Obama vs Osama: is this truly the final score?

_Aftermath: Is Osama Bin Laden’s death a turning point?_

Akash: Yes, I think it will be a turning point, in the sense that global terrorism will be reduced as the leader of the biggest terrorist organisation is dead.

Maria: At the same time, regardless of whether the leader of a terrorist organisation is alive or dead, the threat of terrorism continues to exist through his followers and members of the organisation.

A: But he is a leader of great prominence, who founded al-Qaeda; his death is a huge symbolic and morally depleting blow to its members. A a lot of the followers and sympathisers will see this event as a loss to the organisation’s power and influence.

M: That is completely true; naturally as a result of their leader being killed, they are “almost certainly” expected to form attack in order to avenge for Bin Laden’s death. We need to consider that those who joined al-Qaeda also pledged to Bin Laden personally; by the US shooting him, clearly this is going to greatly affect those members. Undoubtedly, they are more disposed to take action in order to restore their power and to reassert their dominance as an organisation after the murder of their leader.

A: But the issue is that if they want to conduct a large scale attack, like Bin Laden did, forming a plan will take years; it’s not organised on a drunken night out. In order to avenge his death, it is more likely that al-Qaeda will arrange small scale attacks. This is because the longer they don’t take revenge, the weaker they seem in front of their enemy. Therefore, by forming these attacks to have an immediate effect, the likelihood of them making mistakes within their plan drastically increases since they have less time to map it.

M: But consider that for the years after 9/11 when Bin Laden was on the run from America, his priority was to stay alive and not get captured. But after this event, we saw that operations organised by al-Qaeda continued to be carried out, even when he was in Abbottabad watching re-runs of Pakistani TV. Clearly, even in Bin Laden’s absence, many plans were executed as many satellites of al-Qaeda are autonomous.

A: That granted, no one has the charismatic appeal that Bin Laden had: when Bin Laden said something, his million of followers and admirers stood up and took notice. He had the ability to reach out to large sections of the Muslim world, which no one currently has. His named successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is not very well liked both in al-Qaeda and across the Muslim world; therefore, his authority does not stand or match against Bin Laden’s. Undoubtedly, he will have a hard time leading al-Qaeda.

M: Fundamentally though, you can kill the messenger, but you can’t kill the message. So regardless of who steps up to take charge, if Bin Laden managed to influence all those people to such a great extent, they will continue to believe in his doctrine. If anything, Bin Laden’s story can be romanticised and sold to many more people, turning him into a martyr, which may have the effect of recruiting more individuals.

A: Let’s get this straight: of course we will not see the end of al-Qaeda in the near future. However, their threat has been significantly reduced, because his death came at exactly the wrong time for them. All that is left of Bin Laden is his message. Yet, his message is increasingly becoming irrelevant in the Muslim world; look at the Arab Spring. His entire doctrine preached that democracy was a Western ideal, and that we should have caliphate rule, i.e. religious autocratic rule. We see that after many years of bombing and killing his own people, upheavals were not accomplished in places like Libya and Egypt. Now the youth are peacefully doing what Bin Laden could never do, thus his extremist ideology has become more irrelevant and rejected by masses. Consequently, without him there to retain a presence within the community and to prop it up, inevitably the teachings will become weaker and weaker.

M: Yes, but the Arab Spring could make al-Qaeda evolve; similar patterns were found in pre-Cold War times as coalitions with extremist groups were formed in the new democratic states. We saw the communist party in Eastern Europe and we see the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt today. Extremist groups will infiltrate a democratic system, because let’s not forget that many of those prominent in al-Qaeda have power, money and influence – making them quite electable! Once in government, they can create radical regimes with a democratic mandate and legitimacy. Thus al-Qaeda will be a different force than they once were, because they would have gained legitimacy through a democratic system.

A: Democracy is very difficult to perverse into a radical sense. Even when looking at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, if elected into a democratic system, there will be a parliament, discourse and there is a market of ideas. People can appeal to their politicians and create a positive change as they are held accountable in elections. Moreover, one of the biggest things about extremism is its complete disregard for human rights which will be difficult to pass in a democratic regime; most people won’t vote for a person who is notorious for killing randomers ‘for a laugh’.

M: We are entering a time where there is potential for greater global security and the integration of a largely marginalised region of the world. However, the only thing we can do now is see how this pans out and if this is a dawn of a new era.