Jamie Malanowski

WHERE BIN LADEN SUCCEEDED

Ezra Klein has a smart, sobering piece in The Washington Post today, evaluating the strategy of Osama bin Laden, and how he has almost succeeded in attaining his goals. Klein speaks to a counterterrorism and al-Qaeda expert named Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, whose view is that “bin Laden has been enormously successful” using a strategy that the US has never bothered to understand.

Obama’s first success, remember, came when he worked with the mujaheddin in ousting the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. This victory was accomplished not by defeating Soviet forces head-to-head, but by costing the USSR a lot of money over the course of a decade. Not long after withdrawing, the Soviet Union went bust, and so did communism. “The campaign taught bin Laden a lot,” qrites Klein. “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.” As Gartenstein-Ross pointed out in an article in Foreign Policy, bin Laden made this point explicitly on numerous occasions, as recently as October 2004 when “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.’ ”

Says Klein, “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. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the price tag on the Iraq War alone will surpass $3 trillion. Afghanistan likely amounts to another trillion or two. Add in the build-up in homeland security spending since 9/11 and you’re looking at yet another trillion. And don’t forget the indirect costs of all this turmoil: The Federal Reserve, worried about a fear-induced recession, slashed interest rates after the attack on the World Trade Center, and then kept them low to combat skyrocketing oil prices, a byproduct of the war in Iraq. That decade of loose monetary policy may well have contributed to the credit bubble that crashed the economy in 2007 and 2008. Then there’s the post-9/11 slowdown in the economy, the time wasted in airports, the foregone returns on investments we didn’t make, the rise in oil prices as a result of the Iraq War, the cost of rebuilding Ground Zero, health care for the first responders and much, much more.

“But it isn’t quite right to say bin Laden cost us all that money. We decided to spend more than a trillion dollars on homeland security measures to prevent another attack. We decided to invade Iraq as part of a grand, post-9/11 strategy of Middle Eastern transformation. We decided to pass hundreds of billions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts and add an unpaid-for prescription drug benefit in Medicare while we were involved in two wars. And now, partially though not entirely because of these actions, we are deep in debt. Bin Laden didn’t — couldn’t — bankrupt us. He could only provoke us into bankrupting ourselves. And he came pretty close.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *