The Reality Check for a Post-Bin Laden World

I have to admit, when I heard the news that Osama Bin Laden was dead, I was shocked. So much so that I didn't believe it, I thought the news anchor said that "Obama is dead". But I wasn't watching Fox News, and sure enough, as surprising as it was, Osama Bin Laden was dead. But with this comes a lot of questions, firstly how does someone so wanted get to hang around in Pakistan for so long, without anyone noticing? This is the man after all, we were all suspecting would be found if anywhere in the same kind of accommodation that Saddam Hussein was found in: a hole and not in a mansion. If there really was a blind eye cast when it came to Osama being in Pakistan by its government, there is no doubt that tensions will be on the rise in US-Pakistan relations. Already, law makers in Washington seem keen to 'check up' on Pakistan, ensure counter-terrorism really is on their mind, and that all the aid the country receives to fight terror isn't being received blind to the actions that would be required of someone remotely a US ally. But is this really how we should go forward in shaping relations with Pakistan? That wasn't the only thought that came to mind for a Post-Bin Laden World.  The other striking perception amongst american's [6 in 10] that the death of Bin Laden as a 'death of a leader' means time to reconsider the United State's role in Afghanistan, and troop withdraws, as Susan Page reported in the USA TODAY. Are these two related though in reality, or is this a stream line of Osama as a Hitler type figure, that if you kill, the war machine won't know what to do with itself. I am not blindly for the war in Afghanistan, but I just want everyone to take a deep breath, and think for a moment, is that really how this works, or do we need a reality check?

Lets start with the question of Osama and Afghanistan and Ill move on to talk about Pakistan in due course. Recently, Fareed Zakaria emphasized the point that the take down of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan demonstrates a success of the White House focus on counter-terrorism, over troop movements, and investing the efforts against terror with a lack of dynamic to how Al Qaeda will evolve further. It makes sense to not focus just on Afghanistan, I admit, specially when you consider that there remains large potential for recruitment of new terrorists, not just from nations in the Middle East: The biggest Muslim nation in the world after all is Indonesia in Asia. But beyond that geometry lesson, there is the possibility that Osama's death doesn't actually mean as big of a victory of the United States against terror, as they celebrating in the street outside the Oval Office post Osama's death would suggest. I found an interesting article in Foreign Affairs by Brynjar Lia called "Al Qaeda Without Bin Laden" that was quick to point this out, arguing that Bin Laden wasn't the primary reference point when it came to the ideological and religious thought that encourages Jihad and terror. Even the individuals responsible for spreading such ideological propaganda from Al Qaeda remain largely separate from Bin Laden, another point Lia makes. That is a reality of Al Qaeda, the fuel for terror isn't a single individual, but instead grievances such as western military intervention in the Islamic world, which haven't gone away. This leads me to wonder about this 'hit and run' counter terrorism approach of the White House. To continue to swoop in, and take out an Al Qaeda operative, to leave a gap that gets quickly filled. The reality is too, the more you do just that, the more dynamic Al Qaeda will become. Which leads me to my second point: What to do with Pakistan and their efforts against terrorism?

It seems that Pakistan has much to be frustrated about beyond the United States wanting to extend requirements on future aid to the country in the future. Another article from Foreign Affairs, The Pakistan Dilemma, by Shuja Nawaz suggests just that, with continued U.S. drone attacks in the country, one in march which killed 41, putting the government in an awkward position, with its people deeply angered over C.I.A drone attacks on the one hand, and having the U.S. knock on the door on the other to ask more of their efforts against terror. There remains evidence to suggest that Pakistan, wasn't aware of Bin Laden's location, but not taking the time to probe leaves open that question, and challenges US-Pakistan relations. I understand the idea of secrecy, and how important Bin Laden is, but is Pakistan a client state, or an ally of the United States: swooping in with Navy Seals doesn't exactly leave room to grow ones relationship beyond a simple "do as I say". It also creates further mistrust and cracks in Pakistan, as the military grows ever angrier, creating distance between the civilian government with its hands out for U. S. aid and military in Pakistan concerned about drone attacks, as Nawaz hints on. In my mind, this leaves little room for a co-ordinated effort between the United States and Pakistan against terror. Why not instead want to reach out to Pakistan's military, and allow them to conduct their own efforts against terror, it is after all in their own interests to have a nation with less terror, and sustain peace to enhance their economic development, rather than just remain dependent on U.S. aid. The United States should move to consider this, as a long term strategy, because the reality is, they are not going to win an ally with continued drone attacks, specially if the military is potentially thinking: "we'll we could have caught those operatives, without the risk of civilian deaths". Forgive the metaphor, but Pakistan isn't a prostitute that can be brought off, its a nation with its own dynamic interests, fewer of which are pro-terrorism than this leaving Pakistan to answer questions about Osama Bin Laden in their backyard potentially suggests. Pakistan can be co-operated with.

Fareed Zakaria, as do many other academics, law makers, and policy people, as the time to take actions when it comes to Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But the reality is, firstly, I don't see a necessary connection between  Al Qaeda and Afghanistan: keep your eyes on the ball, and be open to a dynamic strategic future, where troops being pulled out of Afghanistan is put on the table in considering whether they need to be there, not which Al Qaeda operative is dead. This kind of proposition heeds not only to the points made above, but the observation that nation-states remain distinct from organizations like Al Qaeda bent on terrorism, a consideration that should be made in the case of Pakistan. As for this counter-terrorism of 'swooping in' and 'getting the bad guy', I really think that we need to grow to consider the dynamic: we don't have a fixed terrorism structure here, we have a dynamic one. There is also the potential that in doing so, you make things worse, rather then better, in the case of Pakistan, but also Al Qaeda - particularly when you loose touch in how the organization will evolve. Fareed Zakaria is a very intelligent academic, but I really worry that all this talk of getting terrorists in this window of opportunity is too trigger happy. Take a deep breath, not to simple give the terrorists room to take one, but instead give room to observe Al Qaeda specially in watching how it moves to fill gaps. For it doing so, one can learn something valuable about Al Qaeda and who to move to make a priority target to undermine the organization further in the future. 

Don't Call My Generation After the End of the Alphabet

Generational issues seem to constantly come up to be left unexplored, but i refuse to leave this can of worms unopened. I am well aware that generations don't like to talk about each other, specially when prescriptions that come with talking about a generation are often generalizations, and sometimes aren't always nice. I experienced this first hand recently, having read an article from Tim Williams at Leader Messenger titled: "Generation-Y Slack Workers". As you can tell from the title, this article amounted to an arm chair take on those born mid-1970s to early 2000s [otherwise known as Millennium Babies] and how they were a lazy generation, who made for poor retailers, and don't know how to work. But in reading this article I reflected on all those days I spend with the grandparents, being told how "back in my day, we worked so hard and you young'n's just don't know". It seems in my mind, the member of the Baby-Boom Generation who wrote the article was getting ahead of himself, this Millennium Generation hasn't even found its spot in the world just yet. I know that the generation who fought in World War Two and lived threw the Great Depression did really take some strife, to say the least [known as the Greatest Generation]. I also know the generations which followed have had to deal with  the Cold War that loomed on [known as the Silent Generation] and finally the generation who had to rebuild the world and re-think the world following the Cold War, and consider themselves self made [the Baby-Boomer Generation]. Whether these proscriptions are fair is one thing, but does the most recent and following generations [Generation x, and Generation y] really deserve such bland and boring names, or am I hoping for too much with my expectation that my generation will amount to be worth more then just a letter towards the end of the alphabet? 

On my surfing of the internet I did find what amounted to some optimism of my generation, participially when it comes to this generation makes new use of the internet. I am just talking about the art of blogging - well kinda - but I am mostly talking about internet tools like Facebook and Amazon, Ebay and Craigslist, not only a new playing field when it comes to communicating but also when it comes to making money. One such article in The Sydney Morning Herald by Sarah Whyte ["Generation Y steps up and shows who's boss"] coining Generation Y as instead Generation E - the Entrepreneurial Generation. This article sees the newest generation increasingly wanting to branch out, selling new products over Ebay for instance, and bring a social aspect that Facebook provides to advertise a product [the article mentions two young men making good money selling leather jackets over Ebay]. Millennium Babies understand the value of the internet, but creating new business opportunities isn't the only way its being used. Almost a month ago now, New Zealand was struck by a large earthquake in Christchurch, and with the devastation being broadcast nationwide many wanted to help, what could they do? Facebook! Within a few days of the disaster 2000 people had signed up to a page on Facebook called "Accommodation for Earthquake Stricken Cantabrians" where fellow New Zealanders offered accommodation and "UC Volunteer Army" where university students could volunteer. How these new internet tools are being utilized is far from amounting to just being narcissistic and simply teeny-pop social, like some older people would have you think. Instead, the internet is increasingly evolving to take a new field to offer a helping hand and do business, a lesson that the Baby-Boomers should take seriously, if they want to hold out retirement just a little bit longer. That isn't the key reason I'm enthusiastic about my generation however. 

As much as this may be Generation E, I think this Generation will increasingly be Generation D - Dealing with Disaster Generation. I was brought to this conclusion, not only reflecting on how this generation was brought to action with Christchurch, but also with relation to the youth in Japan and how they have met the call to action with the recent Tsunami there. A Time Magazine article "Rising to the Challenge" written by Hannah Beech certainly hit home with this point, not only with a what seemed like a waking youth, with unemployed students keen to help in any way they can. This was not only a new generation waking to a natural disaster, but challenges to existed around them, particularly with unemployment so high in Japan with the established Baby-Boomers holding all the posts, the newest generation has been increasingly lost. With this new generation energized, their remains the prospect that the newest generation might strive to ignite Japan's economy, left in stalemate for the last two decades - at least that is the hope the article expresses. It is my suspicion however that the Millennium generation is going to get  use to having to pick up the pieces after a national disaster, specifically when it comes to weather events. With an increasingly dynamics climate turning once in every hundred years events into once in every few, this generation may really have no choice. However, D doesn't just stand for Disaster, but also for Dealing with State Debt. Its clear that a number of western nations continue to stack up large bills they intend on leaving for the generation's that follow - and that means us. That doesn't even mention the fact that with the Baby-Boomer generation retiring, there is going to be more  people living off superannuation then well be paying taxes, which is a recipe for disaster. 

While the newest Millennium Generation and the Baby-Boomers increasingly run along side each other, we have an evolving world increasingly in wake, but also in wait. Because so many of the disaster that rest on the horizon have been created and left to wait by generations past. Challenges economic in nature like Debt, and global like Climate Change, are going to be dealt with by this generation. Not because thats what we decide, but mostly because they will be in our face, and it will be increasingly clear what needs to be done, and that we need to have the audacity to do it. This is where my enthusiasm really does rest, and where I move to recent 'x' and 'y', and move from 'e' and 'd', and instead towards this generation being 'A' at the front of the alphabet. I think this generation is the Audacity Generation. Because having to deal with the challenges put to us, I think this generation would respond: not to the next! We will be an adaptive, innovative, and solution focused bunch. In doing so, I think their remains the prospect that this generation could have a huge achievement on its hands. It should be said tho, that ultimately, what the accomplishments of generation 'y' will be remain for the future to hold. And in that being the case, I think instead generations should name themselves, rather then let the leaving generation remain critical of them with their grandfather complex, and bestow them with their name - and potentially demonstrate their lack of creativity and vision. There remains the prospects for the Millennium Generation and no one should claim to have summed them up so early. Specially when it comes to naming them after the last few letters of the alphabet, don't limit us just yet to a 'y' or an 'x'.