their concerns on their level. For example, we should not dictate that education curriculums have to change despite that the status quo has served to create foot soldiers for Al Qaeda. U.S. policy makers should listen to parents’ concerns about the schools’ inadequacies and ask questions that highlight mutual concerns without dictating specific curricular changes. This explicit common ground will apply indirect pressure on regimes. MacFarquhar says that the U.S. focuses too much on short-term goals. The U.S. is willing to turn a blind eye to kabuki democracies in exchange for cooperation on energy issues or the war on terror. MacFarquhar points out that criticizing the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have likely led to the loss of an ally. He adds that an open society could oppose Washington because its policies might go against the grain of popular opinion.
2. Vocally support change regardless of how its weak proponents are or if the goals mirror U.S. interests. He suggests that the U.S. should only throw its support behind reform advocates that have stellar reputations in their home countries and try to avoid individuals attempting to capitalize on U.S. support by echoing key policy vernacular. He adds that it would probably be better to strengthen civic institutions rather than push for elections. In many countries, the political parties are anemic at best, with the most active opposition parties being the Islamist parties. He says that this could be problematic for U.S. policy makers as a group similar to Hamas could ultimately win elections and, likewise, create an impasse. (insert note about political participation & concentrated interest). He adds that, “Washington should not lose any opportunity to be seen as a friend of the little guy, and not just a friend of the princes.” (p.356)
3. The U.S. should condemn all repression, especially the near-constant harassment that most people suffer at the hands of the secret police. The U.S. was very vocal about tyranny in the Soviet bloc and most Middle East secret police were mentored by Soviet agencies. “Real stability and security should be rooted in stronger political systems.” MacFarquhar argues that most Arabs do not want to trade in despotic secular regimes for despotic theocratic regimes. The author states that what people want is less corruption and better government services, and they think that religious parties are the only ones strong enough to deliver. He argues that U.S. foreign policy should return to "doing the right thing," and that this would go a long way to fix the U.S.'s image problem. He argues that real security will be the product of focusing foreign policy on a broad, reasonable bulk of Middle Eastern citizens rather than compromising American values for the assured results of a dictator.

Top Reads

The reformers behind the rebels in Libya

"Assessing Egypt's First Ballot Box"

Syria has greater strategic importance than Libya