The end of Bin Laden not end of terror

The day when the United States remembered the eighth anniversary of Bush’s mission accomplished in Iraq was a historic day for the Obama administration’s fight against al-Qaeda. It also came just a few days after a NATO missile air strike killed the youngest son and grandchildren of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

In the US, NATO’s unsuccessful attempt to kill Qaddafi was certainly not heard as loudly as the story of Bin Laden’s end.

There was widespread cheering and chanting in front of the White House after the breathtaking news of Bin Laden’s death in Pakistan, which was announced by Obama himself.

For the Americans who suffered from the 9/11 terror attack in 2001, this news is not just important psychologically and emotionally, but also politically. It is also great news for many people in the world who cursed Bin Laden’s crime against humanity.

But many are now left pondering whether his death will make a difference to the threat of terrorism to US national security and international stability? The leader might be dead but al-Qaeda is not.

Al-Qaeda is an organization that differs from other hierarchical terrorist organizations. It has a network of companies and training camps, and many local militant groups in other countries.

The death of Bin Laden does not automatically make the US more secure. This is why Obama has urged the US to remain vigilant at home and abroad. So, why should Bin Laden’s ending be announced to the world? Wouldn’t it have been better to have prosecuted him quietly?

Bin Laden’s death should not be exaggerated but should suggest a more cautious approach to handling terrorism. However, the news of his death understandably comes as a great relief for those who lost loved ones on 9/11. Thus, Bin Laden’s end has somewhat presented a victory for legacy of Bush’s war on terror.

While this is not a complete mistake, Obama’s announcement has some important messages.

First, his announcement highlights the success of joint forces between the US and Pakistan’s military to work together, instead of working on it unilaterally. Obama even mentioned that this is also an important achievement for Pakistan and all the states in the world. However, Islamabad has countered any speculation that it knew about Bin Laden’s presence in the country.

Second, Obama’s message clearly emphasized that the US has no intention to wage a war against the Muslim world. He said that fighting al-Qaeda is not a war against Muslim because bin Laden is not the leader of Muslim, but a mass murderer. This is the message that should be continuously highlighted as the basis of cooperation between the US and Muslim-majority states after 9/11.

The death of Bin Laden has put the US national security and foreign policy at risk particularly in three major areas: Terrorism, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the most crucial aspect is the vulnerability of the homeland.

In addition, his announcement raises the question of whether Obama can justify staying in Pakistan or in Afghanistan as the July deadline is nearing. Or, would Obama prefer to end the war in Afghanistan?

After Bin Laden’s demise, it makes sense to anticipate the future al-Qaeda or any terrorist groups’ retaliation to the US. The cheers for bin Laden’s death should stop. It is time to focus on how to de-radicalize terrorists and the next generation of terrorists. These are people who according Sageman (2008) are the terrorists-wannabes, cyber-jihadists. They are self-recruited and have never been trained in terrorists camps. They maintain the spirit of terrorism through social solidarity developed on the Internet.

However in continuing to combat terrorists, the US should not create similar threats, panic, or fear in the world as the terrorists did. Obama should lead by example and adhere to his initiatives in global non-nuclear proliferation diplomacy in this new phase of counter-terrorism.

For Indonesia, which was once called a terrorist haven, this news should come as an alert for us to be more aware of the threat to our national security. Domestic security threats and trans-national threats are equally important in this interdependent world.

The writer, a lecturer at the Department of International Relations at Paramadina University, Jakarta, is a Fulbright-DIKTI PhD student at the Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University.