CBP and ICE Chiefs Faced Off Against Unhinged Dems...and Some Said the Quiet...
Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has Been Telling Some Weird Lies About His Ancestor and...
DOJ Charges Two Men in $120 Million Adult Day Care Fraud Scheme
This GOP Governor Just Shot Down a Bill That Would Have Banned Biological...
This Is How Mike Johnson Will Stop Lawmakers From Challenging Trump's Tariffs
National Nurses Union Calls for the Abolition of ICE
While Her Senate Rivals Campaign Statewide, Haley Stevens Hides From Voters
Wisconsin High School Is Hosting a Drag Show. Guess Who's Participating.
You Are the Carbon They Want to Reduce: WEF 'Sustainability' Leftist Wants to...
Delaware Smacked Down for Trying to Enforce Law, Ignoring Injunction
Dow 50,000: A Supply-Side Miracle
Mike Johnson Blasts Mamdani's DOH for Creating a ‘Global Oppression’ Group Focused on...
Kentucky Senate Candidate Andy Barr Endorses Pro-Amnesty Book Despite Pledging to Be ‘Amer...
Even Jimmy Kimmel Is Mocking the Left for Their Sudden Love of Bad...
This Congressman's Inquiry Into Bad Bunny's Explicit Performance Has the Libs Screaming
OPINION

Bin Laden's Slow Rot

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

In late August 2004, after shutting off the recorder, I asked the British general to tell me how Iraq and coalition forces should handle the complex ethnic, sectarian and security challenge presented by Shia "Mahdi Militia" leader Moqtada al-Sadr. That month, Sadr's thugs had invaded Najaf's Grand Mosque and attempted to bait the coalition into bombing the shrine.

Advertisement

The coalition chose to follow the advice passed on by an aide of Shiite Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani: "Let us deal with Sadr. We know how to handle him and will do so. However, the coalition must not make him a martyr."

The British general shook his head. "Dealing with Sadr will appear indecisive, as the Battle of Najaf appears indecisive. But in the long run Iraq will be better off if Sadr withers, or defeats himself."

Seven years ago, Osama bin Laden was a Big Man on the planet, a bearded stud with a Himalayan reputation among young Muslim militants from Morocco to Indonesia. Now, bin Laden hides in the Himalayas.

The Hollywood finale to 9-11 would have U.S. special forces dragging a chained bin Laden from his hideout, the frightened wannabe Caliph squinting in the harsh sunlight.

The Hollywood ending hasn't happened. Bin Laden may yet be arrested and brought to trial and convicted -- it should be done.

Bin Laden's slow rot may be the "Sadr strategy" writ large, however. The slow rot certainly isn't as emotionally satisfying as Hollywood's denouement. It has political consequences. "Bush can't get bin Laden" is a frequent taunt. But in terms of forwarding America's long-range strategy for defeating Islamo-fascism and helping Middle Eastern Muslim nations address their long-term challenge, bin Laden's slow rot -- in lieu of ascent to martyrdom -- may prove to be ironically useful.

Every war is a series of mistakes -- bloody, expensive mistakes. France's Georges Clemenceau provided a more elegant rendering of the terrible hell of it: War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory. Ultimately, winning any war, but especially this intricate, multidimensional war, demands perseverance and creative adaptation.

Advertisement

In war, the enemy makes mistakes as well, and al-Qaeda has made numerous strategic errors.

Al-Qaeda's dark genius has been to connect the Muslim world's angry, humiliated and isolated young men with a utopian fantasy preaching the virtue of violence. That utopian fantasy seeks to explain and then redress roughly 800 years of Muslim decline. Bin Laden concluded that attacking the United States and the infidel West was the way to energize these young Muslims -- a physical demonstration of "violent virtue" and its history-shaping effects.

Attacking the United States and Europe would be so overwhelmingly popular the West would leave Muslim nations. Al-Qaida would then take control of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Bin Laden provided a sketch but few details. He would rely on anger and fervor -- and his own iconic leadership.

Seven years later, it appears attacking the West was a huge strategic blunder by al-Qaida -- and that's not a solely "Western" opinion. Al-Qaida's criminal record has wrecked its reputation in Muslim nations. We've had indications. StrategyPage.com noted on Oct. 27, 2005, that "the Muslim media is less and less willing to be an apologist for al-Qaida, at least when it comes to killing Muslim civilians" and that the Iraqi media in particular "really has it in for al-Qaida."

On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that "dead Iraqis were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes."

Advertisement

Al-Qaida's malignant message still dupes some young Muslim men. Nineteenth and early 20th century militant anarchist tracts still appeal to violent killers like the Unabomber. Rock music critics and late-night TV cable talk show hosts toy with anarchist tropes.

Bin Laden still has "gangsta" appeal, but mere survival was not his goal.

If bin Laden had been killed in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States would be combating a myth and a legend. Instead of caliphate, bin Laden has produced his own catastrophe. The bin Laden icon is seriously fractured, if not quite shattered.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement