Rushdie on Pakistan and bin Laden
Excellent, no need to quote Facebook updates any more; Salman has written an article on the subject.
Many of us didn’t believe in the image of bin Laden as a wandering Old Man of the Mountains, living on plants and insects in an inhospitable cave somewhere on the porous Pakistan-Afghan border…Bin Laden was born filthy rich and died in a rich man’s house, which he had painstakingly built to the highest specifications. The U.S. administration confesses it was “shocked” by the elaborate nature of the compound.
Died in a rich man’s house, with women and children carefully placed around him as shields. What a guy.
Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted man, was found living at the end of a dirt road 800 yards from the Abbottabad military academy, Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point or Sandhurst, in a military cantonment where soldiers are on every street corner, just about 80 miles from the Pakistani capital Islamabad. This extremely large house had neither a telephone nor an Internet connection. And in spite of this we are supposed to believe that Pakistan didn’t know he was there, and that the Pakistani intelligence, and/or military, and/or civilian authorities did nothing to facilitate his presence in Abbottabad, while he ran al Qaeda, with couriers coming and going, for five years?
Well when you put it like that…it doesn’t seem very credible, does it.
Pakistan’s neighbor India, badly wounded by the November 26, 2008, terrorist attacks on Mumbai, is already demanding answers. As far as the anti-Indian jihadist groups are concerned—Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad—Pakistan’s support for such groups, its willingness to provide them with safe havens, its encouragement of such groups as a means of waging a proxy war in Kashmir and, of course, in Mumbai—is established beyond all argument. In recent years these groups have been reaching out to the so-called Pakistani Taliban to form new networks of violence…
Pakistan needs to get its act together.
Ophelia,
“Pakistan” is a geographical expression. There’s no such nation-state,just a collection of tribes with shifting alliances and some of those tribes have thermonuclear weapons. As to the claim that Bin Laden “ran al Qaeda”,it’s probably more a state of mind, than an organization.
It’s a characteristic of Western culture that we keep trying to identify the mythical CEOs of terrorist groups.
RJW, the world does not seem to be evolving the way bin Laden hoped it would. And he both claimed responsibility for 9/11 and sat at the head of the organisation responsible.
The larger form of human political organisation he was trying to bring into existence was a world caliphate; a worldwide Islamic dictatorship centred on one man. Al Qaeda is more than a ‘state of mind’ whatever that might mean. It is clearly decentralised, both by necessity and for security purposes, and with cells given a high degree of organisational autonomy, but linked by a common purpose.
Not one BTW that is very rationally based.
lol … btw, over here all kinds of wild conspiracy theories are in the air … apparently some people were miffed by how black the man’s beard was in the video’s and apparently that proves that he wasn’t Osama Bin Laden … apparently Osama Bin Ladin did die but he wasn’t killed yesterday in Pakistan but had been killed earlier and today’s event was staged to corner Pakistan or something … -_- I seriously can’t keep up with this stuff … Someone needs to teach them Occums Razor ….
I get the feeling that Pakistan is close to being a failed state for the second time in its brief history. I guess that given the history of its formation it was always likely to end up this way. Regional differences in cultural norms were exacerbated by the influx of refugees from India to the southern cities. Just like the problems that led to the separation of East Pakistan in the early 1970s I wonder if there may be a possibility that some of the problems with the deeply conservative tribal regions may eventually lead to a further split.
@ Ian MacDougall,
What I meant by ‘state of mind’ was the common desire by the people of a mostly militarily powerless and chaotic civilization to strike back at the West and the US in particular, for real and imagined outrages. The US in has inflicted many devastating attacks on the Islamic world that far exceed in destruction and criminality that of 9/11. The claim that Al Qaeda is not ‘rationally based’ seems just an expression of cultural bias,was the invasion of Iraq which cost hundreds of thousands of lives a ‘rational’ decision? After 9/11, the US government had to “take decisive action” however, there were no appropriate targets, only easy ones, so Iraq would serve the purpose of scape goat. How many Afghans have been killed in order to destroy bin Laden? How many innocent lives in the Islamic world are equivalent to one American life on 9/11.
Bin Laden’s death changes nothing.
@RJW: Yes, it does. It solves the “where’s bin Laden” problem. It also solves the “what to do about bin Laden” problem. It was a two-fer.
I only know what I read, but the intelligence community is crowing over the “treasure trove” of data that was taken from that house.
If bin Laden was only a figurehead, why would he have such operational “treasures”? Why all the couriers? Why was it a courier’s error that led the US to bin Laden’s door?
I think you’re quite mistaken. bin Laden’s death was a coup for the US intelligence community, and a severe blow to organized terrorism done under his direction.
Now, that doesn’t mean I think we should pack our bags — I expect no “Mission Accomplished” banners. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. He needed no organizational structure. Extremists will be extremists. Violent extremists will act violently.
But I think the message implicit in this action is that organized terrorism will be dealt with forcefully; and that no matter how safe you think you are, you’re not. Might give the next bin Laden wanna be some pause.
Aside from the man’s demise, that’s more than enough for me.
This whole episode shows some differentiation between morality and justice. I’m glad he’s dead, but I see nothing to celebrate about it. I see no reason why his burial should be respected either.
What allowed Osama Bin Laden to rise to power? I think we all know the answer to that, and so nothing has really changed. Not until such ideologies and ignorance are sunk with him.
What’s “the Islamic world”?
It’s hard to think of a nuclear power as “militarily powerless.” Maybe if you don’t live someplace where “Ground Zero” is now part of local geography… not that the idea that someone would nuke New York was new in the last few years.
Unfortunately, “cannot maintain peace or order at home” doesn’t mean “can’t wreak havoc elsewhere.”
@RJW,
What a splendid display of ignorance (or worse: deliberate lies) to serve your warped political world-view.
You are obviosly unable to distinguish between collateral damage when toppeling a ruthless and lethal dictator, and the terrorist M.O. (Not exclusive to, but very popular amongst islamist devouts): maximizing mortality and damage to completely innocent civilians.
Here : http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000415
is a peer reviewed paper on the Iraqi body counts.
You are either a pathetic (lying or ignorant) western flagellant or an ass with a completely defunct moral compass.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
RJW:
I would ask you to be more specific about the ‘devastating attacks’, given that US-Arab and US-Islamic world relations are driven in the main by US dependence on Islamic (mainly Arab) oil. Do you mean ‘pragmatic’ US support for Arab and Islamic despots? If so, I would agree with you, believing as I do that adherence to principle is the most pragmatic course to follow, even in the short term.
As for the ‘hundreds of thousands’ of deaths in Iraq, I don’t think that more than a small percentage of these can be blamed directly on the CoW and the majority blocs of politicians and publics in the US, Britain and Australia who supported it initially, as well as others who followed them in support. Saddam’s terror regime operated in the context of a Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq, which Saddam kept the lid on by periodic domestic massacre (Marsh Arabs, Kurds) and external aggression (Iran, Kuwait). The lid came off that with Saddam’s removal.
I grant you this: we now know (roughly) the human and financial costs of Saddam’s removal.
What we do not know, and can never know, are the costs in human and money terms of a counter-factual decision to leave him alone. After all, he did score a place in Nigel Cawthorne’s list of history’s 100 most evil despots and dictators. That takes some death-dealing.
In my last post, I should have somehow winkled in a reference to the initiatives also being siezed by US comedians at the moment.
My apologies.
@#7 Kevin,
You can’t possibly be so naive.You’re relying on the same ‘intelligence community’ that confidently and mendaciously,told us that there were WMD in Iraq,a masterly example of the ‘big lie’. Terrorism doesn’t appear out of nothing, US foreign policy is one of the main causes.
The ‘treasure trove’ claim might be true, or it might not be,whatever suits the spooks’ purposes.
#9 Ophelia,
Eh? The ‘Islamic World’ is simply the group of culturally Moslem nations. Dialect differences perhaps?
#11 Cassanders,
“You are obviosly unable to distinguish between collateral damage when toppeling a ruthless and lethal dictator, and the terrorist M.O. (Not exclusive to, but very popular amongst islamist devouts): maximizing mortality and damage to completely innocent civilians.”
Tell me, what is the ethical difference between ‘collateral damage’ in an unjust war such as in Iraq and the lives cut short by terrorists?
What opinion do you think the “collateral damage”(human beings, in case you’ve forgotten) would have of your morally imbecilic justification,particularly when they wanted to live? Using your reasoning the victims of 9/11 were “collateral damage” as the real targets were the buildings.
The ‘ruthless and lethal dictator’ was America’s ‘son-of-a-bitch’ for years,the main game has always been Iran and Saddam was regarded as a useful weapon against the Iranian regime,he simply outlived his usefulness. Why then, why not earlier? What about the other ‘ruthless and lethal dictators’ from Syria to North Africa? America made no move to topple Mubarak et al and actually supported them since it was likely that popular revolutions would result in Islamist governments hostile to Western interests and America’s pet, Israel. A very selective ‘moral compass’ indeed.
@#12 Ian Macdougall,
I think that some of the above comments addressed to Cassanders will answer your questions,your arguments have been reasoned and not abusive, so any comments re ethics don’t refer to you.
Yes,by ‘devastating’ I mean the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan directly by the US and its vassals and indirectly through support of Israel and its policies and support for “our son-of a bitch dictators” however brutal they might be.
You could argue in the Machiavellian sense of the utility of a-moral pragmatism in politics.however I’m sure Machiavelli would have been horrified at the incompetence and counter -productive results of US and Western policies in the ME.
Pakistan needs to get its act together.
Ah, but that sounds a bit naive now, as if you presumed that their elites would really want to fight the Taliban but are just too lazy. Did the US also “need to get its act together” about the Contras and similar groups?
RJW: Perhaps a better term than ‘Islamic world’ would be, following Samuel P Huntington, ‘Islamic civilisation’.
Bin Laden’s original motivation for carrying out the 9/11 attacks on America was of course not the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, which were a consequence, not cause of that action. His objection to the West was that it existed at all. He wanted a world of one religion united under a theocratic dictatorship (The Caliphate).
Western civilisation with its secular and Enlightenment values provided an unwelcome beacon for too many Muslims, and a particularly sore point for the Islamists was the exit of East Timor from Muslim civilisation (ie Indonesia) in 1999. Hence the Bali bombing organised by Al Quaeda militants in 2005.
So when you say at #14: ‘Terrorism doesn’t appear out of nothing, US foreign policy is one of the main causes’, I think you are getting it the wrong way round. Islamic civilisation internally is repressive to the point where it has become routinely terrorist – of its own peoples. The courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali is merely a prominent and outspoken former member of it. It is understandable that apostasy is an offence under Sharia law punishable by death. Likewise that the Dhimmitude of unbelievers is singled out for severe treatment.
So please, enough of the ‘Muslims are victims of the West’ bullshit.
“Died in a rich man’s house, with women and children carefully placed around him as shields.”
Well, the human shield story turns out to have been on a par with that guy in a bulky jacket jumping over the tube barriers – and the house appears to actually be pretty basic and tatty – the stove was a camping-style setup on the floor. No marble bathrooms and gold taps.
Bin Laden may have been a bad chap, but luxurious living doesn’t seem to have been one of his vices.
DEAD OR ALIVE
Better ALIVE than dead, that’s what you need if you are to gather intelligence.
But how do you further stop the fanatics from kidnapping and murdering for the release of the held? Easy, tell the World he’s dead, the body cannot be dug up or the area made into a shrine because the burial was at Sea for the Stateless person.
No you have time to find out who your hiding enemies are, the corrupted official’s in the government you trusted, the possible types of attack planned in the future.
Take you captive to a place that is impossible to get to, say an air base, on an Island, in the middle of the Indian Ocean. He has no news of his death. You feed him any stories you like.
Highly trained solider’s can easily capture a person that can prove so fruitful (unless you slipped up and sent in the same team that tried to rescue Linda Norgrove, God bless her soul).
Revenge is sweet but even sweeter when you can repeat on it, on and on again.