http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=30184

Obsessed with Osama
by Mosharraf Zaidi

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

“I believe they (Bin Laden and Mullah Omar) are here in Pakistan and it would be really helpful if we could get them.” And with that, in what is now becoming an amusing routine, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday, once again, expressed her conviction that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan.

On May 9, 2010, just days after the failed Times Square bombing plot revealed a Pakistani American to be behind it, Mrs. Clinton was steadfast in defending Pakistan, until her interview with 60 Minutes, in which she said: “Somewhere in this government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is, where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban is, and we expect more cooperation to help us bring to justice, capture or kill those who attacked us on 9/11.”

And of course, there was last year, during a visit to Pakistan that most judged to be highly successful, when during a TV interview on October 29, 2009, Mrs. Clinton said, “Al-Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002. I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to–as far as we know, they are in Pakistan.”

This is becoming a rather predictable routine. Predictable, but intriguing. After all, as one of the American political elites’ longest standing (and for many years only) friends to Pakistan, its hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton would want to deliberately damage Pakistan in the eyes of her country’s citizens.

Bin Laden is not a very popular fellow in Pakistan. As Mrs. Clinton’s friends in the Republican Party will testify, IRI polls have repeatedly shown that extremism and Al-Qaeda, are deeply unpopular in this country. Repeatedly suggesting that Pakistan knowingly shelters Bin Laden seems like a poor public diplomacy move.

More importantly, none of the core policy statements of the Obama Administration mention killing or even finding bin Laden’s as an objective of its military and political efforts. In the March 27, 2009 “disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda” speech, President Obama does not mention Bin Laden even once. In the December 1, 2009 Afghanistan surge address at West Point, President Obama mentions the Afghan Taliban’s refusal to hand over bin Laden as the rationale for the war in Afghanistan. And most recently in the US National Security Strategy released in May, there again, is no mention of bin Laden at all.

Simply put, Osama bin Laden, while a massive symbol, represents neither a strategic, nor a tactical, nor an operational target of US military and political efforts. While President Obama was gung-ho during his election campaign, his statements after winning the 2008 election in the US are most telling. On January 14, President-elect Obama said: ìMy preference obviously would be to capture or kill him,” he said. “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

When Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was killed in 2006 there was widespread consensus that the most important member of Al-Qaeda, more so than bin Laden, had just been terminated.

Even Dick Cheney, who would be proud to be called Al-Qaeda and bin Ladenís worst enemy, says that Osama bin Laden is–wherever he is–he’s in a deep hole. He does not have much impact on the organisation as best we can tell. The important thing was to go after the organisation, after al Qaeda. Even if you got Osama bin Laden tomorrow, you’d still have a problem in terms of whatever residue of al-Qaeda is out there.”

Why then does Mrs. Clinton keep finding ways to bring up bin Laden, further deepening the already desperately bad press Pakistan gets in America, and actively antagonizing many Pakistanis?

My guess is that Mrs. Clinton never imagined it would be so difficult to help a country that she is fond of, as she has found trying to help Pakistan, over the last two years. As Dick Cheney and Barack Obama agree, Osama bin Laden, is not a primary target of the American strategy here. Mrs. Clinton keeps bringing him up because bin Laden stories serve as a good distraction from the otherwise disastrous relationship that even she can’t seem to manage fixing. Welcome to Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton. Hope you enjoyed your stay.

Discussion

4 Responses to “Obsessed with Osama”

  1. If that was the case… then why did pakistan banned ‘Tere bin laden’ movie [for a brief period though], stating that it will cause public unrest and terrorists will feel bad…

    Posted by naresh | 20. Jul, 2010, 11:37 am
  2. Sorry, Mosharraf Zaidi Sahib, your article is too clever by half. It goes over the heads of simple folk like me.

    Mrs Clinton’s obsession with Osama and Mulla Omar has a simple explanation. These people had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. As a matter of fact, the Taliban government had offered up Osama Bin Laden for trial in a neutral country, which the Americans rejected. My view is that Mrs Clinton is advised by a team of expert mind benders – psychologists – and the aim is simply to hammer it deep into the Pakistani psyche that the sophisticated “attack on America” was the work of these relatively backward people.

    I suggest you click on the link below – you may learn something new:

    http://sakibahmad.blogspot.com/2010/07/terrorising-pakistan.html

    Posted by Sakib Ahmad | 20. Jul, 2010, 11:03 pm
  3. Mrs. Clinton is clueless about the ground truth. General Sirohey told me when I interviewed him for a Huffington Post article a few weeks back that Pakistani and U.S. intel agencies believe bin Laden is dead.

    Bin laden probably is dead, but the closest thing living to a bin Laden is a Mr. Haqqani. And that’s who she should have brought up. She should have met with Generalismo Kayani and asked about Haqqani’s wearabouts. Haqqani IS Al Qaeda. They’ve known Osama since the 80s, Mr. Haqqani provided bin Laden and friends safe passage to flee Afghanistan. And Mr. Haqqani has been hanging out in North Waziristan – the size of Rhode Island – for 9 years and nobody has done anything. Kayani has protected him because he’s an anti-Indian asset. I think she had the right general idea, she just used the wrong name.

    Posted by Michael Hughes | 21. Jul, 2010, 6:13 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] This cup of tea was served by: Mosharraf Zaidi [...]

Post a comment

Media Appearances