The following editorial appeared in the Baltimore Sun:
One year after Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs at his safe house in Pakistan, a substantially weakened al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to pose a threat to the West. The Pakistan-based group’s leadership has been decimated by drone strikes and is no longer believed capable of directing spectacular operations on the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
But that doesn’t mean America and its allies can afford to let their guard down. Despite its losses, al-Qaida remains a resilient adversary committed to survive its founder’s demise, and its more recent offshoots in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and elsewhere could prove just as dangerous as the original.
After bin Laden’s death, U.S. counter-terrorism officials were initially heartened by a string of kills that followed against top al-Qaida commanders operating along the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Drone strikes took out Ilyas Kashmiri, who is said to have been tasked by bin Laden to find a way to kill President Barack Obama, and Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, al-Qaida’s day-to-day chief of operations. Scores of lesser figures also fell victim to the drones.
Though bin Laden’s second-in-command and successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has managed to elude the drones hunting him, the relentless attacks have forced al-Qaida’s remaining senior officials in Pakistan to spend so much time in hiding that they may be increasingly out of touch with the movement they purport to lead. Meanwhile, the group’s willingness to kill fellow Muslims in the name of global jihad has tarnished the al-Qaida brand in the Islamic world, even as democratic revolutions in the Mideast offer a political alternative to terrorist violence.
Yet though bin Laden himself is dead, the radical philosophy of hatred for the West he espoused lives on, not only in terrorist groups that openly pattern themselves on al-Qaida, such as Yemen’s al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and Somalia’s al-Shabab, but also among the Islamist political parties that emerged in the wake of the Arab Spring, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists in Egypt, and the ultraconservative religious parties in Tunisia. Though the revolutions in those countries were largely driven by liberal activists who sought greater democratic freedoms, Islamic parties have dominated the first free elections there, and it remains to be seen whether they will echo in any way bin Laden’s unrelenting hostility to the West.
No such doubt surrounds the intent of avowed al-Qaida emulators such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which has been tied to two of the most recent failed attacks on U.S. targets. In 2009, the group dispatched the so-called underwear bomber in a failed attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, and the following year it tried to send bombs through the mail to Chicago addresses. Last year, a CIA drone strike killed AQAP’s most charismatic leader, the Yemeni-born cleric and naturalized U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. But the group’s continued focus on attacking the American homeland makes it one of the most serious threats counter-terrorism officials must deal with.
Much of the discussion surrounding the anniversary of bin Laden’s death, however, has focused not on national security but on politics. President Barack Obama has made his decision to launch the mission that killed bin Laden a part of his re-election campaign, and Republicans have roundly criticized him for exploiting that success for partisan advantage. Of course, there’s more than a bit of hypocrisy in the GOP complaint, since President George W. Bush used the capture of Saddam Hussein for similar purposes when he ran for re-election.
President Obama would have gotten the blame had the raid on bin Laden’s compound failed, and quite aside from the question of what his opponent in November might have done under similar circumstances, he deserves credit for the mission’s success. Still, there is a limit to how much the president can make of bin Laden’s death without sounding unseemly — or out of touch with voters’ primary concern, the economy. Regardless, the most important question on this anniversary is not about what led up to bin Laden’s death but on what comes next. The world is safer without him in it, but it will not be safe enough until not just bin Laden’s life but also his legacy comes to an end.





Comments (8)
Add commentWanted: proofreader
with strong editorial background. Must be able to hold a train of thought while writing and researching.
Problem: AQ are rats; we decided we want to kill rats; there are too many rats.
Solution: there is no single one, nor a complex of solutions. But a good start would be with US deciding how it is going to conduct diplomatic relations with muslim countries as a collective. Because AQ is TRANS-national. There is only one common denominator: islam.
I am not a fan of the French, but they got it right with diplomacy, because they've been doing it as a country forever. Diplomacy is a business transaction and nothing more. If oil is $100/barrel, okay, I guess we'll take a couple million per day, thank you. "You need chow, you say?" PB&J, made in the USA, $4/sandwich.
Yeah, sure...
AQ's a problem. But it's not a crisis. Let's not treat it like it is. We massively overreacted to 9/11, focusing on the wrong part of the world while ignoring the real threat to our prosperity, China and the rest of the rapidly developing economies.
We didn't make the right investments in education, infrastructure, and R&D, and instead bogged ourselves down in two wars, taking on massive debt to do it.
Let's not make the same mistake again. Ignore the war mongers. We have larger crises to deal with.
49% of Americans don't know how much time (roughly) it takes the Earth to go around the sun. Last year Americans spent more on potato chips than our country spent on basic scientific research. These aren't the ingredients in the recipe for national prosperity.
Amen
More attention to the sciences and less to the arts and crafts. I want a smarter bomb.
Yes, the French had it right.
In 732 AD the Muslim moors nearly overran Europe to defeat Christianity. It was their first, but not their last, endeavor for world conquest in the name of religion. Fortunately Charles "the Hammer" Martel, the "Savior" of Europe, repelled them.
And,
the French government saved a lot of real estate during WWII, through 'diplomacy', leaving it to the citizen french resistance to carry the ball as Britain was decimated. Others called it capitulation.
@lat - easy for you to say
@lat - easy for you to say America "overreacted" to 9/11, in hindsight, I might add. Did you lose a friend or family member that day?
We've made more than enough "investments" in education, with awful results.
America's "infrastructure" isn't as bad as the left likes all of us to believe. Just more "shovel ready", high priced union jobs at taxpayer expense, is more like it.
And not enough investment in "R&D"? Well, explain why Obama wanted to use NASA for Muslim outreach after cutting their budget. Name one other government agency that has contributed more to society with their innovations, across the spectrum, than NASA.
I bet you're on the same page as that fool Ted Turner, regarding nuclear weapons. And why do we care what Ted Turner thinks?
Frenchie
I don't know why I bother responding to a moron like you, but it's raining out and you're easy sport when I don't want to tax my brain. You know, kinda like watching FoxNews.
1. "Did I lose a family member on 9/11?" No. Did you? And what's that got to do with us invading Iraq and blowing all sorts of money on the "War on Terrorism"? Lots of 9/11 family members opposed much of Bush's responses. You are 1,000 times more likely to die of a car accident than a terrorist attack. America spent $1 trillion on terrorism response since 9/11 (not counting the wars). Generous estimates (by conservative organizations) suggest that 2,300 lives might have been saved by thwarted attacks since 9/11. That's $400 million per life saved. THAT is a massive overreaction. Especially when we desperately need to invest in other things.
2. "We made more than enough investments in education, with awful results." Soooo... your response is to NOT invest in education then. I see.
3. "America's infrastructure isn't all that bad." Oh really? What's the basis of your claim? Mine is the American Society Of Civil Engineers (admittedly a well-known lefty organization, those socialist civil engineers), who grade America's infrastructure. The latest grade is a D and getting worse. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
4. "Obama shut down NASA" Really? If you're going to lie, pick harder ones to disprove. He cut their budget and shut down a plan to return to the moon. Bush shut down the shuttle program. NASA still exists. Moron.
5. "I'm on the same page as Ted Turner regarding..." I have no idea what pages Ted Turner is on regarding anything, nor do I care. What does he have to do with the subject? Nothing, of course. Just more of your moronic misdirection.
Now go back to your television - it misses you.
HA Frenchie!!
After being busted for a lie on NASA being "shut down", you go back and edit your posting to instead talk about NASA "Muslim outreach" and their budget being cut.
See, after you edit one of your old posts, it's flagged with a red 'NEW' note next to the title, so it's obvious to all that you've changed it. Busted again.
Truly pathetic. And moronic, of course.