Getting bin Laden: America's New Game
For a presidency and a half, American foreign policy was dominated by one fact and occasionally one goal: taking out bin Laden by some means. For a lot of people this meant arresting him or otherwise taking him into custody. For others this mean we had to kill him. For others, this mean somehow neutralizing him but not killing him or arresting him. But just about everyone agreed that America would have to be doing this. It was understood, if not not formalized in so many treaties, that since America was attacked in a brutal fashion, even on the scale of international terrorism, that America would be dealing with all this. It was also understood we would do anything to get bin Laden and we wouldn't let anything get in our way. Except, then we did let things get in our way, like invading Iraq and numerous economic problems. We got distracted by domestic issues and hunting one man in relatively friendly territory is problematic at best. Sometimes we used the worst tactics and personnel possible, namely large scale infantry invasions, and sometimes we came up with better personnel and techniques, like special forces and better telephone and internet monitoring. America declared a War on Terror, and the face of that war was Usama bin Laden. It might have been called the War on Terror, but it was really the war on bin Laden, even if it was used to fight things that had nothing to do with him. Bin Laden, like Karl Marx or Stalin before him, came to represent the entire ideology we were fighting against. We hated the commies, but we gave them all the face of Marx and put his writings in the mouths of every foe we might face. This time, it was done with bin Laden, who had the audacity to be alive after numerous attempts to get him. Some conspiracy theorists likened him to Emmanuel Goldstein, the villain created by the government in 1984 as a justification for all its repression. Goldstein was designed to never be caught, thus guaranteeing the government's ability to continue oppressing people forever. But with bin Laden dead, where does this leave American policy?
So, now what? We got bin Laden, al-Qaeda is smashed probably never to return to its full strength and we're making real progress in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The question now for the Americans is do we let that be the end of an era. Do we let the death of bin Laden mark the end of over-extension into foreign affairs of other countries and aligning ourselves with dictators just because they're strong against al-Qaeda? Afghanistan is far from perfect, but it's getting a lot better and the Taliban have shown willingness to talk more since bin Laden died, or at least be more pro-social in the game politics. If THAT happens, American troops might be able to draw down faster than expected, still call it all a victory and we get to save a lot of money but not supporting hundreds of thousands of troops overseas. Some might say we're cutting and running, and some would say we overstayed our welcome. Really, as long as we're pissing off both sides of the fanatical equation, we're doing the right thing. That's the real trick with symbolic victories with some substance, we can never be sure of the right ratio of substance to symbol. And in this case, there is real substance there BECAUSE he was so symbolic. He was the man evading the Americans, he was the man taking the fight to the Americans and he was the man people signed up to serve. Now, he's dead BY the Americans, which proves him wrong to a lot of people, which means fewer people signing up and fewer enemies to fight. There is substance in all that. International terrorism was made weaker by his death. Not irreparably so, but weaker for now. They lost a major leader and a lot of money; a walking command and control facility. Of course, the question is what's the value of his death both tactically and strategically
Tactically, this was huge and has been gone over. Head of al-Qaeda's gone, along with tons of raw intelligence, operationally they've started to fall apart and we're already finding out who the next head of al-Qaeda is. Strategically, this will have to play out over time. Maybe the Taliban starts to fall apart as a terrorist organization and becomes more like Sinn Fein or other shady, but legal, political groups that advocate extreme positions. This would make Afghanistan a safer place to live, which would make it more prosperous which also in turn make the populace less susceptible to the seduction of terrorism. Which would also make the world a whole lot safer. Of course, these are huge ifs. The reverse could also be true, where a world so enraged by the invasion of Pakistan by American forces decides to link arms more effectively to stop the Americans and bin Laden becomes a rallying cry for all of those who want to stop American international interests all over the world. Pakistan is none too happy with us right now and their parliament has called the invasion of Pakistani space, and subsequent killing of bin Laden, illegal. To one degree or another, both will happen. The real trick will be trying to shape to what levels each response happens and how to make sure American interests are kept safe.
Which means the next move is ours. We've shown we can strike mightily and quickly militarily, but now comes the harder part. We need to build up more of a humanitarian effort, as well as a politically diplomatic one. It will be a hard sell to build schools in Afghanistan while so many schools here need help, but it will save a lot more money down the road. A penny of prevention being worth a pound of cure and all that. Send money for roads (not contractors, the last thing we need is a bunch of psycho frat-boys in polo shirts protecting American contractors with trigger fingers) and other forms of infrastructure and sell them American goods at a discount. Get them trading, get them involved and get them building their country. The rest will take care of itself. One of the reasons Hamas was so big in Palestine was that they build schools, roads and hospitals. Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, if people are getting their basic needs met, they will be more likely to attempt more pro-social ways to meeting their other needs. America needs to play the game of both hanging back a little militarily, which we can afford to do since we're spending military money at the same rate as we did during the Cold War against the Russians. This will give us time to re-organize ourselves a bit so we're more profitable for our own people. We have to show the world we can do things long term other than blow things up. The world sees us giving money after Japan, Haiti or other international disasters, but they also then see us leave. This time, we need to take the opportunity to create a real humanitarian effort that takes some long term commitment with plenty of visibility and practicality.
Otherwise, we'll start playing the old game again with all new players.
So it is written, so do I see it.
So, now what? We got bin Laden, al-Qaeda is smashed probably never to return to its full strength and we're making real progress in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The question now for the Americans is do we let that be the end of an era. Do we let the death of bin Laden mark the end of over-extension into foreign affairs of other countries and aligning ourselves with dictators just because they're strong against al-Qaeda? Afghanistan is far from perfect, but it's getting a lot better and the Taliban have shown willingness to talk more since bin Laden died, or at least be more pro-social in the game politics. If THAT happens, American troops might be able to draw down faster than expected, still call it all a victory and we get to save a lot of money but not supporting hundreds of thousands of troops overseas. Some might say we're cutting and running, and some would say we overstayed our welcome. Really, as long as we're pissing off both sides of the fanatical equation, we're doing the right thing. That's the real trick with symbolic victories with some substance, we can never be sure of the right ratio of substance to symbol. And in this case, there is real substance there BECAUSE he was so symbolic. He was the man evading the Americans, he was the man taking the fight to the Americans and he was the man people signed up to serve. Now, he's dead BY the Americans, which proves him wrong to a lot of people, which means fewer people signing up and fewer enemies to fight. There is substance in all that. International terrorism was made weaker by his death. Not irreparably so, but weaker for now. They lost a major leader and a lot of money; a walking command and control facility. Of course, the question is what's the value of his death both tactically and strategically
Tactically, this was huge and has been gone over. Head of al-Qaeda's gone, along with tons of raw intelligence, operationally they've started to fall apart and we're already finding out who the next head of al-Qaeda is. Strategically, this will have to play out over time. Maybe the Taliban starts to fall apart as a terrorist organization and becomes more like Sinn Fein or other shady, but legal, political groups that advocate extreme positions. This would make Afghanistan a safer place to live, which would make it more prosperous which also in turn make the populace less susceptible to the seduction of terrorism. Which would also make the world a whole lot safer. Of course, these are huge ifs. The reverse could also be true, where a world so enraged by the invasion of Pakistan by American forces decides to link arms more effectively to stop the Americans and bin Laden becomes a rallying cry for all of those who want to stop American international interests all over the world. Pakistan is none too happy with us right now and their parliament has called the invasion of Pakistani space, and subsequent killing of bin Laden, illegal. To one degree or another, both will happen. The real trick will be trying to shape to what levels each response happens and how to make sure American interests are kept safe.
Which means the next move is ours. We've shown we can strike mightily and quickly militarily, but now comes the harder part. We need to build up more of a humanitarian effort, as well as a politically diplomatic one. It will be a hard sell to build schools in Afghanistan while so many schools here need help, but it will save a lot more money down the road. A penny of prevention being worth a pound of cure and all that. Send money for roads (not contractors, the last thing we need is a bunch of psycho frat-boys in polo shirts protecting American contractors with trigger fingers) and other forms of infrastructure and sell them American goods at a discount. Get them trading, get them involved and get them building their country. The rest will take care of itself. One of the reasons Hamas was so big in Palestine was that they build schools, roads and hospitals. Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, if people are getting their basic needs met, they will be more likely to attempt more pro-social ways to meeting their other needs. America needs to play the game of both hanging back a little militarily, which we can afford to do since we're spending military money at the same rate as we did during the Cold War against the Russians. This will give us time to re-organize ourselves a bit so we're more profitable for our own people. We have to show the world we can do things long term other than blow things up. The world sees us giving money after Japan, Haiti or other international disasters, but they also then see us leave. This time, we need to take the opportunity to create a real humanitarian effort that takes some long term commitment with plenty of visibility and practicality.
Otherwise, we'll start playing the old game again with all new players.
So it is written, so do I see it.