I must admit, I thought Bin Laden would never be caught. In fact, I didn't even think that he was alive. Well, now he is dead and everyone from President Obama to the relatives of those killed on 9/11 is jubilant. The USA is justifiably proud of the achievement of their Special Forces. This stands as an example of how to deal with a terrorist threat - good intelligence work, meticulous planning and the expertise of an elite military group.
And yet - there are a number of questions that need answering. Why, for instance, were the Pakistani authorities not informed? After all, Bin Laden was hiding on their territory. The answer would appear to be that Pakistani Intelligence (the ISI) have close links with the Taliban. In fact, they helped to create the Taliban after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and, according to some reports, some ISI elements still have those links.
Since he was located and eliminated by a small group of spooks, why was it necessary to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with huge conventional forces? In fact, the invasion of Iraq now seems to be even more pointless. Nor was he found in war-torn Afghanistan, where he was supposed to be based, protected by the Taliban.
We are told that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, but a number of commentators, including Mark
Curtis and
Michael Moore, claim that the Taliban (and others) DID offer to hand over Bin Laden before 9/11. In 1995, the Sudanese government offered to extradite him, but the offer was refused. Michael Moore gives details of three offers to hand over Bin Laden before and after 9/11:
"They [the Taliban] were saying, 'Do something to help us give
him up.'" – Milton Bearden, former CIA station chief who
ran war against Soviets in Afghanistan
September 21, 2001
U.S. refused to provide evidence of bin Laden's guilt, rejected recommendation
by Afghan clerics that Taliban tell bin Laden to leave Afghanistan
October 14, 2001
Bush rejected Taliban offer to turn bin Laden over to
neutral third country for trial "
Which leads me to what I meant by Bin Laden's "achievements". I am, of course, being somewhat ironic, but from his point of view, he achieved a great deal. He:
1. Successfully organised a major terrorist attack against the USA.
2. Provoked two massively unpopular and costly invasions of two countries by the USA and its allies, causing death, destruction and misery on a horrendous scale. These wars have done untold damage to the invading countries' prestige and their economies.
3. The invasions that Bin Laden provoked have led to further terrorist attacks, such as those in Bali, Madrid and London (7/7)
4. Some commentators have said that Al-Qaeda planned 9/11 because they were failing in their efforts to create a mass Jihadi movement. Bin Laden did not manage that, either, but the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have created groups that are similar to Al-Qaeda, who will carry on the fight.
5. Lastly - now that the raison d'etre for the "War on Terror" has been eliminated - is it not time for all UK and US troops to go home? That probably won't happen, but it certainly calls for a radical re-assessment of aims and tactics.
I only felt foreboding at the news of Bin Laden's death, as I couldn't help but wonder what retaliation might result. Bin Laden's biggest achievements are:
ReplyDelete1. He has caused the word 'Moslem' to be associated in many people's minds, especially in the USA, with terorism and murder.
2. He is responsible for the deaths of 100,000s of Moslems in the invasions provoked by his actions - hundreds of times more than the number of 'infidels' he has caused to die. Nearly all those people, Moslems and infidels alike, were innocent, and many in the Moslem world despise him for that - he is not by a long chalk a hero to them all.
Two massive own goals there.
Bin Laden almost certainly welcomed the fact that 9/11 led to a rise in Islamophobia, and he would not have cared about the deaths of any innocent people, Muslims or otherwise. As he would have seen it, anti-Islamic feeling would lead to more recruits for Al-Qaeda as would the deaths of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like all fanatics, all that mattered to him was "the cause".
ReplyDeleteYes, that's exactly how he would have seen it. Events are showing that he was wrong in both his assumptions and conclusions.
ReplyDelete