The Conversion of Osama bin Laden

Neither the short- nor long-term legacy of America's killing of Osama bin Ladin are clear.  Never the less, it is possible to make some fragmentary observations that I think will be relevant going forward.

In no particular order:

• Put most plainly, OBL is not as important as he once was, nor is al Qaeda.  This is not so much because the capabilities of AQ have been diminished (they have), but because the events of the Arab spring have eclipsed AQ, and OBL, just as they have eclipsed (to a lesser extent) US dominance/relevance in the region.

• Speaking of the "Arab Spring", it is highly likely that both the US administration and OBL viewed the Arab Spring in the same light:  unwanted.  I think they largely shared that view.

• The attempt to deny a martyrdom shrine to OBL by burying him at sea won't work.  The US strike on Obama's compound was not just a killing.  It was actually more of a conversion.  What that conversion will be depends largely on how the US behaves in the region going forward.

• For US Middle East policy, OBL's death will provide fuel for both sides of a debate: those wishing to remove the US from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and those wanting to stay engaged there.  One side will point to the nominal mission being accomplished.  The other will see it as proof that progress in our wars, occupations, and "kinetic military actions" is possible, and that we should "stay the course".  Regardless, it is likely that OBL's death will be viewed as general support for the thesis that American militarism works.

• Ultimately, the meaning of OBL's death and the US role in it has yet to be established.  However, if there is a significant shift in US policy towards disengagement, his death will have been highly significant and beneficial to the nation he attacked on 9/11.  If, on the other hand, the US continues its current policies and actions unchanged, America by its own actions will render OBL's death meaningless. After all, how important could it be if it changes nothing?    Ultimately, the true meaning of the event is what the US makes of it through its own actions--not the event itself.

Juan Cole, US Intervention in Libya, and the Left's Constitutional Myopia

I'm amazed (and admittedly frustrated) that people like Juan Cole and Digby can so blithely ignore constitutional process in this country. I have already discussed Digby's startling disregard for constitutional process here. Today, Juan Cole has offered an "Open Letter to the Left" in which he lays out his support for the Libyan invasion, and includes a summary of how the Left has been split by the military action there. Nowhere in his synthesis does Cole observe the simple fact that the Libyan military action by US forces is an Article I violation and is in violation of the War Powers Act. Nowhere in his letter does he admit that this might be a basis--to any extent--for some on the Left to be critical of our role in the current conflict.

I perceive a double-standard at play here. We on the Left love constitutions. Everyone should have one. But we can't be bothered with our own. This view is illustrated to some extent by Cole, but it goes much wider than him. Cole's most recent posts covering North Africa and the Middle East have been loaded with references to a recurring, universal demand by populations throughout the region, namely new constitutions or substantially reformed constitutions and constitutional processes-- specifically:

"The Arab crowds are investing their hopes in a new era of parliamentarism, in elections and constitutions, in term limits and referendums, in the rule of law and the principle that governmental authority must derive from the people."

Jordan:

"Some 6000 protesters marched in Jordan on Friday. They said they wanted to transform the Jordanian monarchy into a European-style, constitutional monarchy and to return to an unamended 1952 constitution."

Morocco:

"Thousands came into the streets of Casablanca on Sunday to put pressure on the king to follow through on his pledges. But the crowds added another demand, of a new constitution to be approved by the people."

Bahrain:

"Michael Hudson surveys the wreckage in Bahrain, where the Shiite majority had demanded constitutional reforms in aid of popular sovereignty from the Sunni monarchy, but got imported Saudi Wahhabi troops instead."

Egypt:

"The government has appointed respected jurist Tareq al-Bishri to head a committee charged with amending the 1973 constitution, which had been subject to large numbers of changes that benefited the ruling National Democratic Party. "