Osama bin Who?

 

A flurry of rumors, supposedly coming out of Saudi Arabia and reported by French intelligence, indicated over the weekend that Osama bin Laden, last known to be alive in July 2006, had contracted typhoid in Pakistan and died. The rumors were immediately called into question by Saudi, French and US authorities. But what if they were true? What impact would Osama bin Laden’s death, by whatever means, have on the real world of terrorism and our war against its practitioners and supporters? We have spent enormous efforts to catch bin Laden and his operatives in Iraq while the Afghanistan experiment in democracy has begun to founder and its leader Hamed Kharzai cries out for even a portion of the $300 billion we have spent in Iraq. 

In the cold hard light of day, it is hard to see how the death of Osama, no matter how evil, would have any significant negative impact on the war in Iraq, the growth of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the position of Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, or the efforts of terrorists and terrorist wana-bes in cells located in some 60 countries around the world.

Perhaps we have given too much credit and attention to Osama bin Laden. He was described to me by Saudis who knew him as not being the brightest tack in the drawer. They also suggested that the impact of his Arab volunteers in the Afghanistan resistance to the Soviet Union was marginal. It was not until the Egyptian terrorist leader, Ayman Zawahiri and his group of terrorist operatives, hardened in battle with the Egyptian regime, joined Osama bin Laden in the 1990’s that the latter began to establish an international reputation. While I was still in government in 2000, we credited bin Laden with organizational management and financial skills that were critical to the development of the bin Laden network and to the terrorists attacks against us. But we did not credit him with the operational skills to mount sophisticated and coordinated terrorist events. That was the work, we thought, of Zawahiri and others.

 
In fact, there is no evidence that Osama bin Laden has had significant operational control over his terrorist network since shortly after we eliminated his safe haven in Afghanistan. While the Jordanian terrorist Zarqawi was still running the al-Qaeda network in Iraq, before his demise, he largely ignored the instructions and guidance coming from Zawahiri.

 
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), completed in April and reported in the New York Times by Mark Mazzetti on September 24, suggests that the “American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” The report goes on to say that the “radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.”

For all the members of the original deck of cards that we captured or killed in Iraq, the terrorist threat has actually accelerated. It is a system that does not depend on one man or even a group of men. When Saddam Hussein was captured, there was no significant drop in the level of violence in Iraq. Since Zarqawi was killed the level of violence in Iraq has escalated.

 A factor that we may be missing is the cultural gap that exists between the terrorists and most of the rest of us. Part of the idea behind this kind of Islamic perversion is a commitment to the ultimate individual self-sacrifice for the broader “good” and subsequent reward in heaven. For a suicide bomber, being evaporated is not a sign of defeat but of glorious victory. I have little doubt that the acolytes of Zarqawi are convinced he is now in heaven enjoying his reward. And if Osama dies, he is, presumably, up for an even greater reward. So the net effect from Osama’s death may be to stimulate greater effort on the part of the terrorists and emulation of the bin Laden ideal of self-sacrifice and martyrdom.

 
In the blame game that gets particularly acute around our election time, Americans are now being told that President Clinton did not do enough during his years in office to go after Osama bin Laden before 9/11. But it doesn’t appear the President Bush has been any more successful in catching Bin Laden or in curtailing the terrorism he spawned that has cost over 15,000 American casualties in Iraq so far. And if the NIE is correct, the situation is worse than it was before 9/11. Perhaps it is more difficult than our politicians think to capture a few men in the wilderness of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And perhaps even if Clinton had been successful in killing bin Laden in his 1998 air attack against their training grounds in Afghanistan, it would not have changed the targets of 9/11 or the success of the operation as other operatives took charge.

 

Technorati Tags:

 

al Qaeda , Iraq, Middle East, Terrorism

Comments

[Niels Lesniewski]

Seven weeks to Election Day, I am thinking in partisan terms. So, I offer that Amb. Walker's comments on the impact on the war on terror of a bin Laden death, and these NIE stories could be spun by the Bush administration for political gain. I only imagine this because it sounds preposterous enough to be true. Amb. Walker says, "Perhaps we have given too much credit and attention to Osama bin Laden. He was described to me by Saudis who knew him as not being the brightest tack in the drawer." The Bush administration cannot be charged with that criticism— paying too much attention to bin Laden. Taking Amb. Walker's comments out of context, a political hack might argue we would have made an inefficient allocation of resources to put all our eggs in one basket in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region. Whether our scarce resources were better spent on an invasion of Iraq? That's a question for another day.
As for spinning an unfavorable NIE— that says in essence we have increased the risks of terrorism through the Iraq War, I would expect in the days ahead will bring an assault on the "liberal media." You see, the New York Times has told our enemy that the American Intelligence community thinks the terrorists have gained strength in Iraq! That will cause more car bombings and more kidnappings. The NY Times will be responsible for the deaths of young, patriotic Americans! That may sound over the top now, but wait for a speech by Vice President Cheney, and Talking Points by Bill O’Reilly before you discount my theory.

[Carey Ruckert]

The death of Osama bin Laden, due to typhoid fever, would be somewhat ironic at this point. Made to believe that he was one the mastermind behind 9/11, America rushed into Afghanistan to bring bin Laden down. If he truely died of typhoid, all our efforts (economic and military) would seem to have been pointless.
Furthermore, I believe it is true that the death of bin Laden would do little to decrease the level of violence in the Middle East. More than likely, one of his second in commands would replace bin Laden as the leader of radical Islamists everywhere. We will always have an enemy and a reason to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the death of bin Laden would be hailed as a success, the victory would be very short lived once the reality of the region's instability and the continual rise of new enemies, sinks in.

[Kelsey Richardson]

The War on Terror is a completely new kind of challenge for the United States. It forces us, a nation obsessed with black and white solutions, to think in shades of gray. Terrorism operates under the radar, is hard to identify, and impossible to contain and this has proved incredibly frustrating for our administration. These frustrations, unfortunately, have manifested themselves in our nation’s obsession with Osama bin Laden. By targeting bin Laden we have found a way to provide a specific and simple focus for a war that is anything but. But what does this gain? bin Laden, dead or alive, won’t make or break terrorism. Our obsession with bin Laden only gives terrorism an international figurehead and potentially, a martyr if and when we finally kill him. Thus, by making bin Laden the poster child of the War on Terror we continually fuel him and the efforts of his followers while leading our nation farther away from its own goal. The United States needs to stop oversimplifying its international challenges. The War on Terror is more than a head hunt just as the War in Iraq has proved to be much more than the takedown of Saddam Hussein. It’s time for the United States to confront the conflict, no matter how complex, instead of the face.

[Julianne Jaquith]

I don't think that we pay enough attention to this "cultural gap" that Ambassador Walker emphasizes. Most people value life on Earth. However, the radical Muslim culture values the reward in the afterlife more than life on Earth. Martyrdom achieves the ultimate reward. This is somewhat difficult for us to grasp – we in live in a country in which, in many locations, death is the ultimate punishment. President Bush threatens that when we find the terrorists, we will kill them in order to protect the safety of Americans. However, IS death the ultimate punishment for the terrorists, or is this just allowing them to serve as martyrs for their cause?

[Cliff McLean]

As an American it is a great feeling to know that Osama Bin Laden is dead, presuming that this information is correct. However, I also feel that although Bin Laden is out of the picture the war on terrorism will continue and that there are still terrorist throughout the world that are looking to harm the United States of America the first chance they get. We must focus still on the current war in Iraq and the terrorists that remain at large. This war has had many American causulties, thus that is something else that we can forget as we contiue on in this war.
Since the events of 9/11 there have been many reasons that do not let the American people forget about what has happened over the past 5 years. We must continue to on in this war regardless of Osama Bin Laden's death. His death is only a small battle in America's war on terrorism.

[Hannah Case]

Mark Mazzetti also addresses in his article from September 24th that the study "also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan" The issue of the internet was also addressed in class Monday as we talked about its ability to form communities of interest and ability to spread information without a language barrier. With many of the Jihadist cells uniting through an anit-western agenda, the internet serves as a medium where radical Islamic ideas can be shared and more importantly spread to further ends of the globe. There is significant attention paid to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the internet which means that any issue in which the US is wrong (example, Soldier Steven Green raping a young Iraqi than murdering her entire family) can be spread across the internet quickly and used to recruit young Muslims to join radical movements. This is occuring at a pace unknown to the United States in any previous wars or conflicts and something that will inevitably be a significant factor in the War on Terror.

[Arthur Giovannangeli]

Even though the possible death of Osama bin Laden can't be a bad thing, I can see it particularly bolster to the U.S.'s moral in the War on Terror or deflating to potential terrorists. If bin Laden is dead it would not because of any direct United States action. The U.S. would has spent billions of dollars in the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks and still have not caught the man responsible. Bin Laden was able to run for about 5 years and the U.S. forces in pursuit weren't able to get anywhere close to him. Typhoid was able to get to bin Laden before America was, hardly a testament to U.S. terrorist hunting. This lack of speed creates many questions pertaining to the War on Terror from both sides. American's, and other citizens whose governments are involved in the war, wonder if their funds are being efficiently spent. Terrorist also might interpret the U.S.'s inability to find bin Laden as sign of weakness in their enemy, especially if bin Laden was "not the brightest tack in the drawer." Also, if bin Laden was not mastermind he was sometimes depicted as, then his death will not hinder Al Qaeda as much as the U.S. would like. Overall even though the death of Osama bin Laden is not a bad thing, it could have gone better.

[Daniel Laub]

Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to win a battle against a group of people who are unafraid to die for their most holy cause. This being said, I agree with the statement which reads: "The net effect from Osama's death may be to stimulate greater effort on the part of the terrorists and emulation of the bin Laden ideal of self-sacrafice and martyrdom." The death of terrorist leaders simply perpetuates the hate for the West and gives room for the rise of new and possibly more dangerous leaders. I do believe, however, that a lot of the hate is fueled by US and Israeli operations which target terrorist leaders and the media's spin on such events. Many of the time in Israel for example, when Hamas leaders are assasinated, Palestinian civilians are caught in the cross-fire. Not only does the death of the leader add to the general anti-Israel sentiment but the negative spin the media has on the situation is detrimental to the safety of Israel and the West as well. While I do not believe that Osama's death has the ability to reduce terrorism, I do believe that he was an extremely important player in motivating terrorist and perpetuating the terrorist "sentiment" all around the world. I do not believe that the death of any terrorist leader reduces the number of terrorist acts against the West, unfortunately, however, I do feel that terrorism only get worse with the deaths of these iconic terrorist figures.

[Emma Woods]

To believe that the death of Osama bin Laden would be a victory in the war on terror is in part true – surely the majority of Americans would feel some sense of justice in knowing that the most sought after man behind September 11th is dead. This is because Osama’s has been the face shown to the American people as the killer of our fellow citizens, family members, and loved ones – his is the face of evil. It is of course easier to put a face to the pain, to know who is the culprit, who to blame, who to hate. It is easier for the citizens of America, as well as for the administration in power. We feel that our government is doing the right thing if we see them searching for bin Laden, even when they fail. However easy this may be, it is not productive in stopping the terrorist movement. While the death of bin Laden would be a symbolic victory for the fight against terrorism, it doesn’t seem that it would be a defeat in the eyes of the terrorist organizations with which he is affiliated. One reason for this is that we are not looking at his death in terms of this unique style of warfare and the ideology at its core. As was stated by Ambassador Walker, this is “a system that does not depend on one man or even a group of men.” Unlike previous forms of warfare, there is no general or commander who can be taken down to assure defeat of the enemy. There are leaders, but when one is killed several more rise up in his wake, perhaps more impassioned than the last. Combined with the fact that the goal of this terrorism is to die for the cause, it does not seem that Osama’s death would impact the terrorist uprising at all. In part of a declassified intelligence report released today, it was stated that, “The Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives…the Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause célèbre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” In light of this report, it would seem that we should stop focusing attention on bin Laden and look at the larger picture and the newest groups and leaders that are emerging. We should put our efforts into making sure that the jihadists fail in their attempts to harm us at home and abroad and thus cease to inspire others to take up their cause.

[Mitchell O'Connor]

Even if the recent reports regarding Osama bin Laden's death are true, I do not believe that there will be a significant impact to the terrorist threat level in the United States. Much media attention has been focused on the hunt for bin Laden and the American government's failure to capture him, despite evidence suggesting that bin Laden is no longer an influential factor affecting Al Qaeda's terrorist capabilities. Mazzetti discusses the National Intelligence Estimate and how a growing threat is "self-generating" cells that are not directly affiliated with Al Qaeda. Obviously, bin Laden's death will have little impact on self-generating cells and may actually lead to the generation of more cells. I believe that the greatest positive aspect of bin Laden's reported death is Al Qaeda's loss of bin Laden's organizational and financial skills. As Ambassador Walker mentions, bin Laden was able to organize Al Qaeda efficiently and provide it with the funding necessary to carry out terrorist operations.

[Katharine Steigerwald]

I think Osama bin Laden’s arrest, or death would be of symbolic significance to the American public, and would help them gain a sense of closure when considering the events of 9/11. While the capture or death of bin Laden would likely cause conflicts in the Middle East to escalate, rather than end sooner; the termination of his power (regardless of the actual level of his effectiveness or authority as a terrorist leader) would give Americans a slight sense of closure when reflecting on the specific events of 9/11. I believe most Americans identify Osama bin Laden as the face behind the tragic events of 9/11. Shortly after 9/11 he was, in effect labeled as the primary perpetrator behind the attacks. If Osama bin laden dies or is captured by American forces, the end of his power and influence would help bring an immediate sense of closure to the events of 9/11 for the American public. However, I think his death/capture would cause violent acts by terrorist groups and violence in the Middle East to increase. If this were to happen, I believe people would quickly loose concern for the termination of Osama’s power. Ultimately, concerns for American security and the lives of American troops risking their lives to establish peace in Iraq and Afghanistan are far greater than the sense of closure that might temporarily result should bin Laden be captured or die.
Additionally, it is interesting to consider the consequences that would result had the Clinton administration captured or killed Bin Laden in 1998. How would Osama’s early capture/ death affect the momentum and growth of terrorist movements?

[Rose Zourdos]

I agree that terrorism can not be eliminated by the death of a few terrorists, even if they are the supposed leaders. I also think though, we have an obligation post-9/11 to combat terrorism because terrorism poses a grave threat that can not easily be addressed. If we do not take an active role in the Middle East, the terrorist organizations will grow in numbers and strength, and there will be no country willing or strong enough to curtail their enlargement. We can not leave the terrorists alone because we will eventually have another 9/11. Not to mention that over three thousand innocent people were unjustly targeted and killed. I do not think the hate that these "Islamic Radicals" harbor will subside; they are termed radicals for a reason. They devote their lives to the cause of jihad and Allah, and I doubt that un-involvement will prove to be anything other than another Afghanistan.
I also think that the Clinton Administration could have done more to address the impending problem of terrorism. There were numerous terrorist attacks against the United States abroad and then at home with the World Trade Center car bomb in 1993. The United States was viewed as exceptionally weak since it did not address the attacks.
I do not think that the United States should start invading all Islamic countries, but if there is an imminent threat to our national security, I do not think we should hesitate. The United States did not precipitate this resentment or the attack of 9/11. Just because we do not constantly hear how the United States has thwarted hundreds of terrorist attacks does not mean we are out of danger.

[Barbara Adair]

The terrorism cells related to Osama Bin Laden and the ideology attached to his name in the war on terror has yet to eradicated, and has barely been affected since the beginning of the war.In many ways we were never really prepared for our opponents and in no way estimated the evolution of the terrorist presence in recent years. At this point, Osama Bin Ladin has become more of a scapegoat and or symbol for a larger issue between the US and certain Middle Eastern and or Islamic groups and nations. Whether or not we catch him or whether or not he is dead, Osama was only the beginning, and in order to prevent future terrorist conflicts we need to focus on understanding and strategizing the methods and beliefs of these terrorist cells in order to guarantee a more peaceful future. Instead of placing blame on presidents and politicians, we should be proactive and continue to improve our efforts in the Middle East and abroad.

[Maureen O'Brien]

The War on Terror has never been easy because terrorists are an atypical enemy. In addition to being difficult to fight and control they can also be exceptionally hard to find. Nevertheless, it is always easier to accomplish something with a goal, or rather a target, in mind. This is the reason why after 9/11 the United States decided to enter Afghanistan and go after the man who not only celebrated the terrorist attacks but took full responsibility for them as well. I don’t think the United States hoped to end terrorism with the death of Osama as much as they hoped to avenge the thousands of innocent lives lost that day.

Ambassador Walker is absolutely correct in stating that the system does not depend solely on one man or a group of men. Even if Clinton had gotten rid of Osama bin Laden during his time in office there is a high probability that other terrorist leaders, such as Zarqawi or Zawahiri, would have taken his place and committed a similar act of terror. There seem to be weekly media reports about international terrorist networks developing or new domestic cells being discovered. Whether this is due to increased intelligence or it is a response to U.S. occupation overseas is difficult to say but one can assume that Osama is not associated with each of these new groups.

Nevertheless, the role of Osama bin Laden in the “terrorist world” cannot be downplayed. This man took responsibility for the attacks and, whether he was actually the brains behind the operation or not, he still wields a substantial amount of respect from American adversaries. His death may not produce something as catastrophic as 9/11, it may not even generate any kind of terrorist action, but chances are his memory will continue to influence terrorists around the globe for years to come.

[Cameron Gaylord]

If the rumors are confirmed, making Osama bin Laden effectively dead to the world, the fight against terrorism will definitely see a rise in support. Yet, the effectiveness of the struggle will not likely be improved. If the fact is that Osama was not terribly capable of coordinating adequately, then much our efforts have been unnecessary. Some may argue that it was absolutely necessary for us to put in such a monstrous effort to pursue Osama, but by doing so, we elevated his legend to such a level that has never been witnessed before in the modern Islamic movement. By doing so we have not only assissted in the creation of a poster child for terrorism but also fostered the creation of numerous others with possibly greater and more dangerous coordinating abilities. These independent cells and independent leaders will desire to make a name for themselves and ultimately reach the promised pleasures that they believe await martyrs of the cause.
But what exaclty is that cause? Is it against America? Is it against the West? To be perfectly honest, the conflict in the middle east has definitely taken a turn for the worse. America's military actions in Iraq have lead to a resurgence in violence. Even with the elimination of Zarqawi, the amount of terrorism has not faltered. To argue that Clinton did not do enough to target Osama is unfair. It would also be unfair and probably untrue to say that Clinton had the foresight to see what would happen if we were to do what Bush eventually did; yet the fact remains thateven if Clinton eliminated Osama, the terrorists would not have halted their efforts to go through with 9/11.
With each "wrong-doing" that America performs in the middle east, more and more groups will be fostered by the idea of eliminating the great infidel threat and forever be glorified as a savior and martyr of Islam.

[Ethan Shoemaker]

It will be interesting to see how quickly the National Intelligence Estimate factors into the “blame game” during this election season. If nothing else, the report confirms what Amb. Walker's post seems to suggest: staying the course in Iraq is probably not our best option. Furthermore, our inability to capture Osama bin Laden (regardless of the importance) underscores the need for a different, more nuanced approach---one that seeks to understand/reconcile the nascent socioeconomic and “cultural gaps” fueling terrorism. Only then are we likely to prevent future Huntington-esque clashes between Islam and the West.

[Nico Drohojowski]

I don't think that Osama being killed is really that significant. Since 9/11 he's been a ghost, but terrorism has still gone on through out the world. Of course everyone wants to go after the one person who is responsible for the attacks on America, but does that really matter in the grand scheme of things? If we do catch Osama, have we won? Do we parade around on the streets and proclaim that terrorism is now over? I don't think so at all. He's one figurehead among many. Clinton being blamed for not doing enough about terrorism while he was in office is absurd. When he was in office there wasn’t a terrorist attack of this proportion. I think that the current administration is looking for someone to blame and couldn’t possible think it’s them.

[Michael Daley]

The declassified excerpts from the US intelligence report President Bush spoke about today show that the war in Iraq may be doing more harm than good in the fight against global terrorism. According to the report the Iraq war has made the global jihadist threat more dangerous than ever. This comes as no real surprise, but the portion of the report devoted to Al Qaeda does provide interesting insight. US intelligence postulates that Al Qaeda has been significantly disrupted by the assassination of key officials. They go further to state, however, that Al Qaeda will continue to be the largest single terror threat for the foreseeable future. Obviously the death of Osama bin Laden would go further in disrupting the activity of the terror organization, but there may be an even larger effect on the American psyche. Osama bin Laden is seen as the face of terrorism worldwide, and his death may call for abatement in American efforts in the “war on terror”. The continued terrorist activity that would surely follow bin Laden’s death would inevitably lead to further cleavages between the administration and the rest of the world including the American public.

[Christie Sauve]

I agree with Ambassador Walker in his assessment that "it is hard to see how the death of Osama, no matter how evil, would have any significant negative impact on the war in Iraq." Despite our determination to wipe him out as a threat in the Middle East, it seems that regardless of whether he lives or dies, terrorism will continue to be a major global threat. Despite the efforts of the United States government, Bin Laden is seen as a hero to many terrorist regimes and I feel that his heroic status will become greatly magnified and unstoppable if the rumors regarding his supposed death are proven true.
The United States and other governments around the world must further understand the terrorist culture and mindset in order to take out this seemingly unstoppable enemy. Because of his immense hatred for Americans and anything remotely connected to the United States, bin Laden will continue to be revered after his death for the many violent actions he instigated to take out the American threat in the Middle Eastern world. Therefore, it is important for the United States to form a better communication structure between Middle Eastern culture and our value and belief system. Only then will each side be able to better understand the motives and reactions of its counterpart and solve its problems and conflicts in a much more pacifying and conciliatory manner.

[Raymond DeMartino]

The mastermind behind the most ruthless attack ever performed on American soil must be put to justice. Osama bin Laden came foward as that mastermind. His face is the most recognizable and associated image the U.S. has with terrorism and the war against it. The president has made it a main priority to capture all the men involved in 9/11, and to bring them to justice. The emphasis on bin Laden has become so strong in the media that it is an issue that will never be swept under the rug. I don't think the president knew how taxing it would be to capture bin Laden and now he can't avoid his critics constantly nagging him on his inability to capture bin Laden. If bin Laden were dead, it would be a victory for the Islamic terrorists and partisan politics. Whether or not bin Laden is as influential to the growth of terrorism as he is depicted to be in the media, there is no question that by avoiding American troops, he was victorious in his battle against the West. If bin laden really died then, Bush lost the battle with bin Laden which would translate in the U.S. as the republican party failed to capture bin Laden. The democrats would use this to their advantage to discredit all the positive aspects of Bush's war on terror because he couldn't capture the poster boy. To this point the war on terror is a failure because bin Laden is still at large. His death would do nothing positive for Bush's strategy but at the same time ignite Islamic fundamentalist support and partisan politcs.

[allie berkley]

Since September 11 2001, Osama Bin Laden has been a creature of our nightmares. For Americans who watched the towers fall and the Pentagon go up in smoke, his bearded face has become the image of terror. Bin Laden was an easy target for our emotional anger and having this image of a single man helped rally Americans to retaliate. After all, it would have been a far more difficult task for us to identify 9/11 with the idea of Islamic Fundamentalist terror groups. The face of Bin Laden was a far more effective mobilization technique and the media played a role in fostering this hatred towards Bin Laden by putting him in the Global Spotlight. How much of the September 11th attacks Bin Laden was actually responsible for I don’t think we will ever know, but blaming him for ordering the attacks has helped Americans get their heads around this idea of Islamic terrorism by blaming a single, crazy or power hungry man. Crazy and power hungry men, after all, are a group of actors we are familiar with, we had Hitler and Stalin and to our best knowledge Castro is still alive and well.
The report of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) as reported by the NYT should be disturbing to Americans not only because of the allegation that the threat of terrorism has grown, but more so because Osama may no longer be running the show. A loosely configured group of terrorists poses an enormous challenge for American and international peacekeeping forces militarily, and is also more difficult for us to identify with. As long as Bin Laden is still alive we can pretend that he is running the whole show, and I think a majority of Americans want to believe that. Death by natural causes would be a disappointment to us, and I think even by capture, if Bin Laden is removed from the picture and the scene only gets worse, then we will find ourselves angrier and more confused.
Though I agree with the point that Osama Bin Laden's death will have little if any “significant negative impact” on the situations in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, I do think that it will have a significant impact here. It will force Americans to really get their heads around this notion of a global terror network, of many bearded and non-bearded faces of men and women who have taken up this cause of destruction and terror. The death if Osama Bin Laden will have an impact in this war, but it may not be the one we have all expected. Those who imagined the storm clouds retreating, revealing blue sunny skies will have to brace themselves for what storms may still lie ahead.

[Meghan Hepp]

Amb. Walker brought up a key issue in what the death of Osama Bin Laden would really mean to the War on Terror. Bin Laden’s death may not bring us any closer to victory but it would have real consequences here at home. For example, his death would prove to have a great impact on the up coming mid term elections because for many Americans it would be a symbolic victory against terrorism and would help Americans and the administration re-justify the war in Iraq as well as the continued War on Terror. However, will Osama’s death really bring us any closer to our goal of greater national security against terrorism and terror attacks? Probably not, because Osama would be just as easily replaced as was Zarqawi after his death. But since The United States has only fought traditional wars against recognizable nation states with the main goal being to attack the rouge leaders of the state, we are attempting to apply the same philosophy to the non state actors of terror organizations. Thus, our goal would be to take out Osama. Yet, the government is quickly learning that this philosophy will not hold true in a new era of war and we need to fight a ‘new’ type of war with different agendas that differ from conventional tactics. Our nation may not be any safer since 9/11 and it will not be until we re examine how to achieve our objectives of a more secure State.

[Nathaniel Emmons]

If Osama bin Laden did die over the weekend, his death will not increase America’s security or stop the spread of terrorism. However, his death does signify a meaningful moral victory for America, but unfortunately it means little in the broader war on terrorism. Although bin Laden was the symbolic head of Al Qaeda, the effectiveness of the group came from how it was organized in independent cells in over sixty countries throughout the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have created and energized many more terrorists than bin Laden could have ever hoped for. Because of America’s disruption of Al Qaeda, hunting down terrorists is now much harder. For example, as Ambassador Walker illustrates, our pressure on Al Qaeda has simply turned them into “self-generating” cells with little or no affiliation with bin Laden. Thus if he is dead it will do almost nothing to disrupt the organization of his terrorist network. In a very ironic twist, by invading Iraq to stop terrorism, America has actually created a new generation of terrorists that would have never existed if it were not for the Iraq war. America’s pursuit of bin Laden allowed for him to become an icon but not intrinsic to the terrorist movement. However, by turning bin Laden into an icon will only stimulate more terrorism because, as Amb. Walker illustrates, more Muslims will try to become a martyr like him. As America will soon realize, bin Laden was the poster boy for Islamic terrorism but even without him, there will still be devoted and talented terrorists.
Although bin Laden was a part of the 9/11 attacks, it is clear that he was not involved in every decision. This separation also illustrates how a relatively small group of men could turn airplanes into weapons of mass destruction without direct involvement from bin Laden. Thus, it is clear that bin Laden was not essential to the workings of Al Qaeda and his death will do nothing to slow the operations and dedication of Al Qaeda. America has put too much importance on the capture of bin Laden and has ignored a more alarming trend; the war in Iraq is creating a large number of terrorists with little or no affiliation with bin Laden, thus his death will not effect their organization, operations and planning. Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism has transformed into a more complex organization and bin Laden’s death will not topple the organization or make America safer.

[Andrew Gumbiner]

In the five years since the well orchestrated attacks on September 11, 2001 the Bush administration has dedicated all of its time and resources to eradicate terrorism and radical Islamic groups. Although some success has been reached by destroying terrorist networks and killing leaders of radical groups like Hamas, al- Qaeda, and Hezbollah, we must ask ourselves is the world actually a safer place? The answer seems that the world is not a safer place as seen in the recent attacks on the London subways, the attacks in Spain, and the recent conflict between Israeli and Hezbollah. After the United States has poured vast resources into Afghanistan and Iraq, why is the world still unsafe for free democracies? The answer may be easier then we think; we underestimate the drive and determination of radical Islamic groups and leaders like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the nature of terrorism allows any radial to plan and carry out deadly attacks at their disposal; subsequently we do not truly know the nature of our enemy and how to combat them.

Although the death of Osama bin Laden is certainly an achievement for the War on Terror, the simple fact is that there will be another, more radical leader waiting to replace him. It has been well documented that terrorists and their organizations are willing to wait for an optimal time to strike, such as 9/11, even if it means waiting years or decades. The United States has underestimated Osama bin Laden’s empire of ideological followers that are willing to sacrifice themselves to achieve their goal. Even with bin Laden’s death, terrorist attacks can be planned at any time in unsuspecting areas without warning or provocation. Therefore, the death of bin Laden only welcomes new generation of radical terrorists to attack when they believe it is necessary to carry out Jihad.

[Andrew Small]

The concept of terrorism seems to be something black and white, which has clear causes and consequences but in reality it is a tricky situation. There are several who feel that some sort of ring leader (i.e. Osama, Hussein, etc.) in order for terrorist tasks to be carried out. While leaders may be important to the world of terrorism, they are definitely not the sole factor in the issue. All such 'terrorsits' have the same beliefs and with or without a leader they will continue to carry out terrorist acts in hopes of showing the world 'the truth' and also for benefit of their own lives. Terrorism can not simply be stopped, and personally I feel that it will always be around us. There is simply no way to completely rid the world of terrorism.
As far as this whole assumption that President Clinton and now President Bush have not done enough to look for Osama and other terrorist leaders seems a little ridiculous. Like I said previously, while terrorist leaders may play some role in terrorism acts, they by no means run the show. In other words, terrorist acts would still occur with or without these leaders. The terrorist acts in recent years, under President Bush have been horrific, and at the same time President Clinton had to deal with terrorist attacks as well. No one can say that one President has done a better or worse job on tackling terrorism. It is a difficult issue and will take constant efforts from all around to stop future attacks.