Even if he's dead, bin Laden's ahead

8 Aug, 2002 06:34 AM5 mins to read

By PAUL BUCHANAN*

The purpose of war is to achieve political objectives. The September 11 declaration of war by al Qaeda clearly has them focused on the weakening of Western influence in the Muslim world and the reassertion of Islamic culture and unity.

The war on terror declared in response increasingly appears to have no such coherent objectives.

The rout of the Taleban and restoration of civilian rule in Afghanistan has bogged down politically and militarily.

American forces serve as territorial police, posse members and bodyguards for a proxy regime rent by ethnic and tribal divisions.

The hunt for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda agents has receded from the public eye as much as it has been slowed in its achievements.

Thus, the war on terror has been expanded to include the so-called axis of evil, with Saddam Hussein providing the new (and old) diversion around which to rally American public support and ongoing international commitment to disarming rogue authoritarian states.

None of this seems to include a long-term contingency plan or plausible postwar reconstruction project. It also lacks global support.

A United States attack on Iraq will polarise the divisions between Islam and the West, as well as those within the West, while simultaneously rallying Muslim support for the beleaguered Arab state. That serves bin Laden's political objectives.

Bin Laden stated that he would politically and economically weaken the West, and the US in particular.

Muslim support for this project has increased along with support for the Palestinian cause even in those countries that are ostensible allies of the US.

Arab Muslims in particular have seen their domestic political systems destabilised by the war on terror and the status quo in many areas before September 11 no longer exists.

The Western world is increasingly divided in its opinion of the merits of the conflict, which has taken on the appearance of an American crusade.

American public opinion is also flagging because of impatience and the lack of promised results (such as locating, capturing or killing bin Laden).

This necessitated resurrection of the spectre of Saddam, with weapons of mass destruction as a point of reference - although the scenario in Iraq is no different than it was in 1998, and there is no smoking gun tying the Ba'ath regime to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If anything, worldwide resistance to the US and its support for Israel has increased along with the violence in Palestine, opening the door to a larger questioning of American intentions and interests abroad.

This is something already raised by the US reneging on international commitments such as the Kyoto accord and jurisdiction of the international war crimes tribunal, as well as resumption of protectionist trade legislation despite its free trade rhetoric.

There is renewed debate in the West about the fundamental nature of its relationship with Islam, and the voices of internal opposition grow.

The destruction of the World Trade Center was a spectacular symbolic assault on the heart of the global capitalist system. But even if bin Laden and his lieutenants could not have believed it would yield immediate economic results, the crumbling of the Twin Towers has been followed by an economic meltdown punctuated by corporate scandal, bankruptcies, loss of investor confidence and the appearance of a bear market not seen since the Great Depression.

The ripple effects of the American economic downturn reverberate amid the worsening liquidity crisis in Latin America, Africa, parts of Asia and the impact of the fall in global telecommunications futures.

Worldwide, sometimes with violence even in the developed core of the G-8 itself, there is increased criticism of market prescriptions for socio-economic stability and international economic integration.

What was simmering discontent and economic slowdown before September 11 has now spilled out into the open. One political result has been the emergence of left-leaning political leaders.

Another may be the collapse of the Bush Administration if the widening corporate scandal investigation reaches the doors of the West Wing. The triumphant days of the 1990s are no more.

Who is ostensibly winning the war on terror is, thus, a matter of debate. Rapid military successes in the first nine months of the campaign have given way to frustration and the stagnation of the Western military campaign.

Al Qaeda, true to its guerrilla tactics, is in a hide-and-disperse mode, using time and stealth until the correlation of forces is more propitious for a resumption of military activities based on the element of surprise. Al Qaeda lives to fight again.

Politically, it seems that increased Muslim unity on certain fundamental issues has paralleled increased differences about the proper Western approach to legitimate Muslim grievances.

For all the bluster about Iraq, the US is increasingly isolated and unipolar in strategic outlook, as well as being short-term oriented. In either case, the focus is on a fundamental reappraisal of the status quo between Islam and the West.

Even if dead, Osama bin Laden could be ahead. His martyrdom, if confirmed, would be added to the pantheon of champions of the Islamic cause. The problems he has created would be both his short and long-term legacy, and his organisation remains intact.

The inevitable realignment between Islam and the West that is to come will be made more contentious because of his influence, and others will attempt to replicate his legendary zeal. Dubya should be so lucky.

* Paul Buchanan is a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Auckland.

Story archives: