RISE OF THE REST.

          Decline of the West OR Rise of the Rest

       A great transformation is taking place around the world, a transformation that, remains gradually understood. This is natural. Changes, take place gradually. Though we talk about a new era, the world seems to be one with which we are familiar. But in fact, it is very different.

      There have been three tectonic power shifts over the last five hundred years, fundamental changes in the distribution of power that have reshaped international life—its politics, economics, and  culture.

      The first was the rise of the Western world, a process that began in the fifteenth century and accelerated dramatically in the late eighteenth century.  It produced modernity as we know it: science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the agricultural and industrial revolutions. It also produced the prolonged political dominance of the nations of the West.

      The second shift, which took place in the closing years of the nineteenth century, was the rise of the United States. Soon after it industrialized, the United States became the most powerful nation since imperial Rome, and the only one that was stronger than any likely combination of other nations. For most of the last century, the United States has dominated global economics, politics, science, and culture. For the last twenty years, that dominance has been unrivaled, a phenomenon unprecedented in modern history.

      We are now living through the third great power shift of the modern era. It could be called “the rise of the rest.” Over the past few decades, countries all over the world have been experiencing rates of economic growth that were once unthinkable. While they have had booms and busts, the overall trend has been unambiguously upward. This growth has been most visible in Asia but is no longer confined to it. In 2006 and 2007, 124 countries grew at a rate of 4 percent or more. That includes more than 30 countries in Africa. A new phenomenon, called  “emerging markets” has identified the 25 companies most likely to be the world’s next great multinationals. The  list includes four companies each from Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan; three from India; two from China; and one each from Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and South Africa.

Look around. The tallest building in the world is now in Taipei, and one will be sooner in Dubai. The world’s richest man is Mexican, and its largest publicly traded corporation is Chinese. The world’s biggest plane is built in Russia and Ukraine, its leading refinery is under construction in India, and its largest factories are all in China. By many measures, London is becoming the leading financial center, and the United Arab Emirates is home to the most richly endowed investment fund. The world’s largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. Its number one casino is not in Las Vegas but in Macao, which has also overtaken Vegas in annual gambling revenues. The biggest movie industry, in terms of both movies made and tickets sold, is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Even shopping, America’s greatest sporting activity, has gone global. Of the top ten malls in the world, only one is in the United States; the world’s biggest is in Beijing. Such lists are arbitrary, but it is striking that only ten years ago, America was at the top in many, if not most, of these categories.

      It might seem strange to focus on growing prosperity when there are still hundreds of millions of people living in desperate poverty. But in fact, the share of people living on a dollar a day or less plummeted from 40 percent in 1981 to 18 percent in 2004, and is estimated to fall to 12 percent by 2015. China’s growth alone has lifted more than 400 million people out of poverty. Poverty is falling in countries housing 80 percent of the world’s population. The 50 countries where the earth’s poorest people live are basket cases that need urgent attention. In the other 142—which include China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey, Kenya, and South Africa—the poor are slowly being absorbed into productive and growing economies. For the first time ever, we are witnessing genuinely global growth. This is creating an international system in which countries in all parts of the world are no longer objects or observers but players in their own right. It is the birth of a truly global order. A related aspect of this new era is the diffusion of power from states and governments to other actors.

      The “rest” that is rising includes many non-state actors. Groups and individuals have been empowered, and hierarchy, centralization, and control are being undermined. Functions that were once controlled by governments are now shared with international bodies like the World Trade Organization and the European Union. Non-governmental groups are mushrooming every day on every issue in every country. Corporations and capital are moving from place to place, finding the best location in which to do business, rewarding some governments while punishing others. Terrorists like Al-Qaeda, drug cartels, insurgents, and militias of all kinds are finding space to operate within the nooks and crannies of the international system. Power is shifting away from nation-states, up, down, and sideways. In such an atmosphere, the traditional applications of national power, both economic and military, have become less effective.

      The emerging international system is likely to be quite different from those that have preceded it. One hundred years ago, there was a multi-polar order run by a collection of European governments, with constantly shifting alliances, rivalries, miscalculations, and wars. Then came the bipolar duopoly of the Cold War, more stable in many ways, but with the superpowers reacting and overreacting to each other’s every move. For years after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, America towered over the world as a great giant—economically, culturally and militarily.  But now for nearly a decade since the terrorist attacks of Sept.11, 2001, its armed services have clashed with the forces of Islamic extremism and terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere in the world.

      If that weren’t bad enough, the worldwide economic crisis has laid the country low with high unemployment, an immense federal government deficit, rising inflation and depressed home values.  Other challenges loom ahead, flowing from the European Union’s growing political and economic integration, Russia’s increased strength and assertiveness, and the new rising economy of China, India and Brazil.

      Clearly, America’s present superpower status is being increasingly challenged.  Could it be lost completely?  While it clings to a general preeminence right now, could America still decline and fail?  The other great empires in the past, such as those of Britain, Spain, Rome, Persia, Babylon and Egypt have seen such decay and downfall.  Is America and Europe’s future are more secure today than they were yesterday?  There is a common pattern fitting the history of rise and fall of empires. They went through a cycle of stages as they started, expanded, matured, declined and collapsed.

Has the US entered the later phases of the empire’s  life cycle? It’s only been independent from Britain for somewhat two and a half centuries.  It’s young, compared to those of Europe or Asia.  But does America today have the same values or cultural developments that past empires such as Rome had before they fell? Late 19^th century middle class Americans wanted their children to learn the values of prudence, saving and foresight as found in the stories of author Horatio Alger, whose heroes lead exemplary lives striving to succeed in the face of adversity and poverty.  Intellectuals are also increasingly respected during the age of intellect.

 Since 1991, we have lived under an American imperium, a unique, unipolar world in which the open global economy has expanded and accelerated dramatically. This expansion is now driving the next change in the nature of the international order. At the politico-military level, we remain in a single-superpower world. But in every other dimension—industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural—the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance. That does not mean we are entering an anti-American world. But we are moving into a post-American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people. What kinds of opportunities and challenges do these changes present? What do they portend for the United States and its dominant position? What will this new era look like in terms of war and peace, economics and business, ideas and culture?

In short, what will it mean to live in a post-American world?

ISRAR HASAN

The Two Passion

The Passion of the Christ[1]  

      The Passion is the Christian theological term used for the events and suffering – physical, spiritual, and mental – of Jesus Christ in the hours before and including his trial and execution by crucifixion. The Crucifixion of Jesus is an event central to Christian beliefs.  The term first appears in 2nd century Christian texts precisely to describe the travails and suffering of Jesus in this present context. The word passion has since taken on a more general application and now also describes the accounts of Christian martyrs.  Those parts of the four Gospels that describe these events are known as the "Passion narratives". The non-canonical Gospel of Peter is also a Passion narrative. In the liturgical calendar, the Passion is commemorated in Holy Week, beginning on Palm Sunday and ending on Easter Saturday.

      The Passion begins at Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and John 12 with the conspiracy against Jesus by the Jewish chief priests and the teachers of the law,[2] and unfolds in the following events:

      In Jerusalem, the Last Supper is shared by Jesus and his disciples. Jesus gives final instructions, predicts his betrayal, and tells them all to remember him.  On the path to Gethsemane after the meal, Jesus tells them they will all fall away that night; after Peter protests he will not, Jesus says Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows.

      In Gethsemane, later that night as the disciples rest, Jesus prays; then Judas Iscariot leads in either "a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees"[3] (accompanied according to Luke's Gospel by the chief priests and elders)[4], or a "large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and elders of the people"[5], which arrests Jesus; all his disciples run away.

      The arresting party brings Jesus to the Sanhedrin (Jewish supreme court); according to Luke's Gospel, Jesus is beaten up by his Jewish guards prior to his examination;[6] the court examines him, in the course of which, according to John's Gospel, Jesus is struck in the face by one of the Jewish officials[7] the court determine he deserves to die. According to Matthew's Gospel, the court then "spat in his face and struck him with their fists”.[8]  They then send him to Pontius Pilate.  Peter has followed Jesus and joined the mob awaiting Jesus’ fate; they suspect he is a sympathizer, so Peter denies he knows Jesus. Suddenly the cock crows and Peter remembers what Jesus had said.

      Pilate, the Roman governor, examines Jesus, decides he is innocent; the Jewish leaders and the crowd demand Jesus’ death; Pilate gives them the choice of saving Barabbas, a criminal, or saving Jesus. In response to the screaming mob Pilate sends Jesus out to be crucified. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Judas, the betrayer, is filled with remorse and tries to return the money he was paid for betraying Jesus. When the high priests say that that is his affair, Judas throws the money into the temple, goes off, and hangs himself.[9]

      Golgotha, a hill outside Jerusalem, later morning through mid afternoon. Jesus is crucified and dies. According to the synoptic gospels, the high priest who examines Jesus is Caiaphas; in John, Jesus is also interrogated by Annas, Caiaiphas' father-in-law.

      The Gospel of Luke states that Pilate sent Jesus to be judged by Herod Antipas because as a Galilean he was under his jurisdiction. Herod was excited at first to see Jesus and hoped Jesus would perform a miracle for him and asked Jesus several questions but Jesus did not answer. Herod then mocked him and sent him back to Pilate after giving him an "elegant" robe to wear.[10]  

      All the Gospels have a man named Barabbas[11] released by Pilate instead of Jesus. Matthew, Mark and John have Pilate offer a choice between Jesus and Barabbas to the crowd;  Luke lists no choice offered by Pilate, but represents the crowd demanding his release.

      In all the Gospels, Pilate asks Jesus if he is King of the Jews and Jesus replies ‘So you say’. Once condemned by Pilate, he was flogged before execution. The Canonical Gospels, except Luke, record that Jesus was then taken by the soldiers to the Praetorium where, according to Matthew and Mark, the whole contingent of soldiers was called together. They placed a purple robe on him, put a crown of thorns on his head, and according to Matthew, put a rod in his hand. They mocked him by hailing him as King of the Jews, paying homage and hitting him on the head with the rod.

      According to the Gospel of John, Pilate had Jesus brought out a second time, wearing the purple robe and the crown of thorns, in order to appeal his innocence before the crowd, saying "Ecce homo", "Behold the man". But, John represents, the priests urged the crowd to demand Jesus' death. Pilate resigned himself to the decision, washing his hands (according to Matthew) before the people as a sign that Jesus' blood would not be upon him.

      According to the Gospel accounts he was forced, like other victims of crucifixion, to drag his own cross to Golgotha,[12]  the location of the execution. The three Synoptic Gospels refer to a man called Simon of Cyrene who is made to carry the cross (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26), while in the Gospel of John 19:17 Jesus is made to carry His own cross. The Gospel of Mark gives the names of Simon's children, Alexander and Rufus. However, the Gospel of Luke refers to Simon carrying the cross after Jesus, in that it states: "they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus".[13] Luke adds that Jesus' female followers were following him, and mourning his fate, but that he responded by quoting Hosea 10:8;[14]

      The Synoptic Gospels state that on arrival at Golgotha, Jesus was offered wine laced with myrrh to lessen the pain, but he refused it. Jesus was then crucified, according to Mark, at the third hour (9 AM) the morning after the Passover meal, Pilate had a plaque fixed to Jesus' cross inscribed, (according to John) in Hebrew, Greek and the Latin - Iesu Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum, (The original in Greek of the Gospels reads  meaning Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. Mark has the plaque say simply, King of the Jews. The Gospels then state that they divided Jesus' clothes between the soldiers except for one garment for which they cast lots. The Gospel of John claims that this fulfills a prophecy from Psalms 22:18. Some of the crowd who had been following taunted Jesus, saying "He trusts in God; let God deliver him now!", and suggested that Jesus might perform a miracle to release himself from the cross.

      According to the Gospels, two thieves were also crucified, one on each side of him. According to Luke, one of the thieves reviled Jesus, while the other declared Jesus innocent and begged that he might be remembered when Jesus came to his kingdom.

      John records that Mary, his mother, and two other women stood by the cross as did a disciple, described as the one whom Jesus loved. Jesus committed his mother to this disciple's care. According to the synoptics, the sky became dark at midday and the darkness lasted for three hours, until the ninth hour when Jesus cried out Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (My God, why have you forsaken me?).  The centurion standing guard, who had seen how Jesus died, declared Jesus innocent (Luke) or Son of God (Matthew, Mark).

      John also says that, as was the custom, the soldiers came and broke the legs of the thieves, so that they would die faster, but that on coming to Jesus they found he had already died. A soldier pierced his side with a spear.

      The various words of Jesus during the Crucifixion are collected from the different Gospel accounts as the Last Words of Christ.

       “So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with Jesus; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water… For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of him shall be broken.’ And again another scripture says, ‘They shall look on him whom they have pierced’” (John 19:32-37).

                                    -------------------------------

The Passion of  Hallaj[15]

            The most controversial figure in the history of Islamic mysticism, Abu al-Moghith al-Hosain ibn Mansur al-Hallaj was born 244/858 near al-Baizain the province of Fars.  He travelled very widely, first to Tostar and Baghdad, then to Mecca, and afterwards to Khuzestan, Khorasan, Transoxiana, Sistan, India and Turkestan. Eventually he returns to Baghdad, where his bold preaching of union with God caused him to be arrested on a charge of incarnationism. He was condemned to death and cruelly executed on 28 March 913 CE.

      After many tales about Hallaj began to circulate, he set out for Makkah where he resided for two years. On his return he was a different man, calling people to the “truth” in terms which no one understood.  He was expelled from fifty cities.

      In their bewilderment the people were divided concerning him.  His detractors were countless, his supporters innumerable.  They witnessed many wonders performed by him.  Tongues wagged, and his words were carried to the caliph. Finally all were united in the view that he should be put to death because of his saying, “I am the Truth.”

      A group of the theologians made common cause against Hallaj and carried a garbled version of his words to Mo’tasem (caliph); they turned his vizier Ali ibn Isa against him. The caliph ordered that he should be thrown into prison. There he was held for a year. But people would come and consult him on their problems. People were prevented from visiting him and for five months no one came near him, except Ibn Ata once and Ibn Khafif once.

      It is said that on the first night of his imprisonment the gaolers came to his cell but could not find him in the prison. They search through all the prison, but could not discover a soul. On the second night they found neither him nor the prison, for all their hunting.  On the third night they discovered him in the prison.

      When Hallaj was first confined there were three hundred souls in the prison. Hallaj addressed them, “Prisoners, shall I set you free?”  “Why do you not free yourself?” they replied.  “I am God’s captive. I am the sentinel of salvation,” he answered. “If I so wish, with one signal I can loose all bonds.”

      Hallaj made a sign with his finger, and all their bonds burst asunder. “Not where are we to go?” the prisoners demanded.  “The gate of the prison is locked.”

      Hallaj signaled again, and cracks appeared in the walls.  “Now go on your way,” he cried.  “Are you not coming too?” they asked.  “No,” he replied. “I have a secret with Him which cannot be told save on the gallows.”  “Where have the prisoners gone?” the warders asked him next morning. “I set them free” Hallaj answered.  Why did not not go?”  they enquired. “God has cause to chide me, so I did not go” je replied.

      This story was carried to the caliph.  “There will be a riot”, he cried. “Kill him or beat him with sticks until he retracts.”

They beat him with sticks three hundred times. At every blow a clear voice was heard to say, “Fear not, son of Mansur!” Then they led him out to be crucified.

Loaded with thirteen heavy chains, Hallaj strode out proudly along the way waving his arms like a very vagabond.  “Why do you strut so proudly?” they asked him.  “Because I am going to the slaughterhouse,” he replied.

      When they brought him to the base of the gallows at Bab al-Taq, he kissed the wood and set his foot upon the ladder. “How do you feel?” they taunted him.  “The ascension of true men is the top of the gallows,” he answered.  He was wearing a loincloth about his middle and a mantle on his shoulders. Turning towards Makkah, he lifted up his hands and communed with God. “What do you say,” asked a group of his followers, “concerning us who are your disciples, and these who condemn you and would stone you?” “They have a double reward, and you a single,” he answered. Then all the spectators began to throw stones. Shebli, to conform, cast a clod. Hallaj signed. “You did not sign when struck by all these stones. Why did you sigh because of a clod?” they asked.  “Because those who cast stones do not know that they are doing.  They have an excuse.” Then they cut off his hands.  He laughed. “Why do you laugh?” they cried.”It is an easy matter to strike off the hands of a man who is bound,” he answered.  “He is a true man, who cuts off the hand of attributes which remove the crown of aspiration from the brow of the Throne.”  They hacked off his feet.  He smiled. “With these feet I made an earthly journey,” he said. “Other feet I have, which even now are journeying through both the worlds.  If you are able, hack off those feet!”  Then he rubbed his bloody, amputated hands over his face, so that both his arms and his face were stained with blood.  “Why did you do that?” they enquired.  “Much blood has gone out of me”, he replied.  “I realize that my face will have gown pale. I rubbed blood over my face so that I might appear rose-cheeked inyour eyes.  The cosmetic of heroes is their blood.”  “Even if you bloodied your face, why did you stain your arms?”  “I was making ablution.”  “What ablution?”  “When one prays two raka’s in love,” Hallaj replied, the ablution is not perfect unless performed with blood.”  Next, they plucked out his eyes.  A roar went up from the crowd. Some wept, some flung stones. Then they made to cut out his tongue.  “Be patient a little, give me time to speak one word,” he entreated.  “O God,” he cried, lifting his face to heaven, “do not exclude them for the suffering they are bringing on me for Thy sake, neither deprive them of this felicity.  Praise be to God, for that they have cut off my feet as I trod Thy way.  And if they strike off my head from my body, they have raised me up to the head of the gallows, contemplating Thy majesty.”

      Then they cut off his ears and nose.  An old woman carrying a pitcher happened along.  Seeing Hallaj, she cried,  “Strike and strike hard and true. What business has this pretty little Wool-carder to speak of God?”  The last words Hallaj spoke were—“Love of the One is isolation of the One.” Then he chanted this verse: “Those that believe not therein seek to hasten it; but those who believe in it go in fear of it, knowing that it is the truth.”  This was his final utterance.  They then cut out his tongue. It was the time of the evening prayer when they cut off his head.  Even as they were cutting off his head, Hallaj smiled.  Then he gave up the ghost.

      A great cry went up from the people.  From each one of his members came the declaration, “I am the Truth.”  Next day they declared, “This scandal will be even greater than while he was alive.” So they burned his limbs. From his ashes came the cry, “I am the Truth,” even as in the time of his slaying every drop of blood as it trickled formed the word Allah. Dumbfounded, they cast his ashes in the Tigris. As they floated on the surface of the water, they continued to cry, “I am the Truth.”

      Hallaj had said, “When they cast my ashes into the Tigris, Baghdad will be in peril of drowning under the water. Lay my robe in  front of the water, or Baghdad will be destroyed.” His servant, when he saw what had happened, brought the master’s robe and laid it on the bank of the Tigris.  The waters subsided, and his ashes became silent.  Then the gathered his ashes and buried them.

                                    ------------------------------

---

[1] The Passion of the Christ, taken mainly from Encyclopedia Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, Deluxe Edition 2008.

[2] Matt.26:3-5; Mark 14:1; Luk.22:2-5.

[3] John 18:3

[4] Luke 22:52.

[5] Matt.26:48; Mark 14:43.

[6] Luke 22:63

[7] John 18:22

[8] Matt.26:67

[9] Matt.27

[10] Lk. 23:8-12.

[11] Bar-abbas means son of Abbas, the Lord. Some manuscripts of Matthew say Jesus Barabbas, suggesting that an early version of the story contrasted the fate of two men both named Jesus. (Wikipedia).

[12] A place of skulls.

[13] Luke 23:26

[14] The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed. The thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, "Cover us!" and to the hills, "Fall on us!" (21^st Century King James Version).

[15] The Episodes of al-Hallaj have been taken from the Book, “ Saints and Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat al-Auliya (Memoires of the Sains)”  by Farid al-Din Attar; Translated by A. J. Arberry; Penguin Books Ltd., London, England, New York, USA, Victoria, Australia, Ontario, Canada and Auckland, New Zealand, 1966; pp. 266-271.

U.S. Officials: Pakistan Spy Agency Deliberately Killed Journalist

U.S. Officials: Pakistan Spy Agency Deliberately Killed Journalist

BEYOND BIN-LADEN

The death of Osama bin Laden[1]  may cause a setback for a time being, but certainly would not put al-Qaeda’s  line of actions in reverse gear.  Al-Qaeda vowed to continue its attacks on the U.S. and warned Americans that their 'happiness will turn to sadness'. The Al Qaeda statement, signed by 'the general leadership’ said his blood would not be 'wasted' and that it would continue attacking the U.S.[2]

 As of May 2, 2011, Ayeman al-Zawahiri was assumed to be the figurehead of al-Qaeda following the death of Osama bin Laden.[3]  This was confirmed by a press release from al-Qaeda's general command on June 16.[4]   After the 9/11 attacks the U.S. State Department offered a US$25 million reward for information leading to al-Zawahiri's apprehension.[5]

Al-Zawahiri is reportedly a qualified surgeon; when his organization merged with bin Laden's al-Qaeda, he became bin Laden's personal advisor and physician. He had first met bin Laden in Jeddah in 1986. Al-Zawahiri has shown a radical understanding of Islamic theology and Islamic history. He speaks Arabic, English and French. To understand al-Qaeda, one must read the books of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's principal ideologue and chief strategic thinker. After Osama bin-Laden, Al-Zawahiri is the most-wanted Middle Eastern terrorist. The FBI has a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture or arrest.

Al-Zawahiri dreams of a future jihad in the southern Russian Republics, Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan to unite a nuclear Pakistan and the gas-rich Caspian region to serve jihad. Al-Qaeda involvement in the Middle East includes Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Yemen.

 The huge trove of computers, storage devices, and cell phones that the Navy SEALs retrieved from Bin Laden’s villa shattered the myth that he was isolated.  On May 6, a U.S. government official told CNN that bin Laden “worked at the operational and even tactical levels. . . . He was clearly issuing directions at all levels.”

Military officials said it was the ISI which had initially provided a lead on Osama in the shape of cell phone details of his most trusted courier Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, which the CIA pursued and developed but did not share with the ISI and instead went ahead unilaterally to kill the Al Qaeda leader. “In the case of Osama bin Laden, while the CIA developed intelligence based on initial information provided by the ISI, it did not share further development of intelligence on the case with ISI, contrary to the existing practice between the two services,” the ISPR[6] statement maintained.

In its report the New York Times said that when the commandos reached the top floor of the house in the compound, they entered a room and saw Osama bin Laden with an AK-47 rifle and a Makarov pistol “in arm's reach,” and they “shot and killed him, as well as wounding a woman with him.” 

Al Qaeda released a statement on militant Web sites Friday, May 6, confirming the death of Osama bin Laden, news agencies reported.[7]

The statement, dated May 3, was signed by “the general leadership” of the group, the Associated Press said, “We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims” the statement said according to the Associated Press, adding that his death would not “go in vain.” The statement also said, “We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries.”  The statement also called on the people of Pakistan to rebel against their government and warned of reprisal attacks against America.                            

In the aftermath of the incident, the military and the ISI have faced numerous questions, with almost everyone asking how it was possible for Osama to live unnoticed at the Pakistan Military Academy Kakul`s doorway for years without any support.

Bin Laden was not a cult leader with disciples who obeyed him blindly. Al-Qaeda was not only his organization—many felt ownership over it and its global jihad project. The movement places emphasis on ideological purity rather than charismatic leadership and, over the years, has fully adapted to the reality that jihadist at all levels are replaceable. Slogans such as “the path to victory is soaked with blood of the martyrs” are not empty words but are practiced every day, from the conflict zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq and North Africa. Jihadi web sites devote enormous attention to the virtues and joys of martyrdom and the coming paradise.

Bin Laden’s success in eluding capture and assassination for so many years earned him an aura of invincibility, which was certainly inspirational. But that aura is now broken, and the information he left in his compound and on his computers will how far inflict damage on al Qaeda, time will tell. Still, the larger ideological movement that bin Laden left behind is by no means broken and will continue to thrive. The majority of jihadi’s are motivated by grievances such as Western military interventions and interference in the Islamic world, and they still have those grievances. Bin Laden’s death, it seems, has done nothing to change terrorism’s underlying conditions.

One of the greatest misunderstandings of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda is the fact that we have taken the global jihad, trans-national jihad, advanced by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri for granted. And, in fact, we cannot understand it has always been the global jihad, a tiny fringe current, historically in Arab and Muslim Societies. You're absolutely correct. Osama bin Laden was an icon, a symbol. A symbol of challenge for the United States of America. But you cannot underestimate also how the American ‘war on terror’ elevated Osama bin Laden.  Here you have the United States of America, the greatest military and political economic power on the one hand, and Osama bin Laden, a private person without any umbrella of state power, on the other hand.

On the morning after 9/11 the United States of America faced almost 3,000 al-Qaeda fighters, the global jihadists in Afghanistan. Where are we today in 2011? I mean think of the wars that are raging now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Before war on terror, there was no Taliban in Pakistan. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan changes the entire strategic landscape. I mean, these are serious policy consequences of how the United States responded to Osama bin Laden. And also while you're absolutely correct about the whole, I mean, impact of that particular iconic event, that what happened on the morning after helps us really to understand the context where are we today, and the grave challenges facing international security.

Pakistan’s apprehensions.

While Americans breathe sigh of relief, many Pakistanis are apprehensive of the future after al-Qaeda leader's death.  Speaking to Al Jazeera, General Hameed Gul, the former head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), said that "We knew all along that it (the war on terror) will eventually come to Pakistan.

"And now with this incident, they have the reason to justify what they have been saying all along that there are al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.

"Pakistan has been the target of this so-called 'war on terror' which began in Afghanistan, then was taken to Iraq and finally has come to Pakistan.

"The anti-Pakistan lobby can now say 'go for Pakistan'– they knew that they couldn't go against a nuclear Pakistan so the best way forward was to create internal problems and then ultimately come up with the stance that Pakistan’s nukes were not in safe hands."

Shahzad Chaudhry, former air vice marshal Pakistan Air Force, said: "We may ignore for a second if Pakistanis agree with the war or not, but we cannot ignore the fact that the government and armed forces have been heavily involved in this war.

"It is a massive political win for the US. And [president Barack] Obama will now be able to implement his Afghan withdrawal plan very easily.”

President Obama, in his announcement of bin Laden's death, acknowledged Pakistan's co-operation in the hunt for him.

However, it has not yet been established, to what extent did the intelligence agencies of US and Pakistan work together.

Gul said: "If they carried the operation without the cooperation of ISI, then it will definitely be seen as a direct attack on Pakistan’s integrity and its sovereignty.

"And if ISI and CIA co-operated on this operation then this entire rhetoric of tense relations between the two agencies was a complete drama."

"Given that the helicopters flew at night, and helicopters fly very low so there is no way that they could have escaped the radar of Pakistan intelligence," said Kasuri.

"So this indicates that there was a degree of cooperation. Now what we do not know is the extent of the co-operation."

Ayaz Amir, a Pakistan-based columnist, says it is highly unlikely that "the Pakistani intelligence agencies would have known where he was. They couldn't have played this high-risk game of knowing his whereabouts and pretending otherwise".

Pakistan's paradoxes   

Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) clear, when Leon Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency said, that intelligence on the operation to take out bin Laden was not shared with Pakistan out of fear that it would "jeopardise the mission".

Barack Obama, the US president, stated on the US television show 60 Minutes that it was clear that bin Laden had "some sort of support network… inside Pakistan", though he stopped short of saying that the Pakistani state was complicit in this network. Tom Donilon, the US president's national security adviser, later went on NBC's Meet The Press to say that he had "not seen any evidence that would tell us that the political, the military or the intelligence leadership had foreknowledge of bin Laden".

Nevertheless, when push came to shove, the US chose to act unilaterally, and in his speech to announce bin Laden's death, Obama made only the slightest allusion to "intelligence cooperation" with Pakistan. In the following days, several prominent US lawmakers, including the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, strongly questioned whether the Pakistani state, in one form or another, was involved in harboring the al-Qaeda leader.

There is then, it would appear, a distinct trust deficit for the US when it comes to the reliability of Pakistan's intelligence establishment.

Osama bin Laden's death has been big news, but for many the real story is the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. How much they did or indeed did not co-operate on the mission? Is the relationship between Pakistan and the United States dead and buried too? Even before bin Laden was killed - the US administration was already under pressure to curtail its aid to Pakistan, over concerns how the aid was being spent. But with strained relations, will the financial lifeline dry up?

Crunch time for Pakistan

Pakistan celebrated its 60th birthday on August 14 this year, but the country arguably now faces the most critical phase in its history. Shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Colin Powell, the then US secretary of state, told Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president: "The American people would not understand if you did not co-operate in this fight with the United States."[8]

Hours earlier, Richard Armitage, the then US deputy secretary of state, told Lieutenant-General Mahmood, the visiting Pakistan intelligence chief, at the state department: "General ... we want to know whether you are with us or not, in our fight against terror."[9]

In his memoirs published in 2006, Musharraf quoted his intelligence chief as telling him that Armitage had warned him "to be prepared to be bombed, be prepared to go back to the Stone Age." In any event, the partnership with the US was hard to sell at home and the people of Pakistan were against joining the war on terror.

Today, the North West Frontier province (NWFP) is still being shaken by deadly attacks that many consider to be fallout of this war in Afghanistan and a backlash against the alliance with the US in its so-called war on terror.  The military government's U-turn on its Afghan policy, which saw it ditch its former allies the Taliban on the one hand and stop support painful and difficult.[10]

Loss of support

Under pressure not to admit violation of its territory by foreign aircraft the Pakistan military blamed itself, further eroding its credibility. 

Tribal leaders vowed revenge and a wave of reprisal attacks ensued, targeting military forces and security personnel. The Pakistan army reached a deal with the tribals and asked for a commitment from them that they would stop infiltration across the border and even offered amnesty for some foreign fighters not on the US "wanted list".

 After a deal was reached, the Musharraf government came under greater pressure from Washington, worried about intensifying Taliban insurgency across the border in Afghanistan, to scrap it and opt for a military solution instead.[11]

The Bin Laden factor   

In spite of a lack of credible intelligence on the whereabouts of America's two most wanted men, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, Kabul and Islamabad traded allegations and accusations about bin Laden's likely whereabouts.

 The war of words became so intense that George Bush, the US president, called Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and Musharraf to iftar (breaking of the fast in Ramadan) and get them talking.

Many analysts are warning that if Musharraf gets another five-year term, he will take America's war into Pakistan's tribal areas and the NWFP, a key demand of the Bush administration. And such talk is ringing alarm bells. The ramifications of any large-scale military operations against the tribals could prove to be the Achilles' heal for an army prepared to fight on the eastern front and in the plains of Punjab rather than the rugged and forbidden terrain of the north.  

It has also caused suspicions that the American failure to find the two most wanted men may lead Pakistan into a quagmire on its own territory and reinforce one failure with another. Any attempts to wage full-scale war on the tribal populations has the potential to spill over into settled areas and spread. The US bombardment within Pakistan has turned public opinion against the ally, and its unflinching support for Musharraf and his military government.

The US is rejecting demands from Pakistan that American personnel abandon a military base used by the CIA to stage drone strikes against militants, US officials told Reuters.[12]  On Wednesday, federal Minister for Defence Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said that US had been asked to stop using the base for drone strikes and vacate it.

Relations between the two uneasy allies deteriorated after the May 2 raid by US SEALs in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden.  Wednesday’s statement by Mr Mukhtar was the latest salvo.

There are some very big gaps in the story. Two Helicopters with a range so big it could get into northern Pakistan (from Afghanistan) back again after being detected without being intercepted and without Pakistani forces knowing of their breach into Pak airspace is pure fantasy.

Even Osama was not safe in Pakistan. What’s up with ISI? It has been taking dollars from US to hunt down Osama and from Osama to keep him safe from US. ISI has disappointed both of them. Under General Kiyani, Pakistan Army has surrendered to rag-tag Taliban , the native women being flogged by barbarians , Shias & Ahmediyas & Christians have been butchered at will, Raymond Davis got away after killing two Pakistanis in Pakistan . Now the question is , has Pakistan seen its lowest under General Kiyani’s watch or is there more to come ?

How many more terrorists are being shielded and protected by Kiyani and Pasha? Will they give them up and restore some honor to Pakistan or US will have to hunt them down on it’s own?

US Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein charged Monday, May 9, that slain al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden could not have lived as he did in Pakistan without some official complicity. “I just don’t believe it was done without some form of complicity,” Feinstein told reporters as she delivered a stark and scathing warning to the troubled US ally to do more to battle extremists or risk souring ties.[13]  “I think either we’re going to be allies in fighting terror, or the relationship makes less and less sense to me,” said the senator, who indicated she foresaw cuts in billions in US aid absent a course correction in Islamabad.

“It’s becoming increasingly problematic,” she said. “I thoroughly agree with the administration’s request that Pakistan take a good look at what the support services were for bin Laden.”  Feinstein said it was “incomprehensible” that bin Laden could live unperturbed for six years in “a military community” in Pakistan before May 2 raid in which six elite US commandos shot dead the elusive al Qaeda leader.[14]

While Pakistan has denied knowingly allowing the world’s most hunted man to live in relative luxury, “I just don’t believe it,” said Feinstein, who stressed “that level of complicity is really a problem.” Feinstein charged that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have been “essentially favoring the Haqqani network, which attacks our troops in Afghanistan,” while denying US forces access to their bases in remote North Waziristan.[15]

“You have them not turning over both the inspirational head and the operational head of LeT, following the Mumbai bombing, to India,” she said, referring Lashkar-e-Taiba. “Now you have this,” she said, referring to bin Laden.[16]

The completion of the largest and most expensive manhunt in history for Osama bin Laden must be a turning point to completely rethink our response to terrorism. The threats of terrorists are still real, but it is now clear that full-scale military action is not the most effective response. There is no more room or time for excuses. The war in Afghanistan -- now the longest war in American history -- no longer has any justification, says Jim Wallis in his Sojo Mail of May 6, 2011.

It was the campaign against bin Laden and al Qaeda that was always used to justify the war in Afghanistan. General David Petraeus has said there are about 100 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. We have more than 100,000 American troops and another 40,000 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. That means 1,400 soldiers for each al Qaeda fighter. It costs about $1 million a year to deploy and support each American soldier — or more than $100 billion a year total. That breaks down to our country spending $1 billion per year, per al Qaeda fighter. Every deficit hawk in America should now oppose this war. The cost is simply too high, especially when compared with all the painful budget choices this failed war is causing us to make.

Even more important is the human cost of 1,570 Americans killed, more than 10,000 wounded, and many more families separated -- lives disrupted and changed forever. We must always care about the casualties on the other side, especially innocent lives who are the collateral damage of war. From 2007 to 2010 that number is at least 10,000. This war is not worth that human cost. The damages it causes far outweigh the possible results, and that makes this war unjustifiable. 

The operation that found and killed bin Laden was not the massive war of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. It was the result of smart intelligence, good detective work, and aggressive law-enforcement work -- policing, rather than war-making. Even many conservatives have pointed this out, as George Will recently wrote, “bin Laden was brought down by intelligence gathering that more resembles excellent police work than a military operation.”

More innocent civilians have become the “collateral damage” of our wars, than from the direct assault on civilians undertaken by Osama bin Laden and his al- Qaeda assassins on September 11. This fact, by the standards of Just War Theory, which is at least given lip service in most churches, is a grave moral failing. Violence is always more a sign of our failures than our successes and is not easily exorcized from the world by the killing of one man, no matter how dangerous or symbolic he may be.

In 2002, Amal (Bin Laden’s youngest wife) reportedly gave an interview to a Saudi woman's magazine, Al Majalla, in which she explained how, after the 9/11 attacks, she made her way out of Afghanistan back to Yemen with assistance from Pakistani officials. Bin Laden's widow told her Saudi interviewer at the time, "When the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan started, we moved to a mountainous area with some children and lived in one of the caves for two months until one of his sons came with a group of tribesmen and took us with them. I did not know that we were going to Pakistan until they handed us over to the Pakistani government."[17]

After bin Laden's young bride – Amal was turned over to the Pakistani authorities, she and her daughter Safiyah were released and allowed to fly home to Ibb, a town not far from Sana'a, Yemen's capital, where her father worked as a minor civil servant.                              

But bin Laden somehow arranged for Amal to rejoin him and his kids in Pakistan. In her magazine interview, she was asked if she would return to her fugitive husband. Her enigmatic reply: "Let us see what happens." Pakistani press quoted officials as saying that Amal claimed to have been living with bin Laden in the Abbottabad safe house for five years.       

Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kayani said Thursday, May 5, that Pakistan is ordering all but the "minimum essential" American personnel to leave the country, a sign that the tense relations between Pakistan and the U.S. have worsened as a result of the Abbottabad raid.[18]

Pakistan's security establishment has long been accused of playing a double game: taking billions in U.S. aid while secretly backing select jihadi militants in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's tribal region. Even al-Qaeda types were expected to play ball. Says the Arab woman formerly connected to al-Qaeda: "There was an understanding with the Pakistani army. We would get a tip-off that the army planned to raid one of our houses in the tribal area. We would flee but leave some 'evidence' behind so that the army could show to the Americans that we'd been there."[19]                                                           

Righteous-Right.blogspot.com

Email: hitt2010@gmail.com

---

[1] Mar.10, 1957 – May 2, 2011; 54 years.

[2] The statement was posted in a Jehadist Internet Forums. The statement, dated May 3, was the first by the terror network since Bin Laden was killed.

[3] "Jihadist websites: Ayman al-Zawahiri appointed al Qaeda's new leader". Cable News Network.. Retrieved June 16, 2011.

[4] BBC: Ayman al-Zawahiri appointed as al-Qaeda leader, June 16, 2011

[5] Juan Zarate, Chris Wragge, CBS Early Show. (May 3, 2011). Who now becomes America's next most wanted terrorist?.

 [6] Inter-Services Press Release of Pakistan Military Services.

[7] The New York Times, May 6, 2011.

[8] Eng.Aljazeera.net; Kamal Hyder’s ‘Forces both within and outside the country are pushing it to the brink.’ Last Modified: 05 Oct 2007.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] www.dawn.com July 1, 2011.

[13] AFP News, May 10, 2011

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Time, May 6, 2011

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.