... and Justice For All

The Death of Osama bin Laden

- American Power and American Principles   -   Daniel G. Harris

Like most Americans I awoke Monday morning to the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a firefight with American special forces and CIA operatives at a compound just outside of Islamabad in Pakistan.  Unlike the people who gathered in front of the White House or in downtown New York to chant and cheer, my first reaction was one of pause and reflection.  

     While this was obviously a moment of emotional importance for many who view Bin Laden as the embodiment of evil, and upon whom they place the preponderance of blame for the coordinated attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, I felt that the celebrations and cheering were a bit premature.  For all the emotional significance of the moment it has done little to change the dynamics of the ongoing Global War on Terror.  When viewed from that perspective, the hunt for Osama bin Laden had become little more than a fascinating subplot of a much larger story.  In the end it was just one man’s life, ended in a spasm of violence like thousands and thousands of others over the last decade; casualties of a conflict whose motivations still largely remain unresolved.  

     The definition of who should be considered a terrorist, and what represents terrorism has always been almost entirely a matter of perspective.  The old adage that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” would certainly seem to apply in many instances throughout history (Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela, Yasir Arafat, and others).  The case of Osama Bin Laden is no different.  Such nuanced points of view probably qualify as high treason these days in most parts of the United States, but the fact of the matter is, his message was deeply inspirational to many across the Arab world, and so long as this message continues to resonate the man himself will be of little meaning. 

     The list of grievances that feed Anti-Western/Anti-American sentiment in the muslim world are many.  The United States and its allies have an ignominious history in the middle east, and indeed around the world, of supporting brutal dictators and subverting democratic movements inconvenient to our interests.  While I concede that terrorism is both a morally indefensible and ultimately self defeating means of addressing such resentments, it is also necessary to acknowledge the fact that we have done very little to offer an alternative perspective for disgruntled individuals in the Arab world.  

     After the 9/11 attacks, two main schools of thought developed regarding what would be the most successful strategy for defeating terrorism.  The first advocated for a strong military and intelligence response aimed at rooting out the terrorists themselves and preventing further attacks by substantially enhancing the level of security in the United States.  The second took a broader view of the problem and aimed to fight the underlying motivations for terrorism by redefining our relationship with the muslim world.  Withdrawing support from dictators, advocating in a meaningful way for reform, directing foreign aid to humanitarian and development causes, and implementing internal structural reforms that would lessen our dependence on oil, and therefore our interests in the region, allowing us to play a more disinterested and therefore plausibly more productive role in the middle east were some of the many offered possibilities.  With a few notable exceptions the last ten years has shown, perhaps unsurprisingly given the pre-existing internal dynamics of American cultural insularity, the American economic structure’s over reliance on the military industrial complex, and the American political landscape, we have opted almost entirely for option number one.  

     The death of Osama bin Laden is arguably one of the most successful results to date in our response to the attacks of 9/11.  However, no sooner was his death announced to the world than words of caution were being issued warning of the potential for reprisal attacks, and reminding us all that Al-Qaeda still poses a major threat.  Bin Laden’s death was an uplifting moment, but the now seemingly interminable War on Terror goes on as if nothing of any consequence had changed.  

     This brings us to the second piece of this story.  What has come to be referred to as the “Arab Spring”, the protest movements in nations around the middle east seeking democratic reforms and freedom from decades of dictatorial rule.  Many commentators are eager to weave bin Laden’s death and these recent democracy protests into one broad narrative reflecting a sea change in Middle Eastern society and public opinion.  In that story Osama bin Laden represents a  resentful and disenfranchised Arab society searching for existential validation through post nationalist islamic identity and righteous rage toward an outside world that has been historically hostile to their sovereignty and their interests.  The protesters, portrayed as a more moderate generation of young people, who have large demographic majorities in most all middle eastern nations, are seen as the positive alternative; rejecting fundamentalism, and calling for a new path forward based on modern secular democratic values; principles that seem to be naturally aligned with the philosophy and values of America and the west.  It remains to be seen however whether the calls for reform currently emanating from so much of the Arab street will in fact be acknowledged and aided by the west.  The happy ending so many are over eagerly trying to write will only come about if these protesters receive vigorous support allowing them to see through their reform agenda.  Failure to offer this support runs the risk of allowing momentum to falter, and the spirit of positive change that has so unexpectedly appeared to be snuffed out, maintaining the status quo for perhaps decades to come.  Such a failure would open the door for all that stymied youthful energy to morph once again into a smoldering resentment and anger at the failure of the United States and the west to stand up for and act upon the principles to which we seem only to devote so much empty rhetoric.  

Tahrir Square Demonstrations

     When the protests first erupted in Tahrir square, state department spokes people did not rush to the nearest panel of television cameras to announce our unqualified support for the demonstrator’s cause.  Indeed, the political and historical context of the situation had us squarely on the side of Mubarak, a dictator we had supported financially and politically over three decades while he openly rigged elections, ruled through emergency law, and tortured and oppressed the people of Egypt.  Similar reform protests have erupted in Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain and  have been met with brutal crackdowns by those governments.  Throughout, the United States has been heard to utter nary a word, or lift nary a finger in support of what, again, seem to be protests for true democratic reform and more freedom, values for which the United States has supposedly been carrying water for almost 250 years.  Why have we been so reticent.  Let’s take each case by case. 

     The United States Navy’s 5th fleet is moored in Bahrain.  The friendly and stable cooperation of the Bahrain government is a crucial component of the logistical network supporting not only our ongoing, though almost forgotten, occupation of Iraq, but the protection of all our strategic interests in the Persian Gulf.  The government in Bahrain is Sunni, the protesters are Shiite, and presumably would have closer ties to Iran if granted more authority for self governance, a potentially huge disruption of the status quo in the region.  

 
     In Yemen, leaked documents have revealed that President Saleh is little more than a puppet of the United States, allowing us almost full and unfettered ability to conduct covert operations against al-qaeda in the northern part of that country, while killing scores and scores of innocent civilians in the process.  Yemen is also strategically located opposite our African Central Command in Djibouti at the mouth of the Red Sea, together offering control over one of the world’s major shipping arteries.  The risk here, like in Egypt, being that more radical elements of Yemeni society could come to exercise power, again threatening our hegemonic influence and disrupting a status quo built around the presumptive unquestionable necessity for the assertion of military power to preserve order in the region. 

     Finally, in Syria, a stated enemy of the United States, the most violent crackdowns on protesters have taken place.  Here the reasons for the failure of western response are a bit different.  I suspect it has to do with memories of the war in Lebanon in the early 1980’s and the potential for violent fragmentation and sectarian bloodletting if a strong central authority were removed.  Also, the removal of president Al-Assad would almost certainly leave a void that would be filled by Hizbollah, a proxy for Iran.  The implications for the detente which has developed between Israel and its neighbor to the north can then only be speculated upon.   

     The bottom line in each instance is that the United States seems to be willing to choose to protect the stability of the region, to preserve the status quo no matter how oppressive or hated by the populations of each country, that we may continue to project our military and economic power throughout a region upon which we are utterly dependent for vital resources.  It is a dangerous game we are playing and one that could better than any other strategy serve to guarantee the perpetuation of exactly the types of resentment and rage that have fueled recruitment for organizations like Al-Qaeda for decades.     

     To summarize: The death of Osama Bin Laden marks an important historical milestone for the now decade old War on Terror, but the death of any one man is of little significance when viewed in broader context.  For too long the United States has fueled the underlying causes of terrorism with duplicitous rhetoric and action fueled by a false notion of political realism that overvalues the exertion of brute force and undervalues the power of ideas to change the world.  For all our efforts, military and otherwise, the world is still just as dangerous a place as it was before 9/11.  The protests in the middle east offer us a rare opportunity to project American power in a manner that truly has the potential to change the dynamic of Arab/Western relations for generations.  Rather than focusing exclusively upon economic and military might, we have the opportunity to be seen to take a stand for what has always been both the most enduring and most redemptive aspect of the American character; our commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.  Such are the reflections I mulled over upon hearing today’s news.  We can only hope the people we put in positions of leadership have the wisdom and understanding to make the right decisions, for all the good news of late could come to nothing if we continue to make the mistake of relying on the principle of power over the power of principles.