More like this
Osama’s brand of Islamism was already history
Osama had no interest in democracy and the protesters in Cairo and Tunis had no interest in him
He was said once to have been an Arsenal fan. According to the testimony of local shopkeepers in Abbottabad following his death, Osama bin Laden may also have had a penchant for Coke and Fanta. One Western innovation the al-Qaeda leader never had any time for, however, was democracy.
Now that he has been consigned to the Arabian Sea, we can only speculate as to what Bin Laden can have thought of the Jasmine Revolutions sweeping North Africa and the Middle East. But they must have made him uneasy.
After years calling for the overthrow of the old generation of western orientated despots, Bin Laden certainly did not want to see democracy established in their place. His idea was to replace them with a new, even more authoritarian cadre of Islamist ideologues, inspired by himself.
That so many among the crowds in Cairo and Tunis were secular, western orientated, on Facebook, and female must have given even a man of his unbending outlook pause for thought.
For years the militants and the pro-Western regimes used each other to justify their own existence. But the revolutions that ousted the western puppets Bin Laden inveighed against for so long were led by people who had no time for him or for al-Qaeda.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the Jasmine revolutions, they have shown that Islamism is no longer the only political force to be reckoned with in the Arab world.
In Egypt, many fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge the winners in September's elections, and impose an Islamist regime. But the Brotherhood's statement issued after Bin Laden's death was remarkably muted and equivocal. With an election in the offing, even they clearly felt it best to keep their distance from the man many of them have hailed as a martyr.
So, by the time the Americans finally got their man, was he already a busted flush? In Iraq, once democracy was established - albeit a shaky one - al-Qaeda found itself marginalised. If pro-democracy movements can now become established elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa, it will be a huge blow to all Bin Laden stood for.
Over the coming weeks and months, al-Qaeda may well seek to avenge his death with a wave of fresh attacks wherever they can mount them. But it will be what happens in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya and Yemen, over the next few years not months, that will determine just how enduring Bin Laden's influence across the Arab world really is. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Can't say that I saw many women in the masses at Tahrir Sq or elsewhere in the arab world. The few that I did see were shrouded like tepid teapots. The revolts are NOT about democracy but different autocrats with snouts in the trough. When, NOT if, the MB take over in Egypt it will be merely the least worst of outcomes. All that concerns the Hegemon is that Egypt, the most populous arab country, remains quiescent and continues the treaty with Israel. The rest are irrelevant - Libya only supplies about 2% of traded oil and the vast majority of that goes to Europe - Washington couldn't care less and, were the turmoil to continue, it would be a salutory lesson to the rest of the dictators, absolute monarchs & autocrats they've supported since the Cold War (sic! - remember those comparitively peaceful, halcyon daze?)
If anyone thinks that any form of democracy exists in Iraq, they are ready for the funny farm. I wonder what will befall Libya and Egypt, once Hillary has finished her orgasm watching the illegal execution of ben Laden. Apparently not only the Taliban execute without a trial.
Two up for the Seals, Linda Norcross and ben Laden!
Was Osama and his jihad ways history before he was finally terminated? No. Islam established its empire, radiating out from Arabia in AD632 east to India, and west to Spain, conquering north Africa and only being stopped in south-western France at the battle of Tours-Poitiers in AD732. That makes exactly one century of conquest. They have never willingly reliquished an atom of land or apologised for their unprovoked attacks once in all history. They finally took Constantinople in 1453, and they were stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, half a century after the death of Shakespeare. Does that sound out of date, or done and dusted up to that point? How about the fact that the collapse of the Turkish Ottoman Empire only finally occurred during the first world war? Do you think it was all bad now? How about the critical timing this entails in the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran a few short years after this? Would anyone you know want the Turks in charge of 50% of the world's oil supply? No? Why am I not surprised...