Quote of the Day: The Roots of Arab and Islamic Hatred

What are the roots of that Arab and Islamic hatred?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war against us gave three reasons as his casus belli.

His first reason for war was the presence of U.S. troops on the soil of Saudi Arabia, sacred home to Mecca and Medina. His second was the U.S. sanctions on Iraq then said to be causing the premature deaths of as many as 500,000 Iraqi children.

Third was U.S. support for Israel, seen in the Arab world as a colonial implant to humiliate them and deny to the Palestinian people their right to a nation of their own.

Lately, new causes of Arab and Muslim hatred of us have arisen.

The first is what devout Muslims regard as our immoral and decadent culture, which they see as a threat to their societies and their young.

The second are the Islam haters and baiters in America and the West who deliberately provoke them with insulting and blasphemous portrayals of the Prophet and their faith.

While the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia have by now largely been closed, and the United States is largely withdrawn from Iraq and the sanctions there have all been lifted, America is not going to change herself to accommodate their world.

Support of Israel is the declared position of both parties. And, though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rightly called the crude amateur film "Innocence of Muslims," which caused the latest anti-American rioting, both disgusting and reprehensible, we are not going to repeal the First Amendment, which protects provocateurs and pornographers.

Yet, worldwide, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom their faith is their most priceless possession. They live it. They will die for it. And not a few will kill for it. Others will seize upon real or imagined insults to that faith to excite the crowds to expel us from their world.

And some Americans will accommodate them by using books, films and videos to manifest their contempt of Islam.

So we have here an irreconcilable conflict.

The Islamic word, especially across the Arab region, is undergoing a transformation, a Great Awakening. Muslims from Nigeria to Mali to Ethiopia to Sudan to the Maghreb and Middle and Near East are growing more militant and more hostile toward Christianity and other faiths.

This is from Patrick J. Buchanan, co-founder and editor of The American Conservative writing at the Lew Rockwell.com

How War Policies will Hurt the US

The economics of war will eventually weigh on the US.

The following is an excerpt from a must read article by investing guru Doug Casey (bold emphasis mine)

An AK-47 costs less than $500 most places in the world; the bullets cost about 20 cents apiece, and the teenager to employ them costs nothing at all. In fact, teenagers in the Muslim world are in such oversupply that they can be said to have a negative cost.

A US soldier, by contrast, is immensely expensive. Even though most of them come from lower socio-economic levels, a substantial investment has been made in taking them even through Grade 12. Then comes the cost of recruiting, training, equipping, paying, insuring, housing and transporting them in the military. I’m not sure the cost of a US soldier in the field has ever been accurately computed, but it has to be well over a million dollars for a simple grunt and much more for a specialist. That’s not counting the lifetime of pension benefits and medical care for the maimed. And with battlefield medical as good as it now is, the ratio of seriously wounded to dead is much higher than ever before. You may sympathize with the US soldier, but he’s definitely on the wrong side of the equation.

An M-1 tank costs about $5 million a copy. It, or any other vehicle, can be destroyed by an IED fabricated from fertilizer or unexploded ordnance. Even if it’s not destroyed, or not even severely damaged, the brains of its occupants are likely to be scrambled by the blast wave. This is, incidentally, something that is underappreciated. A blast wave bounces a brain around in a skull like an egg inside a tin can. Considering that IEDs are both devastating and extremely hard to detect, it’s no wonder they’re so popular.

Have you ever wondered why there’s no reporting on the numbers of tanks, APCs, Humvees, helicopters and other (immensely expensive) hardware being destroyed in the current US wars? It’s classified, because the numbers would be so embarrassing. Unlike in Vietnam, there’s no longer any body count of the enemy because that would be politically incorrect. But it doesn’t matter how large it is; every dead jihadi is a dragon’s tooth that will grow back as ten replacements. That’s why there’s really no way to win a guerrilla war before you go bankrupt – no way short of genocide or at least serious mass murder.

A $1,000 RPG will easily destroy a million-dollar armored personnel carrier and its occupants. A $10,000 shoulder-launched missile can take out a $10 million helicopter or a $40 million F-16. It may be practically impossible to shoot down a $1 billion B-2 bomber, but that’s academic; they were built to fight a nuclear war against the USSR. They’re useless except to deliver atomic weapons, but the new enemy lives in refugee camps and scattered within teeming cities. The B-2’s codename should be changed from Spirit to Albatross, because it’s not only totally uneconomic, it’s almost totally useless.

So the economics of guerrillas attacking an invading superpower are excellent. In response, the economics of a superpower attacking guerrillas or terrorists are disastrous. In its current wars, the US winds up using cruise missiles, at around $1.5 million each, to blow up wedding parties. The direct expense is bad enough; the vastly greater indirect expense is the creation of a clan of new enemies. The best result is for the missile to just pulverize some sand. Even if it hits a few mujahidin, that’s placing an implied value of several hundred thousand dollars apiece on their heads.

In other words, whether we’re looking at offense or defense, the economics of destruction are tilted not just 10 to1, not just 100 to 1, but probably closer to 1,000 to 1 in the favor of insurgents.

Perhaps you’re thinking further advances in technology will tilt the equation back toward the US. But as I explained above, the effect of each innovation will be just the opposite after only a short period of technological monopoly. People have a lot of misplaced confidence in the so-called "defense" establishment to come up with marvelous devices to confound groups designated as the enemy. Of course advances will be made, at least for as long as the US government has scores of billions to spend on R&D annually – which it soon may not, for financial reasons. But even if it diverts funds from its myriad other projects, the procurement process is stultifyingly bureaucratic, slow and costly. It’s not at all entrepreneurial, which it still was to a degree even during WWII, when the P-51, the best fighter of the war, was taken from concept to production in nine months and turned out for $50,000 a copy.

The US will even lose the war for new weapons as time goes on, simply because the Defense Department bureaucracy is so counterproductive. It’s like the company Dilbert works for in the cartoon pitted against millions of independent entrepreneurs in the Open Source world. Dilbert’s company moves like a dinosaur, while the Open Source world watches, imitates, innovates and improves at warp speed.

Today a ponderous state supposedly represents our side (I italicize that because, although I truly dislike many of the people it’s fighting against, I consider it to be an even greater danger). At best, it resembles a dim, tired old Tyrannosaurus up against hundreds of smart young Velociraptors intent on eating it. The outcome is obvious: a bunch of the attackers will get killed, but the T-Rex is dead meat.

Remember that there are more scientists and engineers alive today than in all of human history before them, the vast majority from non-OECD countries. The ones who are any good don’t want to work in a constrained, bureaucratic environment with no financial upside. Entirely apart from that, if the minions of the perversely named Defense Department come up with a real super-weapon, in today’s world it’s easy to replicate and improve on, and for a fraction of the original cost. That’s why there are scores of thousands of apps developed for most any electronic device that hits the market today – in addition to the device itself being "knocked off" illegally by small factories that could be anywhere.

Terrorism icon Osama bin Laden’s goal was reportedly to bankrupt the US. And the US has been fighting a 20th century modeled war, when times (or warfare’s evolving dynamics) has been dramatically changing.

In line with the way incumbent political institutions have been structured, the US political establishment has been failing to keep with the new realities (or with the emergent forces of decentralization). And at worst, they seem to be falling right into bin Laden’s ‘war of attrition’ trap.

Yet you can profit from terror (or political folly) as Doug Casey points out, read the rest here

Iran’s Minister Claims Osama Bin Laden “Died of Illness Sometime Ago”

Iran Intelligence Minister claims that Osama Bin Laden has long been dead.

From the Russia’s RIANOVOSTI.com (pointer to Tyler Durden)

Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said Tehran has evidence that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had died of disease long before the United States' alleged raid on the terrorist, FARS Iranian news agency said.

Bin Laden was killed on May 2 in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad, north of the capital Islamabad, during a raid by U.S. Navy Seals.

"We have accurate information that bin Laden died of illness some time ago," Moslehi said.

Bin Laden's body was buried at sea less than 24 hours after the operation.

"If the US military and intelligence apparatus have really arrested or killed bin Laden, why don't they show him (his dead body) why have they thrown his corpse into the sea?" Moslehi continued.

As I have been saying, Bin Laden’s death will produce more questions than answers.

Foreign Meddling, Not ‘War in the name of Islam’, Breeds Terror

The Economist produces a table showing the fatalities from Al Qaeda’s “Killing in the name of Islam”

Apparently this has been published to justify the US government’s action on Osama Bin Laden—a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

It’s foolish to say that these have all been about religion.

Common sense tells us that with an estimated 1.5 billion Islam adherents and growing, then a war on religion would imply that the world would have been embroiled in various types of violence as a result from this ‘false’ war. But where? The war has been limited to but a few.

For instance, Bin Laden’s alleged war with the west has been anchored upon the following key factors, which the legendary investor Doug Casey enumerates:

One thing they should think about is that Osama didn’t actually present – or certainly shouldn’t have presented – a risk to the U.S. You’ll recall that he said he was only up in arms for three reasons: 1) the U.S. had its troops in Muslim lands; 2) the U.S. was supporting the stooges running those countries; and 3) the U.S. was supporting Israel, which he deemed an oppressor of the Palestinians. If the U.S. desisted from those things, he was happy to leave it alone, in the belief it would necessarily self-destruct.

In other words, the so-called religious war only serves as camouflage to advance US imperialist interests.

In the name of War on Terror, more innocent people are being slaughtered every year than the combined activities of the Al Qaeda.

Writes the New York Times,

Last year was the deadliest of more than nine years of war for Afghan civilians, the United Nations reported Wednesday, attributing 75 percent of the deaths to attacks by Taliban and other insurgents rather than coalition forces.

The United Nations said 2,777 civilians were killed in 2010 — a 15 percent increase over the previous year — in its annual civilian casualty report, authored jointly with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Despite several prominent recent episodes involving civilian deaths that have strained relations with the Afghan government, deaths caused by NATO forces declined by 26 percent, the report found, reflecting new precautionary steps by military commanders, including Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the previous top commander in Afghanistan, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, who took over eight months ago.

That’s from Afghanistan alone in 2010.

While most of these are being blamed on Al Qaeda, based on statistics which we can’t rely on, because only nation states have the power to make such declaration. The point is the War on Terror has been causing more needless deaths regardless of who is responsible.

Here is an estimate of the total casualties over the duration of the War on Terror from Wikipedia,

-Iraq: 62,570 to 1,124,000

-Afghanistan: between 10,960 and 49,600

-Pakistan: between 1467 and 2334 killed in U.S. drone attacks as of May 6, 2011

All these goes to show that imperialism, not a war on religion, is what breeds terror. As Sheldon Richman fittingly writes, (bold highlights mine)

Apologists for activist government never tire of telling us that the benevolent state is our protector and that without it we'd be at the mercy of monsters. It is about time that we understood that the U.S. government does more to endanger the American people than any imagined monsters around the world.

How so? By pursuing its Grand Foreign Policy of meddling anywhere and everywhere. It stands to reason that if you stick your nose in other people's quarrels you will acquire enemies. Some of them will be unhappy about the interference and will retaliate. Tragically, they will not be so careful about discriminating between the offenders and innocent civilians. That's wrong, but so is the meddling that brings the retaliation about.

Unfortunately, far more influential are vested interest groups who profits from these wars, whom dictate on foreign policies channeled through political leaders.

All the rest is propaganda.

The Osama Bin Laden Available Bias

The history of war is the history of powerful individuals willing to sacrifice thousands upon thousands of other people’s lives for personal gains.-Michael Rivero

Correlation isn’t causation. This applies to the implied impact of Osama Bin Laden’s assasination to the financial markets.

People are so used to connecting current events with actions of market prices from which they impute cause and effect linkages. Such available bias leads people to miscalculate on what has truly been driving markets.

Why should Bin Laden’s death lead to falling markets? Because of fears of retaliation? Retaliation by whom?

Alarmism is no more than part of the political propaganda for increased social control.

Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda represents a small faction whose capability is no more than to launch sporadic urban guerilla tactics with limited effect.

As Eric Margolis writes[1],

The specter of al-Qaida provided a handy pretext to invade Afghanistan to secure strategic territory next to Central Asian oil, keep China out of that region, and double spending on arms. The invasion of oil-rich Iraq was also justified by patently false White House claims Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden over 9/11.

Al-Qaida "affiliates" in North Africa, Arabia, and south Asia are simply small groups of local militants who have taken the al-Qaida brand name without having any organic or communications links to the remnants of the core al-Qaida in Pakistan. They are more a dangerous nuisance than a deadly threat.

Osama bin Laden may well and truly be dead. He predicted long ago he would die a martyr in a gunfight with US forces. Bin Laden has been more or less retired for the past 8-10 years, spending his time and energies in staying alive with a $25 million price on his head. He had almost become irrelevant.

As I earlier pointed out[2] Bin Laden’s political capital has sharply been eroding as shown in the chart above from the Economist. This underscores Bin Laden’s irrelevance.

I suspect that Bin Laden was disposed of, largely because of political expediency: President Obama’s popularity ratings have plummeted to record lows and whose chances for reelection have been rapidly shrinking. Thus, the need for a massive boost from which Bin Laden’s death provided as the fodder (which it temporarily did!).

While the general public sees Bin Laden as a mortal enemy, behind scenes Bin Laden looks more like a friend of the US military industrial complex, the huge bureaucratic tentacles of homeland defense which emerged post 9/11 and US politicians. The hunt for Bin Laden was estimated at about the $3 trillion (about 15% of national debt) that has sucked up much of resources at the expense of the economy[3].

So Bin Laden looked more like a political stooge donned as a villain for the public to lash at, but covertly have been providing benefits and profits for the political operators, her network of defense contractors and the bureaucracy.

As earlier pointed out if the report is true that Bin Laden lived in the compound, where he was killed, for 5-6 years, then either this represents a massive intelligence failure for the US government or that the US knew all along and tolerated Bin Laden’s presence.

Thus the eroding political capital base of Bin Laden meant that he was expendable and that Bin Laden would represent as the sacrificial lamb to advance the political interests of President Obama. Besides, a new substitute of Bin Laden has emerged: Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi.

So whether Bin Laden was a political stooge or not, the point is that Bin Laden’s assassination will have little impact on the markets.

As one would note in the above charts, the cratering silver prices prompted for subsequent weaknesses in S&P 500, and Emerging Markets benchmarks while the US dollar belatedly rallied. While some may argue that the sharp moves in the US dollar (obversely a dramatic fall in the Euro) may be attributed to chatters about Greece leaving the Eurozone which has been denied[4] and also on the news of the Portugal bailout[5], I see the US dollar rally-Euro decline as a natural response from overextended positions.

So one has to be careful in reading the sequences of events from which to establish causation relationships.

As a final note, it would also be oversimplistic to view the demise of Bin Laden as a ‘victory’ for the US government. After all it had been Bin Laden’s strategy to engage in a “war of attrition” aimed at bankrupting his superpower opponents...a path which the US seems headed for.

As Ezra Klein of Washington Post aptly writes[6],

For one thing, superpowers fall because their economies crumble, not because they’re beaten on the battlefield. For another, superpowers are so allergic to losing that they’ll bankrupt themselves trying to conquer a mass of rocks and sand. This was bin Laden’s plan for the United States, too.

“He has compared the United States to the Soviet Union on numerous occasions — and these comparisons have been explicitly economic,” Gartenstein-Ross argued in a Foreign Policy article. “For example, in October 2004 bin Laden said that just as the Arab fighters and Afghan mujaheddin had destroyed Russia economically, al Qaeda was now doing the same to the United States, ‘continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.’ ”

For bin Laden, in other words, success was not to be measured in body counts. It was to be measured in deficits, in borrowing costs, in investments we weren’t able to make in our country’s continued economic strength. And by those measures, bin Laden landed a lot of blows.

---

[1] Margolis Eric Why bin Laden’s Ghost Is Smiling, May 3, 2011 LewRockwell.com

[2] See Osama bin Laden’s Death: Propaganda, Diminishing Political Capital and Re-election, May 04 2011

[3] Fernholz, Tim and Tankersle Jim, The cost of bin Laden: $3 trillion over 15 years, May 5, 2011, National Journal

[4] Bloomberg.com EU Finance Chiefs See More Help for Greece, Reject Euro Exit (1), May 7, 2011

[5] Monstersandcritics.com EU, IMF confirm 78 billion for Portugal aid package, May 5, 2011

[6] Klein Ezra Osama bin Laden didn’t win, but he was ‘enormously successful’, May 3, 2011, Washington Post

Cartoon of the Day: Osama Bin Laden’s Last Tweet

(Hat tip Dan Mitchell)

Video: Jon Stewart Mocks President Obama's Refusal To Show Osama Bin Laden's Pictures

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart lampoons the Obama administration for not showing Obama's picture (hat tip Lew Rockwell blog)

Nice quote from Mr. Stewart about 4:17 of the video

We make decisions about war if we see what war actually is, and not as a video game where bodies quickly disappear leaving behind a shiny gold coin.

The Daily Show - Face/Off
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

President Obama: No Pictures of Osama bin Laden

From BBC,

President Barack Obama has said publishing photos of the dead Osama Bin Laden threatens US national security.

"I think that, given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk," Mr Obama said.

How can a dead man’s picture/s equate to national security risks?

Is Mr. Obama afraid of an El Cid effect—a legend where the dead Spanish military and political leader was mounted on his horse to inspire his troops to win a battle? Or maybe that there has been no Osama bin Laden at all? Or that bin Laden has long been buried?

Update:

UK's the Guardian has a deck of graphic pictures of the compound where bin Laden was supposedly killed. But no bin Laden and the other victims shown were apparently not buried at sea.

Osama bin Laden’s Death: Propaganda, Diminishing Political Capital and Re-election

The belief that government will give truth in information has been exposed as falsehood anew.

As I earlier argued we cannot take government’s word for it.

Proof?

From Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, (bold highlights mine)

Virtually every major newspaper account of the killing of Osama bin Laden consists of faithful copying of White House claims. That's not surprising: it's the White House which is in exclusive possession of the facts, but what's also not surprising is that many of the claims that were disseminated yesterday turned out to be utterly false. And no matter how many times this happens -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight against Iraqi captors to Pat Tillman's death at the hands of Evil Al Qaeda fighters -- it never changes: the narrative is set forever by first-day government falsehoods uncritically amplified by establishment media outlets, which endure no matter how definitively they are disproven in subsequent days.

Yesterday, it was widely reported that bin Laden "resisted" his capture and "engaged in a firefight" with U.S. forces (leaving most people, including me, to say that his killing was legally justified because he was using force). It was also repeatedly claimed that bin Laden used a women -- his wife -- has a human shield to protect himself, and that she was killed as a result. That image -- of a cowardly through violent-to-the-end bin Laden -- framed virtually every media narrative of the event all over the globe. And it came from many government officials, principally Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan

I’d add that if we can’t take the government’s word for it, then how can we be sure that Osama bin Laden had actually been killed as announced?

Butler Shaffer at the Lew Rockwell blog resonates with my thoughts, (bold highlights mine)

I have seen a number of blogs that ask “if bin Laden did die years ago, why wouldn’t the government have so announced at the time?” Because the state depends upon a fear-ridden populace to maintain its powers, bogeymen have always been in demand. A bogeyman who cannot be seen is, perhaps, the most to be feared. What made the movie Jaws so frightening was that we couldn’t see the giant shark. (Because of some mechanical problems in operating the make-believe shark, the producers used music as a substitute source of fear.) One of the most terrifying movies I ever saw was the original version of Diabolique, in which the wrongdoer never appeared until the very end of the film; his wife forever listening to his mysterious footsteps in the hallway, etc. Who better to keep Boobus terrified and crying for Big-Daddy than a ubiquitous, but unseen, monster like bin Laden? And when he’s gone, can he be traded in on the latest model: Gaddafi? (Where is Gaddafi, anyway? Has anyone seen him lately? How will Rudy Giuliani be able to sleep, knowing of the presence of this new villain? Will Rudy keep his bedroom night-light on?)

Finally, if it is true that Osama bin Laden had been eliminated as reported, then perhaps this is because Bin Laden’s political capital has been going down.

From the Economist, (bold highlights mine)

THE announcement at the weekend that American special forces had killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was greeted with jubilation in America, and with more restraint elsewhere. But while he was America's most wanted man and the most recognisable Islamist terrorist in the world, in reality Mr bin Laden's influence had been declining in many Muslim countries. In polling by the Pew Research Center just before he was killed, a third of Palestinian respondents said they had confidence that the al-Qaeda leader was "doing the right thing in world affairs". That compares with over 70% when the question was first asked in 2003. Support for Mr bin Laden also fell in most of the other countries canvassed. (A 2011 figure is not yet available for Pakistan as the fieldwork is still in progress.) This may reflect a genuine change in attitudes after al-Qaeda's high-profile attacks in places such as Bali and Jordan, as well as its violence in Iraq. But it could also reflect Mr bin Laden's lower profile in recent years.

Declining political capital of both Mr. bin Laden and of President Obama translates to a political maneuvering.

Whether Osama bin Laden was killed long ago or was eliminated just recently adds only to my hypothetical that Mr. bin Laden was used as a prop for the advancement of President Obama’s political career.

Osama Bin Laden’s Death and the US Presidential Elections

I just can’t trust governments.

Especially not the news of the alleged death of the most wanted fugitive Osama Bin Laden.

Succeeding reports seem to show some inconsistencies.

While I read that DNA tests confirmed that they belonged to Mr. Bin Laden, the photos circulating the cyberspace was reportedly faked according to the Washington Post.

I’m no forensic expert but DNAs can be stored for a number of years according to easy-DNA.com. The possible implication is that the death of Bin Laden may or may not have happened exactly as claimed by the US government.

Moreover, Bin Laden’s cadaver, was reportedly buried at sea, which according to IOL news, would have prevented his followers from making it into a shrine.

Perhaps. But some say the reason is to get rid of evidence.

But what if there had been no Bin Laden? Some quarters allege that Bin Laden has long been dead.

All the above seem to be anchored on the credibility of the US government and nothing more.

Yet the US Presidential election is around the corner.

Considering that President Obama’s approval rating hit an all time low in March of 2011, there’s got to be a ‘miracle’ for him to boost his chances for re-election.

And true enough, reports of the slaying of Bin Laden did give him a boost.

From Mark Perry (Enterprise Blog)

Prediction markets (intrade.com) reveal a spike in the election odds in favor of President Obama.

Yet a day after the Bin Laden was slain, reports say that the controversial birth certificate, which President Obama recently produced in reaction to the challenge of presidential aspirant Donald Trump, could be a fake.

According to the Daily Mail

Leaders of the so-called 'birther' movement have claimed that the birth certificate produced by Barack Obama is a fake.

Despite the president providing the the full long-form document last week, the 'birthers' - fronted by Donald Trump - have taken their case to a federal appeals court in Southern California.

They claim the birth certificate had been doctored; that the document's serial number was out of sequence, the typing wasn't aligned, and it was printed on green paper instead of white paper like other Hawaiian birth records of that era.

The timing or coincidence of Bin Laden’s death raises the level of my scepticism. Has President Obama been trying to preempt or divert the public’s attention on this?

I am not in the camp of the 'birthers' as mudslinging seems to be a normal tactic employed during elections. But of course what if claim of the 'birthers' are true?

I may also sound like a conspiracy theorist but that’s because of the confusing signals I get.

Even more puzzle is that reports say that the fugitive Bin Laden could have used the compound where he was allegedly slain as a safe house for 5-6 years!

The Reuters quotes White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan, (bold emphasis mine)

"Well I think the latest information is that he was in this compound for the past five or six years and he had virtually no interaction with others outside that compound. But yet he seemed to be very active inside the compound," Brennan said on the CBS Early Show program.

Of course someone has to take the blame. That’s the nature of politics. So the scapegoat, according to US officials, should be Pakistan. According to The Hill,

Washington placed Pakistani officials in the rhetorical crosshairs Monday, questioning how they could be ignorant of Osama bin Laden’s hiding place just miles from Islamabad.

Now if the reports are valid that Bin Laden stayed in that compound for 5-6 years then this represents a troubling intelligence failure for the US government more than Pakistan. It’s the US who has been obsessed with Bin Laden.

On the other hand, we could also deduce that there had been no intelligence failure. Instead, the US government could have tolerated (or even harbored) Bin Laden’s presence until the political exigency for his elimination.

The US has placed the responsibility of the infamous 9-11 to Bin Laden, who initially denied involvement.

But 9-11 also was used by the US government to extend her coercive powers (Patriot Act, Homeland Defense) domestically and to engage in war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Chart from Wikipedia Federal Budget and Defense Spending Trend

Thus, Bin Laden served as one of the principal reasons for the massive expansion in US government spending on home defence and overseas wars.

In other words, the hunt for Bin Laden represented one big business for the military industrial complex. So I can’t help but piece together what may seem like a staged operation.

But one may argue that the death of Bin Laden should mean reduced expenditures for the military; not if this were part of the concessions made with President Obama. Besides, they have got Libya's Muammar Gaddafi to replace Bin Laden.

Bottom line:

Bin Laden’s death seems to produce more questions than answers.

I could be wrong, but for me, this looks a lot related to the upcoming US Presidential elections.

For President Obama, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Will The US Fall For Osama Bin Laden’s Trap?

From Eric Margolis at the Lew Rockwell.com, (bold emphasis mine)

Bin Laden’s primary goal is overthrowing US-backed autocratic regimes across the Muslim world. Attacking western targets that supported them was only secondary.

Col. Gadaffi was not totally wrong when he blamed al-Qaida for Libya’s uprising. Bin Laden was not pulling the strings of Libya’s rebellion, but al-Qaida’s revolutionary philosophy and anti-western jihad certainly inspired many young people from Morocco to Bangladesh.

That’s Washington’s big problem. Invading Libya will intensify the fires burning in the Arab world and create yet another anti-western jihad.

This is exactly Osama bin Laden’s strategy: draw the bull in the china shop – US into many small wars in the Muslim world – and so bleed it dry. So far, the US has been cooperating with Osama’s master plan.