Image via Wikipedia
Osama bin Laden, you might have heard, is finally dead. The news was excuse enough for headlines and news stories for days after, as well as much rejoicing and not a little self-congratulation. All very natural really, and reasonable, though the death of bin Laden is nothing more than symbolic these days.
For a long time now bin Laden has been the most wanted, and most hated man in the world. There have been a long list of tyrants through the last century who deserved such a description even if it never actually applied to them: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, even Robert Mugabe right now, amongst countless others. Bin Laden deserved his place among them even if he believed his actions were in a noble cause, as he seems to have done (and millions more have agreed), the inspiration for a Muslim crusade against western hegemony.
Having travelled far and through societies unknown and barely considered by the 'western' world it is easy to understand how such resentment may brew. Western culture - everything from coca cola, Dallas and Facebook - has a way of usurping and overwhelming native cultures. It is a consequence of the global village that barriers that once kept cultures reasonably pure have come crashing down. It is economic nature that with barriers dismantled that what rushes in is what was lacking.
This is not the fault of western society or culture, much as some fanatics blame. Western culture may be fatuous often - hard to deny - but it is democratic, an unthinking beast that travels in the minds who belong to it and infects those looking to be infected. These hardline Muslim clerics may claim this as a kind of curtural corruption, and once more it easy to see that point of view, but it is not the fault of the west, nor of the cultures it finds it's way into. It is human nature and economics, and the power of 21st century media.
One can't really blame people for seeking to preserve their cultural integrity. We may universally condemn terrorists for their acts these days, but wars have been fought on similar motives. What has changed is that the west - and the US particularly, standard-bearer for what the 'west' represents - has become so omnipotent, so powerful, that conventional war is no longer feasible. Instead desperate fanatics use what they have and conduct a guerrilla war with terror at it's core. The events of 9/11 are horrifying, and the prospects of terrorism are truly, well, terrible, but despite the occasional act of terror and the press it receives the war is futile, the occasional victories pyrrhic. Taking on the west is like taking on tanks with bow and arrows.
I suspect many in terrorist organisations understand that, but I suspect also that acceptance of the fact is beyond them. To strive even if futilely is their reason, especially given a glorious heaven awaits on the martyrs death.
It is for this reason that the death of Osama bin Laden is no more than symbolic - though it is powerful, cathartic, symbolism. In practical terms the war he began had moved far beyond him. His 'contribution' is historical - with that one bold act upon the US he proved that the powerful can be made to feel pain. He gave hope and inspiration to the millions who to that point had little idea that they were disaffected. He was the spiritual progenitor of the war that came to be; he set them buzzing, but it was Bush who kicked the hornets over, Bush in his clumsy overkill who gave cause ultimately to that disaffection.
The death of bin Laden is no more than a great headline in the war on terror. It won't stop anything, and may even be the cause for an upsurge. Still, it can't be denied as some kind of just act. That's reason enough; and reason enough that a people might be given some solace knowing the man who cause so much misery and grief is now punished for it. None of that can be denied, though celebrations, natural as they are, may be premature and just a little tacky.
As a footnote it's interesting to read how some are claiming the legality of killing bin Laden. I always find arguments such as these amusing and just a little ridiculous. It is a mark of our society that we ask these questions, but it seems a little specious. I understand how in a civilised society we need boundaries and be governed by the rule of law if we are not to descend into barbarism. Applying such standards of decency to war however seems a grey area at best. Something like the Geneva Convention is perfectly necessary, even if it seemingly contravened with impunity, but any state of affairs where one group of people shoot at another group of people with intent to kill seems almost outside of civilisation even given it has been such a historical constant.
The death of bin Laden appears unseemly by the reports I read - unarmed, as was his wife, but deemed a threat and so killed. If it happened on the streets of Melbourne there would be an inquiry. It didn't happen here though, and bin Laden was no drug crazed desperado. If it counts for anything I'm sure he'd prefer death to imprisonment. Politically his death was the only real option for the west also. And ultimately he died in the midst of battle, the man responsible for the deaths of countless thousands is gone. Who can reasonably mourn that?
