More surprising than the death of Osama bin Laden on Monday was the fact that he lived unmolested in a mansion in Abbottabad, about 65 kilometers north of the Pakistani capital Islamabad. How many Pakistani officials and others must have known about this? “America can do whatever we set out mind to,” President Barack Obama intoned in his May 1 announcement of Bin Laden’s death at the hands during a strike by Pakistani and American special forces.
Not, apparently, without a little help from its friends, and remarkably belated help at that.
Normally I do not speculate on operational matters; to solicit information on secret matters even from very good sources is like telling Pinocchio, “Lie to me.” Some considerations here are obvious, though, even without the usual disinformation. It is hard to conclude otherwise that Bin Laden died this week because people who knew his whereabouts chose this particular moment to inform the US authorities. What has changed? The simple answer is: everything has changed. Instability in the Muslim world has reached a level that makes Bin Laden redundant.
The overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and the near-overthrow of Yemini President Ali Abdullah Saleh, along with the eruption of instability across the whole of the Arab world, changed al-Qaeda’s position. From Riyadh’s vantage point, Bin Laden was a loose cannon and an annoyance, but no threat to the strategic position of Saudi Arabia.
The royal family preferred to allow some of its more radically-inclined members to provide support to Bin Laden on a covert basis in return for al-Qaeda’s de facto agreement to leave the Arabian Peninsula in peace. As a WikiLeaks cable revealed, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a secret December 2009 memo, “More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Toiba] and other terrorist groups.”
With the destabilization of Yemen, that sort of modus vivendi became obsolete. As the terse diplomatic announcements of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ April 6 conversation with King Abdullah made clear, the Saudis were deeply concerned about the destabilization of Yemen by al-Qaeda along with Iran.
In the slow-burning civil war in Yemen – a proxy war between Riyadh and Tehran – al-Qaeda acted as an Iranian ally. This was an annoyance to the Saudis as long as the Saudi-allied regime remained intact. The near collapse of Saleh’s regime, though, threatens to give Iran an additional foothold on the Saudi border.
Although Bin Laden himself is Sunni, al-Qaeda’s closest state relationship almost certainly is with Iran. Among the would-be bombers arrested in Germany last week were Iranian nationals, apparently collaborating in an al-Qaeda operation. That is not new. America’s bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that Iran had opened its border to al-Qaeda elements in Afghanistan no later than 2000.
In short, while al-Qaeda had drawn funding from both Saudi and Iranian sources, in present circumstances its activity tended to serve Iranian rather than Saudi interests. Support for terrorism, moreover, is a two-way street: precisely because Saudi Arabia was “a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda”, Saudi intelligence knows something about the recipients of their money.
The Saudis, moreover, have an interest in cleaning up the terrorist associations of the Pakistani military. As the Saudi cold war with Iran grows increasingly hot, Riyadh may look towards Islamabad for military support. Asia Times Online has reported that the Bahrain National Guard already is recruiting Pakistani mercenaries. (See Pakistan ready for Middle East role, April 2.)
And there is speculation that Saudi Arabia in a pinch might ask for Pakistani troops, and also that Riyadh might source nuclear weapons technology from Pakistan to counter Iran’s nuclear program. Where else might the Saudis go for support in a war with Iran? The Saudis cannot trust the United States. King Abdullah reportedly was enraged that Obama pulled the rug out from under Mubarak, a longstanding American ally. And they cannot trust the Turks, who have become the region’s spoiler.
Pakistan’s military capacity and urgent need for money make it the Sunni power most amenable to Saudi interests. That is one more reason to clear the deck of unreliable elements like Bin Laden.
Ironically, Bin Laden appears to be a casualty in the great Arab breakdown of 2011. We can only guess as to the details of his demise, and may never know the entire truth. But it is a fair conclusion that he was crushed between the tectonic plates now shifting in the Muslim world.
That makes American self-congratulation over the killing a bit unseemly. American special forces may have been the proximate cause of Bin Laden’s violent death, but the efficient cause is a great strategic upheaval that America does not yet understand, and is not prepared to respond to.
Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman. Comment on this article in Spengler’s Expat Bar forum.
Too simplistic, Eagle; not necessarily either/or.
Could be BOTH.
That is,
protecting him
till they found it
safe
(or otherwise advantageous)
to give him up.
What’s the big deal? It’s one Muslim killing another.
If you take the B out of Obama and the S out of Osama you
get the same B S. They should have a high
score on both sides.
BO, You got the justification only HALF-correct. Did you forget the other half, called Al Qaeda?
The leaders of Pakistan did not give him up – they were protecting him.
This is not going to have any long lasting effect on Obama’s popularity once Americans learn that Obama strenuously opposed the very interrogation methods that led to finding Bin Laden. Here’s the latest Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll of likely voters:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Osama was not their buddy – their buddy is Muammar Qaddafi.
Give the dufus his due. He did say during the campaign that he would go into Pakistan if Osama was located there. There are enough other good reasons to boot him out.
You just made that up. You have no way of knowing any such thing.
Some one gave an ultimatum and some else responded accordingly. Otherwise…….
This should have been done earlier.
Will Bammy’s buddies, i.e. Farrakhan, Wright, etc. speak out about Bammy okaying the death of one of their buddies? Can’t believe the human being sitting in the White House would do anything for the good of the United States of America.
Nonie Darwish, a friend of mine, explains Why it took ten years.
Essentially she agrees with Spengler. She said that Muslims would never turn Osama in, even for $25 million.
“But gradually the love affair of many Muslims with Bin Laden started fading away and other jihadist heroes took his place. That was a signal to the leaders of Pakistan and perhaps other Muslim leaders to go ahead and give him up to the United States since it is now less dangerous for them and perhaps can be used as leverage for some demands from the U.S. government. The calculations for giving up Bin Laden now were much better than before. The capture of Bin Laden also coincided with a sharp decrease in Obama’s popularity — which desperately needed a boost before next year’s elections. The need for America was increased and the fear of Muslim leaders of giving him up was decreased; and so, voila: Bin Laden was killed.”
“The CIA Bosses killed you Os, they shot you Os, they filled you full of lead…”
Actually, from what I gather, there was only ONE shot — they didn’t fill him “full of lead.”
But then, he wasn’t killed in the firefight (in which case, his body would very likely be riddled with lead), but rather, in His Anointedness’s words,
“After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden…”
This was simply an extrajudicial execution.
Too bad Joe Hill is dead, Danny Boy. Otherwise he’d shove that scab poem back where it came from.
Yamit: Miss you, I bless the day I met you.
Miss you beyond words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSEYXWmEse8&feature=related
dan friedman says:
.
Your attempt at poetry is almost as bad as “Do not go gentle into that good night”,
“As virtuous men pass mildly away,
And whisper to their souls to go,
Whilst some of their sad friends do say,
“Now his breath goes,” and some say, “No.”
Miss me HP? 🙂
What are you talking about? Ted has been posting these articles. How is he missing in action? And Yamit has made some comments.
Two people, missing in action, Belman, Yamit.
blandoat
According to the muddle headed mavens of Israpundit,Bin laden never died. It is all one big hoax.
Have you forgotten “hearts and minds”?
For what it’s worth, my musings this morning as I woke up were,
“Osama bin Laden is the first casualty of the NEW Afghan War.”
As I considered the thought, it rang true: Our justification for being in Afghanistan has, for the past 9+ years, been “to get Osama bin Laden.” That’s done now; so we need to either get out, or find a new justification. The Administration seems to already be supplying just that, in saying that the “War on Terrorism” (meaning draconian search procedures, massive invasion of privacy AND the War in Afghanistan) has not ended with the death of Osama. We are also informed that we have always been allied with Eurasia and at war with East Asia. Emanuel Goldstein still lives, lurking in the shadows, the REAL enemy of freedom (Note that his name is Jewish). The war goes on.
By the way, the Libyan engagement has also entered a new phase, with the botched assasination of Qadaffi. New war; New World Order; Brave New World: Everything new. Modern. Improved. Progress. Higher and deeper B.S.