by
Ghassan Kadi
Political
analysis is often based on speculations in an attempt to explain the
news; past, present and future.
Future
analyses are not meant to be predictive per se, but sometimes
indicative of a worst case scenario, certain plausible and even
far-fetched agendas. Likewise, digging into the past does not provide
answers, but it rather enables us to look at the past with different
binoculars.
The
“killing” of Bin Laden was a mysterious event; not only in the
manner that Americans told the story and a total lack of footage to
support it, but also in its timing.
Many,
including Pakistan’s former PM Benazir Bhutto have argued that Bin
Laden was actually killed in 2005. Many other speculators, conspiracy
theorists and cynics have doubted largely the American version and
asked for documented proof. After all Bin Laden was a huge bounty to
hunt, and the fact that the Americans did not boast his dead photos
is highly suspicious; especially that they paraded captured Saddam
before him, and before Saddam was captured, the gory photos of his
dead sons Udai and Kusai were all over the media; with the courtesy
of the American occupier. Let us also not forget the shocking scenes
of the capture and killing of Gaddafi and the gloating of Hillary
Clinton that followed. So why was Bin Laden saved this humiliation?
One has to wonder.
Moreover,
rumour has it that Bin Laden was on dialysis. If true, no one is in a
position to really know how effective was the medical attention he
was receiving.
It is then
quite possible that Bin Laden died or was killed earlier, and not
formally declared dead until May 2011.
In any
event, irrespective of when Bin Laden was killed, and even if he died
of natural causes, the world accepted that his death happened on that
day. Not even Al-Zawahiri his Al-Qaeda heir successor denied it.
Again, even
if Sep 11 was an inside job as some insist, Bin Laden was seen as the
man responsible. He even stated in an Al-Jazeera interview that it
was indeed him who gave the orders for the operation. But again and
again, even if he jumped on the band wagon of fame, or infamy for
that matter, and claimed responsibility for something he did not do
in order to glue stars and stripes on his shoulder, beyond any doubt,
he was the man seen by the world as the architect of Sept 11 by both
his adversaries and followers.
Love him or
hate him therefore, he was a big fish; or at least perceived to be
one. The most “serious” aspect of this perception perhaps is the
fact that in the minds of young Jihadi recruits, Bin Laden came to
symbolize Jihad; and whence seen as the ultimate spiritual leader;
albeit he did not have a title, stature or “office” .
To
understand what is the real formal story of announcing Bin Laden’s
death, we need to rewind the clock and try to understand this very
mysterious man.
To compare
Bin Laden to ISIS leader Abou Bakir Al-Baghdadi is not exactly like
comparing apples to apples; but it is not like comparing apples to
oranges either.
Bin Laden
rose to prominence when Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan -the then
Saudi Ambassador in Washington- introduced him to the Americans as a
very dedicated anti-Soviet devotee who would go to ends to fight the
USSR in Afghanistan.
Bin Laden’s
mandate in Afghanistan was to get the Russians out. His comradery of
convenience with the Americans came to an end when the Saudis allowed
the Americans (also “infidels” in Bin Laden’s eyes) to lay foot
on the Holy Land itself. If Afghanistan was a redline for the atheist
Communists, Saudi Arabia that houses the holiest of holy Muslims
sites of Mecca and Medina were a much bigger redline for the “Western
Crusaders”; as Bin Laden often reiterated.
When Bin
Laden eventually declared divorce with his American and Saudi
partners, the world ended up in the position outlaid above; the man
who orchestrated Sep 11, the most wanted man on earth, and the man
who represented and led the Jihadi mentality.
What is most
interesting is what the rest of the world, the West specifically,
missed out by not listening to Bin Laden’s speeches between his
rise to infamy following Sep 11 and his eventual disappearance.
Soon after
Sep 11, on an interview on Al-Jazeera, Bin Laden stated that the West
will not know the bliss of peace until the bliss of peace becomes a
reality in Palestine.
In all of
his later speeches, he said again and again that for Al-Qaeda to stop
its attacks on the West, the West will first have to stop its attacks
on the Muslim World.
In March
2004, a series of explosions rocked train stations in Madrid killing
nearly 200 innocent civilians. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
Almost a year later, Spain had an election and the newly elected
Prime Minister Zapatero withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. Bin Laden
was quick to respond. In an interview on Al-Jazeera, he declared that
because Spain was leaving Iraq, it is no longer an enemy of Islam and
should not be targeted any more.
None of
those statements reached the West in their entirety. All the Western
viewers saw on their TV screens were edited snippets of long speeches
that were cherry-picked to portray that Bin Laden was a determined
indiscriminate enemy of the West.
In
retrospect, the West created in the minds of Westerners a character
out of Bin Laden that was much more akin to Al-Baghdadi than Bin
Laden himself. If this was of any consequence at all, it helped
create Al-Baghdadi, both directly and inadvertently.
Bin Laden
spoke with the most profound mastery of Arabic language; something
that very few people in the Arab-speaking world master. He had the
specific objective to get the “infidels” out of Muslim lands. He
never once advocated ramping up troops to go and kill Westerners
indiscriminately. His story with Spain speaks volumes.
In early
2011 there was a new change in the air; the infamous Arab Spring that
was destined to soon turn into a “Jihadi Spring”.
For the
architects of the “Jihadi Spring” to give their plan to come to
fruition, they needed a shift.
Major
architect Bandar Bin Sultan thought he had all of his aspirations
under control. With succession to the Saudi Throne in mind (given
that his father Sultan Bin-Abdul Aziz was the then Crown Prince), he
planned a swift victory in Syria to help him bolster his position as
not only as the rightful heir to the throne, but also as a tactical,
strategic and regional ally of America.
The
so-called Arab Spring used Libya as a ground for practice; getting
rid of Gaddafi along the way; but the big fish to fry was Syria. The
fall of Gaddafi gave all of the enemies of Syria the green light they
wanted to see in order to go full steam ahead to destroy Syria; and
Bandar was the master planner.
Bandar had a
bottomless pocket and endless funds. And just like Israel runs on the
myth that if a certain amount of force does not solve a problem then
more force will, the Saudis believe that if a certain amount of money
does not solve a problem, then more money will. And given that Saudi
financial resources were virtually endless, they felt that their plan
was fool-proof.
But there
was an obstacle in the way of Bandar’s plan in his attempts to rise
to Muslim leadership, and that obstacle was Bin Laden. This is how
the Arab-Spring-turned-Jihadi-Spring brings us back to Bin Laden.
Bandar knew
well two prominent facts about Bin Laden. He knew that Bin Laden was
the undisputed leader and inspirer of all acts of Jihad, and most
prominently he also knew that Bin Laden would not endorse a Jihad war
version that was not aimed at ousting “infidels” from Muslim
soil.
For Bandar’s
plan to work and succeed, Jihadism had to be decapitated. Bin Laden
had to be removed from the scene.
In
retrospect, it is highly unlikely that Bin Laden would have
“authorized” the Jihadi war on Syria.
Is it
therefore an accident that his official death was announced virtually
on the eve of that infamous war on Syria?
One has to
wonder.
Source:
Read
also:
Comments
Post a Comment