Hindustan Times
Obama takes out Osama
A careful reading of President Barak Obama’s speech announcing the death of Osama bin Laden raised more questions than it answered. He said little about the Pakistani involvement in the US-led operation except the passing mention that “our counter-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding”.
No firm conclusions can be drawn from his address about the extent of Pakistani role in the capture and elimination of Osama in Abbottabad. It can be safely deduced, however, that US operatives couldn’t have taken out the al Qaeda chief in a ground combat without keeping the Pak Army and the ISI in the loop.
The giveaway is the terrain. The mansion where Osama took refuge is a short distance — a couple of kilometers actually — from the Pakistan Military Academy. The cantonment city named after British army officer — James Abbott — is the birthplace of Field Marshal Ayub Khan and the chosen redoubt of retired Pakistani servicemen. It stands to reason that the host country’s contribution to the operation was way more than what Obama stated in his address. Local authorities couldn’t have been oblivious of the assault reported last night by private television channels without taking the Osama name.
Given the very peculiar situation in Pakistan — where a section of the population considers the US a bigger evil than the al Qaeda — it suits pro-American elements in the politico-military establishment to play down their role in Osama’s killing. Little wonder then that the US President’s lines on Pakistan were carefully crafted: “Bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people… Tonight, I called President Zardari and my team also spoke with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
The question now staring Islamabad in the face is whether it’ll bear the brunt of the al Qaeda retaliation? It’s nobody’s case that the global campaign against terror is over. Abbottabad is just a battle won in the larger war with theatres across the world. Al Qaeda is a veritable brand name for independently operating, loosely networked terror groups in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Egypt and Libya.
What binds these entities are the faith they flaunt and the hatred they share for America and its allies worldwide. The US President conceded as much while announcing Osama’s death: “There is no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us…”
Anticipating the terror conglomerates’ retaliatory strikes in the name of Islam, Obama did well to reaffirm that the war against terror wasn’t a war against Islam. “The US is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims,” he said.
Is the Islamic world listening? And agreeing? For starters, there are questions already about the US violating Pakistan’s sovereignty in Abbottabad. That was Pervez Musharraf’s take. A more strident Imran Khan wanted American troops out of the region — now that they’ve got their prize quarry.
(14 votes, average: 2.29 out of 5)
Loading ...
Mahesh Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 12:20 am
Usman,
There are two aspects of OBL episode.
From American perspective, BHO might just have gained enough mileage to justify continued Military spending for “War On Terror”. My sense is it was getting politically difficult for the American President to justify this spending while the “Safety Net” (Social Security) is being trimmed / planned for trimming in the face of publicly voiced “Inflation Concerns” (something that corelates with reduced deficit spending) by his Administration. (For instance, you might want to read through Paul Krugman in NYT blog and Ezra Klein in WP – with their wonderful usage of “Word Cloud” technology to decipher Ben Bernanke’s message). IMHO, BHO is not projecting this episode for “Electoral Gains” , the public memory is far too short-lived for it. Plus the dire situation of American economy is weighing even more heavily on voters.
What, in your opinion, is Pakistani side of the story ?
So far, from the publicly available information Pakistan appears to have decided to register a complaint in UN against American Military action. But then this rhetoric, IMHO, still dwarfs in comparison with the reaction in Raymond Davis episode. So, what gives ?
- Mahesh.
[Reply]
usman chaudhry Reply:
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Mahesh,
Amidst in economic crunch and financial bail outs, ever since Obama took charge as president he made it loud and clear about his priorities for health care and unemployment issues inside US rather than expenses outside. He sure had that in mind before giving ample time and space to pick the right moment.
I too share the sentiment of justification you mentioned as to where on war is the money of tax payers going and that too not achieving anything significant for a reason they entered in Afghanistan. My personal opinion is this military operation and killing would come in as a tool to spread the voice of achieving some solid grounds against the terror organization and also to bring forces back home.
Pakistani story:
Nothing conclusive can be induced at current junction the authorities are silent over the issue. But by large in worse state where at one side the global community would target the inefficiency of the intelligence (an eye of suspicion), increase in terror activities inside Pakistan, more drone attacks and above all anger of general populace (ref: http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/03/the-great-deceit.html ).
Yes, this is nothing as compared to Raymond Davis episode, already relations between the two countries are beginning to turn sour after the case became evident that Davis is a spy working in disguise for CIA.
Usman
p.s: Please excuse me for not holding a firm grip over nitty gritties of the incident, and the work of the two brilliance mentioned in Mahesh’s response. One may seek an independent opinion.
[Reply]