THE DEMISE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN
THE DEMISE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN
Davide Ferri
US president Barack Obama announced that Al Qaeda leader
Osama Bin Laden was killed on Sunday during a Navy Seals
ground operation in Pakistan.
'Servant of Capital' Osama Bin Laden — undoubtedly one of the
most philistine symbols both of the decay of Islamic Bonapartist
Capitalism and the irrational 'backfire' of US imperialism — dies
at the age of 54, leaving behind many doubts to the 'liberal
analysts'; especially those on the alleged willingness of Pakistani
government, military forces and intelligence to provide the US
with a full 'inter-capitalist' collaboration in the 'War on Terror'.
The Saudi-born 'radical' had been nicely hiding for more than 3
years in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad — a hillside retreat
popular with retired paunchy Pakistani generals about two hours
north of Islamabad — wherein he could build a concrete
compound and even hire up private guards to be displayed on the
structure roof and the surrounding area:
all 'allegedly unbeknown' to Pakistani intelligence.
The typical military and political 'negligence' of the Pakistani
authorities — which emerged as particularly self-evident through
the recent events — is nothing new for the US intelligence, which
by no means trust its Asian ally in the War on Terror.
The same CIA director Leon Panetta e.g. bluntly stated that the
US did not intend to alert Pakistan for fear that the Pakistani
authorities might have blabbed out all to Bin Laden [1]
Beyond the rhetoric on the importance of such an operation which
is promptly seasoned with liberal intellectual deliria on justice and
the achievement of a safer world [2] — it must be said that Bin
Laden's death has little strategic importance for the US affairs, as
C.de Auken pointed out. [3]
Though Bin Laden's mere existence 'as a wicked bearded monster'
and his reactionary threatening video-messages kept on
legitimising the US-led War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq in
terms of propaganda, it is quite evident that the Al-Qaeda leader
did not play a crucial role in the opposition to the US occupation
in Afghanistan, despite the sheikh's rhetoric. [4]
It is also self-evident that his demise is not going to wipe out the
inherent problems of Islamic and Liberal Capitalism, as well as the
oppression and repression of all the material/immaterial workers
in Afghanistan and all the Middle East.
Within the framework of US foreign policies in the 'patriotic' 80's,
it must be said that Bin Laden's activity as a jihadist played an
active role in favour of American Capitalism during what is
historically known as 'the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan'.
The Soviet occupation — planned in 'help' of the Stalinist clique
of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan — definitely
marked the determination of the US to give the final blow to an
already-crippled bureaucratic USSR, at least abroad.
Bin Laden greatly facilitated the US attempt to get the 'Soviet
bear' stuck into mud in Afghanistan, along with the contribute of
'less radical' Massoud and the jihadist clique of Hekmatyar.
For years, the US Reagan administration kept stirring the jihadist
mob against the (fake) socialists of Afghanistan and the Soviet
troops, surrounded by the usual inoffensive political passivity of
'Liberal' institutions and NGOs; which are so much loved by post-
Marxist apologists à la Negri and Hardt.
The United States administration would historically succeed in
hindering the geopolitical plans of the USSR.
It would do it by dint of coughing out millions of dollars for the
most reactionary anti-communist jihadists, whose practical
approach was known as remarkably violent, especially against the
women and petty bourgeois activities.
The Soviet Union, in its turn, would soon fall into the neo-liberal
abyss; especially thanks to the inherent contradictions of its
Stalinism, whose loyal representatives all of a sudden revealed
themselves as investor-friendly IMF friends in the 'happy' 90's.
As has been pointed out by Zuyara's words — which I will cite at
length — the active role of Pakistani and US authorities is
politically quite evident:
'Between 1980 and 1992 alone, more then 35,000 Islamic
fundamentalists from 43 Islamic countries joined the Afghan
mujaheedin. Pakistan had already given standing instructions to all its
embassies abroad to give visas with no questions asked to anyone
wanting to come and fight in Afghanistan. Among the thousands of
foreign recruits, one was Osama bin Laden. […]
Bin Laden once admitted that: “to counter the revolution in Afghanistan,
the Saudi regime chose me as their representative in Pakistan and
Afghanistan. I recruited volunteers from many Arab and Muslim
countries who came to answer the call. I set up camps where Pakistanis,
Americans and British officers trained these volunteers. America
supplied the weapons, the money came from the Saudis.' [5]
In this regard there are several sources, both Marxist and non-
Marxist [6][7] , which more or less shine a light on the current
political ambitions of Pakistan, the United States and International
Capital in general here in Central Asia; within the framework of
what is commonly known as the new Great Game, as the 'old one'
was already 'played' by British Capitalism against Tsarist Russia in
the same region in the XIX century).
After the killing of Afghani president Najibullah at the hand of
the Talibans — hanged to death with its genital parts stuffed into
his mouth — the growing influence of the jihadist movement in
Central Asia started revealing itself an unbearable burden for the
american imperialistic ambitions.
These puppets would slip out of control of the US authorities,
which would soon invade Afghanistan, that meantime had become
an Emirate on the footsteps of the first millennium caliphates.
Soon after the events of 9/11, US president Bush authorised
'Operation Enduring Freedom', that is, the invasion by US, UK et
al of the then-Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with the excuse of
capturing Bin Laden, regarded as the mastermind behind 9/11
attack.
On the other hand, president Bush soon showed no interest in
insisting on Bin Laden's capture, as he even admittedly confessed
in an interview saying he was 'truly not that concerned' about the
whereabouts of the Al Qaeda leader [8]
The US authorities in December 2001 definitely knew that Bin
Laden was hiding along with Al Qaeda fighters somewhere in the
Tora Bora caves complex at the border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
It should be noted that Bush administration — which authorised a
military operation against Al Qaeda in the same place commonly
known as the 'battle of Tora Bora' — surprisingly failed in
capturing the fundamentalist sheikh, allegedly 'by not deploying a
consistent number of troops'.
A Senate report on the battle of Tora Bora requested by US
Senator John Kerry showed that by deploying a high number of
US military forces both Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar
would have been easily killed in the operation. [9]
In this regard, the then US Secretary of Defence D.Rumsfeld
ambiguously commented at the time by saying that a larger
number of troops would have created resentment amongst the
Afghan population.[10]. Gen. T.R. Franks, even more ambiguously,
declined to comment on the matter though he pointed out the
uncertainty of Bin Laden's presence inside the Tora Bora caves
complex in the White mountains of Eastern Afghanistan. [11].
Leaving aside the rhetoric and non-rhetoric of the official
evidences:
wasn't Osama Bin Laden's capture one of the most important
propagandistic 'Official' excuses to invade the then Taliban-led
Emirate of Afghanistan after the 9/11 events?
Wasn't it the most efficient excuse to go there and 'smoke him out
of his cave and get him eventually' as US president Bush would
have remarked in his cowboy-style rhetoric?
Despite the liberal boring circumlocutions of high officials on the
matter, there is evidence of Bin Laden's presence in Tora Bora
complex in December 2001.
Dalton Fury e.g. — allegedly the officer in command during the
battle Tora Bora — stated in one article "Our job was to go find
him, capture or kill him, and we knew the writing on the wall was
to kill him because nobody wanted to bring Osama bin Laden
back to stand trial in the United States somewhere," [12]
Furthermore, Fury (who also wrote a book on the battle of Tora
Bora) stated that, as the officer in command during the operation,
requested a land mines dropping on the mountain passes which
led to Pakistan — that is, on Bin Laden's escape route; but the
plan was disapproved for reasons Fury doesn't know. [13]
The US forces, attacking Al-Qaeda with fewer than 100 troops
committed to the area, literally failed to capture Bin Laden, who
then fled to Pakistan.
It goes without saying that such events and evidences leaves plenty
of doubts on the nature of US-led and UN-backed invasion of
Afghanistan in the name of Bin Laden's capture for a safer world
and the War on Terror. If trapped within the analytical framework
of a liberal boring set of explanations, these events don't clarify the
US 'official' geopolitical intentions in general.
Now that Bin Laden has died — after years of relaxing absconding
in Pakistan at few steps from one of its most important military
academy — the average unconsciously-servile liberal journalist is
surely more than ever confuse about the aims of US and Pakistan,
after most of the western media supported the War on Terror,
whether indirectly or bluntly, for the entire 2000's.
Even a kid understands that Pakistani president Zardari's care for
underlining no responsibility in the raid against Bin Laden [14]
and at the same time his denial of any organisational negligence
[15] by Pakistani authorities give blunt hints about the deeply
rotten character of Pakistani Capitalism; both in terms of
corruption, as well as economic and political organisation.
However, though Bin Laden's demise represents little, many 'party'
reactions to his killing means a lot; as they undoubtedly shine a
light on the non-progressive and philistine political character of
certain factions of the likes of Hamas [16] et al in Palestine; which
put the entire struggle on 'ethnic', religious and postmodernist
matters.
It should also shine a light on the 'perceptive' aims of certain
European petty bourgeois 'socialists' and their worthy enjoyment
of 'useless', nay negative, support for Hamas, which is everyday
hindering the workers' struggle in the region by blows of post-
modern apology in the west and Bonapartist bigotry in the east.
Transcending all the liberal circumlocutions in regard to the
recent events — Bin Laden's demise is not going to have any
political consequence for the liberation of immaterial and material
workers in the Middle East.
Islamic and 'Liberal' Capital — from the vales of Chechnya to the
mountains of Swat — is not going to stop lengthening its tentacles
on the workers' surplus.
In this regard, we should acknowledge that the primary concerns
for US Capitalism are not the principles behind the War on Terror,
but the economic and political returns generated from this 'War' –
which has been material and ideal [17]
The anti-Islamic mood generated by the events of 9/11 and the
'patriotic upheaval' of European and American media certainly
contributed, in terms of popular consent, to a more friendly
environment for US imperialism.
The regime of Saddam Hussein, once the 'petty bourgeois
socialist' friend of the US, has been neutralised after the clique of
Paul Bremer, without too many concerns, took direct political and
economic control of Iraq by forming the Coalition Provisional
Authority.
This wouldn't have obviously occurred without the 'worthy' efforts
of the US-led coalition in the Second Gulf War, shamefully
disguised as 'War on Terror'.
In fact, it must be said that petty-bourgeois reactionary 'socialists'
à la Hussein in Iraq were certainly not the friends of the anti-
communist sheikh wanted by the US.[18]
The 'provisional' clique of Mr. Bremer — the 'US administrator of
Iraq' — in the process of Iraq's privatisation and commodification,
nicely allowed American firms to cast their tentacles on the
national reconstruction [19], in a highly-devastated country where
lakhs [20] of innocent civilians died; not to mention the huge
'returns' of the American Capitalists achieved thanks to military
expenditure for howitzers, tanks, equipment etc. for the US-led
War on 'Terror'.
It must also be said that a friendly 'Washington man' of the likes
of Al Maliki — whose government hasn't certainly boasted
democratic pioneering — is definitely more convenient for stable oil
pricing policies in Mesopotamia.
Bin Laden dies with the growing weakening of Islamic investor-
friendly radicalism, which is nothing but a desperation sigh
produced by the rottenness of Islamic Capitalism.
Most of the workers of the middle east — though still unaware and
confuse by the liberal promises — are now merely choosing a less
Bonapartist direction.
We could witness such tendency in the last months in Egypt and
in most of the MENA region in general, where Bonapartist
capitalists like Ben Ali and Mubarak have been ousted through the
unprecedented social (liberal) uprisings.
On the other hand, in these areas the risk of philistine 'reaction' is
still high.
The clique behind the human face of Obama — who during the
Egyptian uprisings acted with the 'let-us-see-who-is-
gonna-come-to-the-top' strategy, typical of imperialism— is not going to
drop the support to reactionary Bonapartist Capitalists à la
Mubarak and Ben Ali.
By no accident the United States, whilst caring for the 'Libyan
human rights', they neglect those of Bahrain; wherein the US fifth
fleet is based and where the élite of Al-Khalifa keeps repressing
demonstrations and killing innocents.
But the liberals pretend not to see.
In their rhetoric of free trade, free choice and freedom, they only
'see' what and where they want to see by self-flagellations of
cognitive assonance, just like Hilary Clinton proves it in the flaunt
of her miserable opportunism, with phrases of the likes of "I am
impressed by the commitment that the government has to the
democratic path that Bahrain is walking on” [21]
The demise of Osama Bin Laden is not going to liberate the
working class, but undoubtedly will make the reactionary clique of
Obama sigh with relief, as the temporarily revived enthusiasm of
the common liberal American will make the crises, the
unemployment and the growing inequalities pass unobserved for a
while.
However, the economic factors — which determine the social ones
—weigh like a burden on people's consciousness and will sooner
or later make themselves felt.
The demise of Bin Laden will not liberate anyone, just like its
'social' consequences, though some idealist big professors in their
enjoyment of false consciousness — whether within the
framework of pure apology or post-Marxism — will surely not
grasp it.
As Marx would put it, the liberation is a material act, not a mental
or spiritual one [22]
Delhi, May 4, 2011
REFERENCES:
[1] Al Jazeera, CIA feared Pakistan would alert Bin Laden,
html, retrieved on May 4, 2011
[2] Al Jazeera, 'Obama says world safer without Bin Laden',
602.html, retrieved on May 4,2011
[3] Bill Van Auken, published on WSWS, “The killing of Osama
Bin Laden and the War on Terror”, May 3, 2011,
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m03.shtml retrieved on
May 4,2011
[4] Ibid
[5] D. Zayar, Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the hypocrisy of
American imperialism, published on In defence of Marxism,
bin-laden-hypocrisy260901.htm retrieved on 4 May, 2011
[6] Something to be read, though to be taken obviously 'with a
pinch of Salt', is the work “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the
CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to
September 10, 2001”, of Steve Coll, 2004, Penguin Press
[7]See the Interview to Gary Schroen on Frontline posted june 20,
2006
en.html retrieved on May 4, 2011
[8] “Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (long version)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g, retrieved on May
4,2011
[9] Senate Report Explores 2001 Escape by bin Laden From
Afghan Mountains, New York Times, A version of this article
appeared in print on November 29, 2009, on page A20 of the New
York edition.
rieved on May 4,2011
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Elite Officer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt, CBS, first published on
Oct. 5, 2008. It was updated on July 11, 2009.
7.shtml retrieved on May 4,2011
[13] Ibid.
[14] Al Jazeera, Zardari: Bin Laden raid not joint operation
html, retrieved on May 4,2011
[15] Osama bin Laden's Pakistan , Brahma Chellaney, published on
Al Jazeera
513531.html, retrieved on May 4, 2011
[16] Noteworthy is that Hamas regards Bin Laden as an 'arab holy
warrior', Haaretz, “Hamas slams killing of 'holy warrior' Osama bin
Laden”, Published 14:27 02.05.11,
killing-of-holy-warrior-osama-bin-laden-1.359416 retrieved on May
4, 2011
[17] The Oil Factor, behind the war on Terror, Gerard Ungerman,
docid=1130731388742388243#
[18] Bill Van Auken, published on WSWS, “The killing of Osama
Bin Laden and the War on Terror”, May 3, 2011,
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m03.shtml retrieved on
May 4,2011
[19] The Oil Factor, behind the war on Terror, Gerard Ungerman,
docid=1130731388742388243#
[20] 'Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006', Iraq
Family Health Survey Study Group
N Engl J Med 2008; 358:484-493 January 31, 2008, retrieved on May
4, 2011
[21] The Guardian, Bahrain protests a worry for US and its fifth
protests-us-fifth-fleet, Thursday 17 February 2011 13.38 GMT,
retrieved on May 4, 2011
[22] Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1846
