Who killed off Bin Laden? He did it himself

Updated: 22:36 EST, 7 May 2011

Osama Bin Laden has been the chief enemy of the United States since 9/11

The Middle East today is like a delicately balanced game of spillikins, the 18th Century diversion in which players have to remove sticks from a pile without disturbing any of the others.

The issues include oil, Islam, the super power of the United States, the re-election of the U.S. President, the Arab world, the new communication systems of click and tweet, the intelligence services of Pakistan and terrorism itself.

The aim of the players is to score points by lifting out the pieces that matter to their national interest, without disturbing the rest of the pile.

The question to ask about the death of Osama Bin Laden is whether it serves the interest of the United States, which was responsible for killing him. 

There is one advantage that can scarcely be questioned. The polls already show that the American people admire the conduct of their President. It seems likely that his decision to have Bin Laden killed, and the subsequent publicity, will play its part in Obama's 2012 election campaign.

President Carter lost the 1980 election because of his failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran; it is quite possible Obama will win because of the raid in which Bin Laden was killed.

Nobody should be shocked by this. Osama Bin Laden was a mass murderer responsible for killing thousands of American citizens, as well as countless innocent people in other countries. He was still threatening more murders.

Obama had a duty to bring that murderous career to an end. The President also has a duty to lead his country so that his fellow Americans wish to re-elect him. There might be a moral issue for those who are opposed to capital punishment, but even for them the case for stopping a mass murderer would be a strong one.

In fact, the first polls from the United States show that the President has picked up considerable support. Before the news of Bin Laden's death came through, he had a low approval rate of 48 per cent, with 49 per cent of respondents disapproving. The first poll after the attack showed his rating had jumped to 57 per cent, so the raid may well help re-elect him.

The President's decision has been questioned much more harshly in the Middle East than in the United States. In America, the President is seen as having achieved a patriotic victory for the United States. 

The first polls from the United States show that Barack Obama has picked up considerable support. His rating has jumped to 57 per cent

None of the Republican candidates for the Presidency has made any public criticism; Obama has been widely praised by his political opponents. After all, Bin Laden has been the chief enemy of the United States since 9/11. Obama has done something that the United Sates had been trying to achieve for the last ten years, so naturally that is seen as a victory for America.

Reports from Arab sources are less favourable, as one might expect. One of the most experienced Western reporters on Middle East affairs is Arnaud de Borchgrave, whose latest article strikes a more sombre note:

'Osama Bin Laden's demise is an emotional victory for the United States but countless millions of others in Muslim countries will convince themselves this is yet another CIA-Mossad conspiracy; that Bin Laden is still alive.

The sad truth about Bin Laden's burial at sea is that it will have little impact on the global war on terrorism. Al Qaeda and associated movements have never been dependent on an iconic Osama Bin Laden. They operate in the new world of the internet and the wider jihadist movement in a global electronic caliphate.'

One has to compare the impact of Al Qaeda with that of the independent protest movements in Arab countries. For the past 40 years the major Arab states have been run by authoritarian regimes.

In just a few months this year, all have faced a challenge; Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have experienced a revolution, and there might be more to come. The Arab Spring has been driven by the young and the brave, and there is a risk that this new energy will be turned against the West if it is mishandled, although the revolution itself is pro-democracy.

Osama Bin Laden was a rebel of the previous age, increasingly out of touch with the younger people of the Islamic world in his lifestyle and his ambitions. He was not a democrat but an Islamic authoritarian of extremist views.

Apart from Colonel Gaddafi's allegation that Al Qaeda was involved in the Libyan uprising, Bin Laden seemed to have had little influence on the events of the Arab Spring. It is hard to see why young Muslims in industrial countries would be attracted to a revolutionary leader whose last striking achievement was in 2001.

And it is difficult to lead an Islamic revolution while hiding under the apparent protection of an ultra-secret branch of Pakistan's intelligence service.

If there is a question over the U.S. decision to 'take out' Bin Laden, it is to ask if he had already taken out himself. My own surmise would be that he had been under the wing of a group in the Pakistan intelligence establishment since escaping from the Tora Bora caves in 2001.

At that time he was already an embarrassment to his allies in the Taliban. He survived ten years under virtual house arrest, occasionally issuing a fatwa.

In the Eighties, fighting the Russians, he had a historic role, but in the 21st Century he had ceased to be in touch with the revolutionary generation.

Will the Americans find that they had been hunting a ghost who could only be an increasingly unwelcome guest to his hosts; outstaying his welcome in Pakistan?