In the United States, news of Osama Bin Laden’s death was met with a sense of relief and satisfaction. The mood was far from triumphal, as reflected in President Obama’s appropriately sober announcement.
It is unseemly to celebrate the death of another human being, however murderous he may have been. And few have any illusions that the threat of terrorism— even coming from a weakened Al Qaeda— has disappeared.
But the news was welcomed by a nation that had ample reason to fear Bin Laden’s next deadly move and had been frustrated that he had eluded US authorities for so long.
His death has raised many questions. Have the Bush era policies and declared war on terror been vindicated? Or did the operation successfully carried out by Navy SEALS show the value of good, old-fashioned police and intelligence work?
There is also the inevitable debate about whether torture helped get some information that helped track down Bin Laden. It would be unfortunate for the country if this significant development becomes too politicized—or if proponents of torture use it to justify techniques that are morally indefensible and that had an enormous cost for the image and reputation of the US during the Bush years.
It has been difficult for other countries, including in Latin America, to identify with the emotional catharsis that Bin Laden’s death brought to most Americans. The exception may have been in Colombia, where the sympathetic reactions seemed strongest. Colombians, after all, have long suffered the scourge of terrorism, and were similarly relieved with the September 2010 killing of leading FARC commander Mono Jojoy, who had been responsible for many deaths. The September 1992 capture and imprisonment of Peru’s Shining Path leader Abimael Guzman also comes to mind.
Some parallels can be drawn to Colombia’s March 2008 military raid of the FARC camp in Ecuador, and the killing of Raul Reyes and confiscation of valuable computer files. In that case, as in this one, there had been “actionable intelligence” of a terrorist who had established refuge in another country.
To be sure, there are important differences between the two cases. The US has provided Pakistan with ample sums of assistance, whereas Colombia had a different relationship with Ecuador. As a result, in Latin America especially, Colombia’s military raid provoked accusations of violating sovereignty.
The circumstances of Bin Laden’s death have led to questioning of Pakistan’s role—most Americans are convinced senior government officials knew of his whereabouts—and have increased pressure to reduce or cut off aid to the nuclear power. In addition, the death has made a US withdrawal from Afghanistan—the longest war in US history— more probable.
The US will now most likely focus even more on trying to shape changes sweeping the Middle East, the so-called “Arab Spring.” Whether governments will eventually embrace democratic values—the antithesis of Bin Ladenism—is a critical question.
Bid Laden’s death will help neutralize criticism of Obama and the Democratic Party about being weak on national security. Although Obama’s reelection in 2012 is far from assured— November 2012 is a long time away, and the price of gasoline and the unemployment level will weigh on voters’ minds— recent polls confirm that the president has gotten a significant political boost. Yet again he has thrown his critics off balance.
Obama deserves credit for his calm, deliberate manner in dealing with the Bin Laden challenge. Some have criticized his leadership style for being too cautious, but this success contrasts with Bush’s handling of Iraq, which ended up being a monument to impetuosity.
