Osama bin Laden plotted and ordered the killing of innocent people to further his authoritarian political agenda. And finally he was killed. Thus always to tyrants.
But those of us who harbor no sympathy for bin Laden shouldn’t be blinded by patriotic or victory euphoria. The death of bin Laden does not solve the problems that enabled his rise to fame.
The projection of US government power around the world increases hostility toward Americans and the West. The United States has installed, and currently supports, governments that ruthlessly oppress and severely impoverish people — including governments that murder protesters to stay in power. This in turn rouses sympathy or even allegiance to those who fight or murder Americans.
According to many sources, the flexing of US imperial muscle had included support for bin Laden during the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. True or not, it’s believable — and widely considered an example of how political figures change from good guys to bogeymen depending on the uses that US power has for them.
Waving flags and victory signs cannot cover those rotting in Guantanamo without trial, cannot hide the images of torture at military prisons, and cannot refute the fact that the empire punishes an alleged whistleblower while honoring the anonymous “troops” who committed the crimes bravely revealed to the public. Nor can it compensate for the immigrants confined in homeland Guantanamos crafted in the war on terror, or the police state that intrudes ever more into the lives of Americans and the lives of those on the receiving end of American power worldwide.
The national “unity” of September 11 that Obama celebrated in his victory speech was really bellicose nationalism that enabled more war against Muslim countries. While the absence of mob violence was something to be happy about, prejudice towards Muslims — and general regard for anyone who didn’t fall in line as a traitor or other epithet — does not make for a rosy picture.
As an anarchist, I also feel the need to dispel the sense of triumph surrounding the state. A stateless solution to attacks on innocent people is the only real solution. All states project their power for the benefit of politicians and their partners, and all will trample on those in their way and co-opt effort for freedom into energy for serving new masters.
A proponent of state action could point to the fact that the strike force that killed bin Laden came out of occupied Afghanistan or argue that large state armies denied bin Laden space to comfortably operate in, effectively cornering him. However, this does not mean that his apprehension required a massive state invasion. Following the September 11 attacks, the Taliban attempted to negotiate with the United States government to work out how to cooperate against al Qaeda, but their proposals were rejected. If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden and stayed in power, it’s entirely possible that they themselves would have eventually been unseated by a popular uprising of the type now sweeping the Middle East.
The force that killed bin Laden was relatively small, elite, operating on top-quality intelligence — an example of the efficiency that non-state armed forces would likely display. On the battlefield, non-state actors operate with flexibility against rigid hierarchical foes. Al Qaeda itself is likely not a command structure, but a dispersed threat — another reason that bin Laden’s death won’t solve the major problem.
It remains to be seen whether or not Osama bin Laden will be less influential as a martyr than as a living personality. But the position of Public Enemy Number One will be filled again, and the security-state apparatus will keep squeezing American life as the weapons of foreign policy extinguish lives.
Citations to this article:
- Darian Worden, Good riddance Bin Laden: Now get rid of blinders, Deming, New Mexico Headlight, 05/03/11
Ridiculous article. What sources say the US supported bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets? Not any reputable ones, because we did not. Your theory that a popular uprising similar to the one in the middle east could have unseated the Taliban in Afghanistan is naive and demonstrates an ignorance of Afghan culture. Your analysis that a non-state armed forces would likely have top quality intelligence makes me question how well you understand the way intelligence works.
read some history please
The BBC for one. I'd consider that a more reputable source than the US government. If I'm ignorant of Afghan culture, please explain why a popular uprising couldn't have unseated them in the absence of a US invasion – the powers that be didn't see Tunisia, Egypt, et al coming. Seeing that the voluntary sector generally does better quality work than state actors, I see no reason to assume they would not be able to gather and analyze information.
I have read many, many sources that claim that the US supported bin Laden. If you want I’ll put on some links
[…] Read the rest: Good Riddance to Bin Laden — Now Get Rid of the Blinders. […]
Well written but totally naive. This article demonstrates the power of reasonable discourse even when it is totally without merit.
ABC news reported, "In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate in the Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading forces of the Soviet Union – a cause that, ironically, the United States funded, pouring $3 billion into the Afghan resistance via the CIA."
Cool assertion, bro. How about an actual argument to back up the "naive" label?
I would hope they could do a better job than take almost ten years to track down a murderer and continued threat who finally shows up in a fortified home very close to a Pakistani military facility.
Funding for defensive organizations could be by subscription, contract, or other voluntary or restitution-based means. Since government operates by coercion, relations with other powerful actors, and monetary manipulation it supports an expansive empire largely unhelpful to actually keeping ordinary people safe.
Your premise that a stateless society would, out of some sort of group elan, have the capacity to execute this type of operation is naive. Your "conclusion" that a "stateless solution to attacks on innocent people is the only real solution" is based on premise, not fact. That is naive.
re: "Who's going to fund private forces? " Well, If aggressors have caused harm, they owe restitution plus cost of recovering it from them. The bigger the crime (or tort, actually), the bigger the potential profit opportunity in taking them down. Accounts receivable are, in accounting terms, an asset that could be pledged in financing deals that could bring a rather large amount of money to bear on large problems.
I did not say that the capacity to execute an operation of this sort would be based solely on some sort of group elan. I only made the suggestion that non-state military forces would likely be more efficient than state military forces, as is the case in other areas when control by states and privileged corporations is decreased. Your premise is flawed. You also ignore the part where I suggested that such an operation only became necessary because of choices that states have made.
Of course, you haven't actually presented an argument against my alleged premise, but only asserted that it is "naive."