Osama is dead, but is the world safer?

Thirteen years after declaring war on America, Osama bin Laden is dead at American hands. In an operation run by American forces deep in Pakistan and next to its Military Academy, Osama died resisting. His son and few other relatives also died in the operation. Much of the world will heave a sigh of relief as a man who had made killing innocent people in the name of his fight for religion almost a practice is gone. He died in the way he had lived, by guns. Now the sea has him and it is left to others to ponder on what his death will mean to the al-Qaeda movement in particular, but global politics in general, particularly in countries like the US, Pakistan, Afghanistan and a few others.

Bin Laden was born in a confluence of several influences that began in the Saudi Arabian anti-monarchist movement, matured in the cold war conflict that was in the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union peaked in the declared war against America. Each of these influences was political in nature and has shaped international politics in its rise and fall.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive regimes in the world which has bred a large number of terrorists against the US. Their anger is fuelled by a medieval monarchic regime that practices a system of ruling that has barely moved ahead since the ancient era. In this environment, it is not difficult to connect the source of Saudi monarchy's power — the US — and turn it into a global hate campaign. The anti-democratic tradition of the Muslim Middle East also begins here. Bin Laden, a wealthy beneficiary of the Saudi regime turned that rage at the Saudi ruling house into a bigger military campaign. He was as much a creation of the Middle Eastern Muslim regime as he was of anti-US politics.

The Afghan war triggered the general disaffection of Muslims all over the world into active participation and support. In what may be described modestly as one of the most stupid acts of aggression, the crumbling Soviet Union, bloated by incompetence, corruption and irrational belief in their socialist destiny, launched an against the indigenous Afghan Mujahideen. It didn't just prove that they, its armies were not good enough to win wars but ended up ending itself. Decades of non-democratic rule where consent to rule doesn't play a role had robbed Soviet Union of not just of military sense but common sense as well.

It also strengthened the identity and confidence of the Islamic Mujahedeen and part of that came from the poorly conducted warfare by the Soviets. The US did much better as it supported many groups there including Laden in the proxy war against the Soviets but also created the support base that ultimately mothered al-Qaeda.

When Osama declared war against America, he was also declaring a war on behalf of his medieval beliefs and his fellow faith followers coming mostly from failed or unborn democratic regimes were fighting to establish Islamic regimes which had no background of modern democracy. Most of the post-Soviet Mujahedeen came from the Middle East and Central Asia which are zones of oil wealth and repression, societies which refuse to modernise in the interest of the few. And they unleashed a series of acts that directly affected its main enemy, the US.

The attacks which peaked in the 9/11 attack but has continued since then is a blind and insane attack on innocent people in the name of politics and a more ancient narrative of contest for power. Not many people can stomach the fact that the attack by the al-Qaeda has killed mostly Muslims. Those who supported Osama as an anti-US icon forget the human cost of such politics. Accepting the death of innocents is a part of terrorism and be it the LTTE in Sri Lanka or al-Qaeda. It is the method of the weak and those who fail to find political weapons to fight. Terrorism also doesn't require much thinking.

Osama drew many disaffected Muslims to his side in his fight against the main enemy of Islam, the Western world. There is something peculiarly retrograde in such reasoning as it reduces politics to faith identities and that one which has strengthened ancient systems of politics and society in the Middle East. Osama has popularised the most anachronistic view of Islam not just to his followers but also to others forcing back, an already backward faith system, even more.

The present extreme fundamentalist, retrograde mentality of Muslims including the 'veiled woman' syndrome is partly a by-product of this anxiety, both about and in Islam of today. Harkening back and insisting that there can be no pluralism in Islam and that the world cannot progress beyond the 6th century in every aspect of life was revived by Osama and his al-Qaeda, globally. Osama's contribution to the charge back of Muslim community in general is far greater and more destructive than his isolated acts of violence.

The US must bear a fair share of responsibility in producing this role of Osama. It has been blinded by its own international ambitions. As of today, it remains one of the most extreme nationalist states where people chanting "USA", "USA" at ground zero celebrating Osama's death reflects the US world view encapsulating the total political truth to its people. Its vision of the world is seen only through its nationalist lenses and while it is the most powerful state of the world, its competence to be the leading state of the world is probably rather limited. Even the confusion between al-Qaeda and Islam, which has driven away millions of normal Muslims all over the world from supporting it, is an indicator of its narrow-mindedness. By demonising Muslims and treating them harshly particularly in the US, it sent a signal of hostility that has made the world far more hostile to it than ever.

It has also sought allies among the most repressive and preferred to strengthen security agencies rather than democracies when it had the power. A good example is Pakistan which has come out looking incompetent once again as Osama was found living next to the Pakistan Military Academy. It can't be an accident that Pakistan knew nothing about the operation; it is not considered a reliable ally anymore. Its ISI, always touted as one of the best security agencies in the world by Pakistan, routinely fails on providing local services and stay in favour. The US is capable of running major military operations in Pakistan, killing many every week through drone attacks but starts respecting Pakistan's sovereignty as soon as democratic issue emerge. The US needs to support democratic forces in Pakistan not for its love for democracy but because such regimes protect everyone's interest including the US. Even now, as revenge attacks on the US are planned, it is the failure of democracy in Pakistan and Afghanistan that makes it possible.

Now that Osama is gone, the world won't change as some may hope. It has been a major success but of limited value. The icon is gone, the symbol is dead but smaller ones are already in operation and shall soon act. The most important anti-Jihadist move and therefore a security move has been the democratisation movement of the Middle East which has largely supplied its fighters. But Pakistan, one of the most powerful unreliable regimes of the world remains and as the fight against Taliban go on, it will remain so, using proximity to the US even as an unreliable ally to prosper its coterie of the powerful. The world will be better off with a democratic Pakistan and the US after having a role in raising Pakistan to maturity owes some responsibility to make it a better governing state.

So the Osama episode is over but neither terrorism nor al-Qaeda. But both are at least temporarily weakened. To make it permanently weak, the focus must be on better and more functioning democracies all over and not just hunting down killers, political or personal. Osama bin Laden's death makes the world more palatable to fresh air but not necessarily safer.

———————————-

Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist and researcher.