Osama bin Laden has only just been consigned to his watery grave in the Arabian Sea, but already politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are debating how best they can exploit any peace dividend from his demise.In both London and Washington, it is mooted that bin Laden’s death will speed up the withdrawal of British and American troops from Afghanistan. In the Commons this week, David Cameron said that his removal raised the possibility of a “more rapid solution” to the decade-long conflict. In Washington, Republicans and Democrats have both expressed support for an early exit. Barney Frank, a Democratic congressman, put it most succinctly: “We went there to get Osama bin Laden. And we have now gotten him.”The Republicans, on the other hand, are more concerned about the spiralling cost of America’s continued involvement in Afghanistan. (And they should know, after the mind-boggling $1 trillion they ineptly squandered on Iraq.) Current US expenditure there is running at $100 billion a year; even Richard Lugar, the most prominent Republican on the Senate’s foreign affairs committee, has questioned whether this represents “a rational allocation of our military and financial assets”.It is not difficult to see why an early withdrawal from Afghanistan might appeal to Obama, who has often appeared lukewarm about a conflict that — much to his chagrin — has been dubbed “Obama’s War” since his decision in 2009 to endorse the military “surge”. Long before he sanctioned the daring special forces mission to terminate bin Laden’s gruesome career, the president had spoken publicly of his desire to begin withdrawing US troops later this year. The operation’s success will surely stiffen his resolve to follow his political instincts and bring forward the deadline for the cessation of combat operations, which are currently scheduled to last until 2014. What better campaign slogan for next year’s presidential contest than “First we got bin Laden, and then we got the hell out”?With bin Laden gone, the desire to declare “mission accomplished” and withdraw our troops from the fray is perfectly understandable. But to do so would be foolhardy in the extreme. For, rather than seeing the al Qaeda leader’s removal from the scene as the final act in the war on terror, it should be seen as a decisive breakthrough — and one that could provide the West with the ability to press home its advantage on a number of fronts, and achieve a comprehensive and lasting victory.The first priority, of course, must be to eviscerate whatever remains of al Qaeda’s infrastructure, particularly in Pakistan. The past 10 years have taken a heavy toll on the organisation, and its ability to conduct “spectacular” attacks of the September 11 variety. At least half of al Qaeda’s senior commanders have been killed or captured, and the life expectancy of anyone brave enough to become its head of operations averages about six months.That said, al Qaeda still retains the ability to mount attacks against the West, both from its long-term base in north Waziristan and through its more recently established franchises in Yemen and Somalia. Precisely how the different strands of the brand interconnect will become a lot clearer once the CIA has had time to decipher the “mother lode” of material — computers, documents and DVDs — seized during the raid on bin Laden’s Abbottabad hideout.The prospects of crippling al-Qaeda’s operations in Pakistan will also have increased considerably as a consequence of the Pakistani government’s deep embarrassment that bin Laden was able to hide on its soil for at least six years. If Islamabad is ever to distance itself from David Cameron’s wounding but apposite accusation that it faces “both ways” in the fight against terrorism, then it can start by taking effective action to root out the last remnants of al Qaeda’s leadership from territory it is supposed to control.In life, bin Laden proved to be an inspirational figure not just for al Qaeda recruits, but for an entire generation of young Muslims who were susceptible to the appeal of his uncompromising Islamist agenda. However, the wave of anti-government protests that has swept through the Arab world has thrown up the prospect of a very different set of priorities. One of the reasons radical Islam was said to appeal to many young Muslims was that it presented an escape route from an existence otherwise bereft of opportunity or prosperity. But recent events in Egypt and Tunisia suggest there is a better way - namely, embracing the cause of democracy.During the anti-government protests of Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution, and the demonstrations in Tahrir Square that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, it was noticeable that the overwhelming majority of the protesters were secularists who wanted to make a better life for themselves and their families. The same is true of the rebels currently battling to overthrow colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and those who have attempted to challenge Syria’s Bashir al-Assad. They are motivated by a desire for freedom and opportunity, rather than the dictates of the mosque.Bin Laden’s influence was on the wane long before the Navy Seals stormed his hideaway, and the Arab Spring has reinforced the view among many young Muslims that there is a viable alternative to his violent Islamist agenda. His death simply confirms that the pendulum has swung back firmly in the West’s favour.The author is the Telegraph’s executive foreign editor and a world-renowned expert on Islamic terrorism

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING