Posted on 03/09/2004 6:48:20 AM PST by yoe
Osama bin Laden's capture or death, the focus of renewed American military attention, would greatly help the war on terror — but not in the way you might expect.
It would not do that much to prevent jihadist violence.
True, in some cases, seizing a terrorist leader leads directly to a reduction in threat or even to the decomposition of his organization. Consider these examples :
Abimael Guzman, head of the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) gang in Peru, was captured in 1992 and his Maoist organization went into a tailspin, ending its threat to overturn the government. A rump force in turn continued to fight until its leader, Oscar Ramirez Durand, was captured in 1999.
Abdullah Öcalan, leader of the Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan (Worker's Party of Kurdistan) or PKK in Turkey, was captured in 1999 and his Maoist organization immediately deteriorated. When Öcalan called from captivity for the PKK to renounce its war against the Turkish state, it effectively did so.
Saddam Hussein, former dictator of Iraq, was captured in December 2003, and the terrorist insurgency he headed over the previous eight months shuddered to an end. (In contrast, militant Islamic violence continued unabated.)
Terrorist specialist Michael Radu points out that the same pattern also held with the capture of leaders of smaller terrorist groups, including Andreas Baader of Germany's Rote Armee (Red Army) and Shoko Asahara of Japan's Aum Shinrikyo. A similar steep decline, Mr. Radu notes, will likely recur should Velupillai Prabhakaran of Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) be captured or killed.
In all these cases, the leaders offer characteristics — charisma, power, ruthlessness — critical to their organizations. If no other figure can replace these strengths, then rivalries, incoherence, and decline result.
But Mr. bin Laden's elimination in several ways would not fit this pattern.
Being only one of his organization's key figures, his disappearance will not devastate Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is more "an ideology, an agenda and a way of seeing the world," writes Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaeda : Casting a Shadow of Terror, than an operating terrorist force.
And Al Qaeda being just one of many jihadist organizations around the world, its decline would do little to abate the wave of militant Islamic violence in such places as Algeria, Egypt, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh, and the Philippines.
While Mr. bin Laden personally symbolizes militant Islam and his continued ability to elude coalition force inspires his Islamist followers, his capture or execution would have a mainly psychological impact by demoralizing those followers. His elimination would certainly be a blow to his movement, but one it could readily recover from. "His capture won't end terrorism's danger," Robert Andrews rightly noted in a recent USA Today article.
Ending terrorism requires more than targeting terrorists, their leaders, or their organizations. It requires recognizing and defeating the body of ideas known as militant Islam or Islamism. The war cannot be won until politicians and others focus on this ideology rather than on terrorism, which is merely its manifestation.
This said, Mr. bin Laden's capture or death could indeed have a major beneficial impact on the war on terror — by helping to re-elect President Bush against his presumptive Democratic opponent. Who wins the forthcoming presidential election will deeply affect the future conduct of the global war on terror. To adopt Fred Barnes's formulation in the Weekly Standard, "George W. Bush is a September 12 person. John Kerry is a September 10 person." Just as Saddam Hussein's capture in December helped to end Howard Dean's candidacy for president, so Mr. bin Laden's capture might harm Senator Kerry's.
That's because Mr. Kerry has lashed out at the way the war on terror is conducted, blaming Mr. Bush for everything from faulty tactics (allowing Mr. bin Laden to escape near capture in Tora Bora), to poor strategy ("Only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay"), to an overall failed policy ("The most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history.") Mr. Kerry goes so far as to claim that America is worse off now than on September 11, 2001.
Such over-the-top criticisms render Mr. Kerry vulnerable should Mr. bin Laden actually be caught or killed. Which makes catching or killing Mr. bin Laden truly an urgent war imperative.
Wrong, really wrong. When Saddam Hussein meekly surrendered the Arab world went into mourning over his capture and his lack of resistance, to the point of denial. Iraqi resistance against the coalition has been subdued in a major way.
I think history tells us that when you have an autocratic regime like Saddam's, where decisions are made at the top and independent action is suicidal, it makes sense to emphasize the leadership as a center of gravity.
When you are dealing with cell based, ideologically driven, loosely knit organizations it does not.
I think dismantling the ideological and logistic infrastructure becomes much more important. Getting leaders without it may make martyrs out of them. Although this is a cynical thing to say, the attacks focusing on Muslims is probably hurting the Islamic radicals ideologically and transformational in the area.
Ending terrorism requires more than targeting terrorists, their leaders, or their organizations. It requires recognizing and defeating the body of ideas known as militant Islam or Islamism. The war cannot be won until politicians and others focus on this ideology rather than on terrorism, which is merely its manifestation.
John Kerry is not up to that task. Not by a long shot.
So the media is who kept on asking "Why Bush hasn't gotten Bin Laden" is now saying when they get him it won't matter???????
This guy said nothing like that.
Indeed
History is not on your side though. The jihadists have been doing this for decades before bin Laden ever hit the scene.
They will continue to do so even after bin Laden is gone. Maybe not al Qaeda, but there are other groups. As sure as we kill one off, others will rise.
This is so inevitable that you may as well view it as a fact. You will likely never experience a life where there is not a band of jihadis out there blowing themselves up and killing people.
The media has been hammering the President on "priorities" i.e. why did he shift the focus of the war on terrorism to Iraq when he can't produce Bin Laden.
Now that it appears that he is close to being captured, the media is diluting the significance of Bin Laden's capture so that it won't give the President a "bump" in the polls.
This is not what he is saying. He is saying the world needs to fight militant Islam, which causes terrorism. Going after terrorism will not be enough, one has to go at the root. So getting Bin Laden will not stop this terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.