The War on Terror After Osama bin Laden

The War on Terror After Osama bin Laden
Op-Ed New York Times
Summary
While Osama bin Laden’s death will not put an end to jihadist groups, it could help facilitate a political solution in Afghanistan, offering President Obama the political capital and opportunity to begin negotiations with the Taliban.
Related Media and Tools
 

Osama bin Laden’s death is a clear victory with greater significance for the war in Afghanistan than for the dynamics of radical jihadist groups around the world.

Under pressure, al-Qaeda has not been able to carry out major operations against Western countries for the last few years. Bin Laden had mostly taken on a symbolic role and his removal doesn’t directly affect an organization that is largely decentralized. The fate of Ayman al Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, remains unknown, but he will probably replace bin Laden and an internal crisis like the one that divided the Pakistani Taliban is unlikely.

Of course, the current events in the Middle East — from Yemen to Iraq — give al-Qaeda ample opportunities to recruit militants, and it is wishful thinking to believe that bin Laden’s death will cause a major shift in the perceptions of the United States. In addition, nothing indicates that other jihadist groups, for example Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan, will be affected by the killing of Osama.

The real impact could be on the Afghan war. On the military side, al-Qaeda has not played an important role and one should not wait for a different strategy or a less aggressive Taliban this summer. The “surge” has failed and the momentum is definitively with the Taliban. But on the political side, the removal of bin Laden from the political equation opens a window of opportunity for the White House to start negotiations with the Taliban’s leadership.

First, after such a victory, Obama has gained a great deal of political capital—he is immune for the moment from Republican criticism and can more easily negotiate with the Taliban. Second, it will be easier for the Taliban to distance itself from al-Qaeda after bin Laden’s death. Finally, the Pakistani military are now under pressure to explain how the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was able to stay so deep inside Pakistan near a military academy. Whatever the answer—incompetence or complicity—this gives the White House some leverage in pushing Pakistan to make positive steps.

Osama bin Laden’s death will certainly not put an end to jihadist groups, but it could help facilitate a political solution in Afghanistan. With conditions on the ground making it obvious that a military solution doesn’t make sense, this is a chance for Washington to change strategy and do the sensible thing in Afghanistan after almost ten years at war. The question becomes: will President Obama use his newly acquired political capital to make a major diplomatic opening?

End of document

About the South Asia Program

The Carnegie South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan’s internal dynamics to U.S. engagement with India, the Program’s renowned team of experts offer in-depth analysis derived from their unique access to the people and places defining South Asia’s most critical challenges.

 
 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/05/02/war-on-terror-after-osama-bin-laden/406h

Publication Resources

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。