The carefully plotted killing of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces in a firefight inside a mansion in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad, not far from Islamabad, on Sunday night is a historical event whose practical implications will be sought to be grasped for some time to come. Bin Laden had not only created Al Qaeda
, but he also funnelled and helped coalesce the forces that would eventually attack the American mainland on September 11, 2001, a horrific event that set the stage for the unleashing of US military power in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, and in sharpening the capabilities of a vast military machine in the Gulf with the aim of arresting the spread of Al Qaeda in Arab lands, with which America’s political, economic and military policy has been intertwined since the end of World War II. These developments came to be drawn together under the rubric of the “global war on terror”. Ironically, the demise of the terrorist leader cannot automatically signify the rollback of the US military machine from these areas, although it is possible some political openings may be created to help accelerate processes that would lead to a US withdrawal from Af-Pak and elsewhere.
If a rough parallel were sought to be drawn with the death of Adolf Hilter on April 30, 1945, it will be noticed that when Nazi Germany’s leader took his own life, his Third Reich was disintegrating, German forces were surrounded by its enemies (tasting defeat on all fronts), and the end of World War II was near. The opposite is the case with the irregular military detachments (like the Taliban and some others) which found inspiration from Bin Laden. Their end is not in sight, and bringing this about will take some doing. The rise of democratic sentiment in North Africa and some Gulf states, leading to widespread public demonstrations against dictatorships — rather than a lurch towards extremism on a significant scale — does not negate the dynamics of Al Qaeda’s affiliates like the Taliban. This was implicitly recognised by US President Barack Obama in his short speech, in which he announced Osama bin Laden’s death. His killing marked “the most significant achievement to date” in the US attempt to defeat Al Qaeda, Mr Obama noted. But he also said: “Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There is no doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us”.
The official reaction in India is little more than a tepid — and elliptical — version of the US President’s short address. External affairs minister S.M. Krishna said on Monday: “The world must not let down its united effort to overcome terrorism and eliminate the safe havens and sanctuaries that have been provided to terrorists in our own neighbourhood. The struggle must continue unabated.” Contrast this with the US President’s directness: “And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against Al Qaeda and its associates.” This appears to be more an instruction than an appeal, although the Americans are fully aware that the Pakistan government and its military leadership will pretend to their people that they had no contribution to make in the US enterprise of killing Bin Laden. (This due to widespread lurking sympathies for extremism and terrorism in Pakistan). It would be dreadful if India simply sat back and watched what the Americans and the Pakistanis now do with regard to Afghanistan, not to say cleaning up of Taliban sanctuaries inside Pakistan. Indeed, it is time to project a muscular Indian diplomacy in the wake of Bin Laden’s death in order to work for an outcome that is consistent with our regional perspectives.
If a rough parallel were sought to be drawn with the death of Adolf Hilter on April 30, 1945, it will be noticed that when Nazi Germany’s leader took his own life, his Third Reich was disintegrating, German forces were surrounded by its enemies (tasting defeat on all fronts), and the end of World War II was near. The opposite is the case with the irregular military detachments (like the Taliban and some others) which found inspiration from Bin Laden. Their end is not in sight, and bringing this about will take some doing. The rise of democratic sentiment in North Africa and some Gulf states, leading to widespread public demonstrations against dictatorships — rather than a lurch towards extremism on a significant scale — does not negate the dynamics of Al Qaeda’s affiliates like the Taliban. This was implicitly recognised by US President Barack Obama in his short speech, in which he announced Osama bin Laden’s death. His killing marked “the most significant achievement to date” in the US attempt to defeat Al Qaeda, Mr Obama noted. But he also said: “Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There is no doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us”.
The official reaction in India is little more than a tepid — and elliptical — version of the US President’s short address. External affairs minister S.M. Krishna said on Monday: “The world must not let down its united effort to overcome terrorism and eliminate the safe havens and sanctuaries that have been provided to terrorists in our own neighbourhood. The struggle must continue unabated.” Contrast this with the US President’s directness: “And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against Al Qaeda and its associates.” This appears to be more an instruction than an appeal, although the Americans are fully aware that the Pakistan government and its military leadership will pretend to their people that they had no contribution to make in the US enterprise of killing Bin Laden. (This due to widespread lurking sympathies for extremism and terrorism in Pakistan). It would be dreadful if India simply sat back and watched what the Americans and the Pakistanis now do with regard to Afghanistan, not to say cleaning up of Taliban sanctuaries inside Pakistan. Indeed, it is time to project a muscular Indian diplomacy in the wake of Bin Laden’s death in order to work for an outcome that is consistent with our regional perspectives.
