<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  1) How much does Osama bin Laden&amp;#039;s death impact al-Qaida&amp;#039;s ability to strike international targets? This is the central question, and President Obama made the administration&amp;#039;s line pretty clear: &amp;quot;The death of Bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation&amp;#039;s effort to defeat al-Qaida.&amp;quot; But this is hyperbole\u2014the biggest blow to al-Qaida was the invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban who hosted them. The ongoing and ostensibly pro-democracy revolutions in the Middle East\u2014organic, social movements that have little to do with international aspirations and much to do with internal dissatisfaction\u2014are another, bigger blow to the terrorist group&amp;#039;s agenda and worldview: Rather than forming a new multistate caliphate, as al-Qaida wants, the protestors desire more influence at home. Osama bin Laden was a vital figurehead, but figureheads don&amp;#039;t do the real dirty work, training bomb-makers or smuggling money. Killing an operational leader is tactically more relevant\u2014especially considering that al-Qaida has diversified into charters that run local operations in places like Africa, the Philippines, Germany and Yemen. The good news is that the U.S. is killing operational heads, too. For example, last year an American unmanned aircraft over Pakistan killed Sheikh Fateh al-Yemeni, a senior al-Qaida commander. No one gathered in public to cheer, but that kind of attack means more to U.S. security than the death of an aged, isolated Bin Laden. Of course, Bin Laden&amp;#039;s death will enhance the more ephemeral benefit of international prestige for the U.S. But his death is likely more public relations than crucial military tactic, and overstating the impact of his demise risks encouraging complacency.  2) Pakistan: Was there a quid pro quo? Analysts say the relationship between Pakistan and U.S. intelligence is at its worst point since 9/11. This year the decline has been on public display. In April, the Pakistani government told the CIA to scale back its operations there, and recently requested the agency to clear out of its Shamsi airbase\u2014a way to protest drone airstrikes. A CIA operative was charged with murder after a shadowy shootout that killed four Pakistanis. The operative left the country only after the U.S. made a sizeable payoff to Pakistan. A White House report this year also pointed out that Pakistan&amp;#039;s military had &amp;quot;no clear path toward defeating the insurgency in Pakistan, despite the unprecedented and sustained deployment of over 147,000 forces.&amp;quot; And it&amp;#039;s a poorly guarded secret that Pakistan&amp;#039;s security apparatus (which helped install the Taliban in power in Afghanistan) still supports remnants of the Taliban and other militant groups.  Now this: Osama bin Laden was hiding in a suburb of Islamabad, Pakistan&amp;#039;s capital, close to a military school. And the U.S. had to find his location on its own, according to media reports. President Obama praised Pakistan during his announcement of Bin Laden&amp;#039;s death, but in a statement today, Pakistan&amp;#039;s president said he heard about the operation only after it happened. What&amp;#039;s really going on?  Theory #1: The Pakistani government cut a deal with the United States to give up Bin Laden, but with conditions. Those conditions would likely have included not discussing the deal or disclosing any aid the Pakistani government gave to the U.S. during the raid. Pakistan might also have demanded fewer drone strikes and a reduction in CIA activity against other groups, like the Haqanni network that operates in western Pakistan, that have tight ties to the Pakistanis. That would be very bad news for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as it would free militants to operate even more freely from the border area.  Theory #2: Elements of Pakistan&amp;#039;s military or intelligence apparatus sympathetic to America helped find Bin Laden, once the intelligence indicated that he was in an urban area of Pakistan, rather than a tribal area. This is a hopeful vision, as it suggests the CIA still has some good contacts within the Pakistani government.  Theory #3: The Pakistani\u2013U.S. relationship is so degraded that the Obama administration saw no downside in launching this raid without any contact.  No matter what the back-room machinations truly were, we can expect the situation in Pakistan to continue to worsen. Expect street protests, angry government officials and cries to boot Special Forces and CIA personnel out of Pakistan. The Pakistani government, fearful of losing control, and smarting from another public humiliation, will likely be in a mood to appease these calls. And in the U.S., cries that Pakistan was in collusion with Bin Laden, and demands to cut military aid will echo. This will exacerbate the Pakistani military&amp;#039;s already ineffective struggle against militants there. 3) What effects will this have on the war in Afghanistan? Perhaps none. The troubles plaguing the U.S. effort in Afghanistan have very little to do with Osama bin Laden at this point. Other insurgent groups operate in Afghanistan and seek refuge and support in Pakistan. If anything, this raid will probably make matters worse in Afghanistan if it hampers the U.S.\u2013Pakistani relationship. When I visited Forward Operating Base Salerno in Afghanistan, a colonel swept his hand across a map of the eastern border, describing the flow of weapons and fighters coming from Pakistan every spring. These fighters harass U.S. bases and nation-building projects as they move west, ultimately setting up shop in the Afghan heartland for a season of warfare. With relations between American and Pakistani intelligence agencies falling to pieces\u2014and U.S. military aid possibly at risk\u2014this flow may only increase.  And make no mistake\u00AD\u2014Afghanistan is teetering. Hamid Karzai&amp;#039;s government is increasingly estranged from the United States. He&amp;#039;s firing Afghan intelligence officials with good ties to the U.S. at the same time as investigators are uncovering corruption in that nation&amp;#039;s banking system. And al-Qaida is back: A U.S. airstrike in April killed scores of them at a camp in the Korengal Valley\u2014an area U.S. and NATO forces recently vacated after years of bloodshed\u2014and in January they kidnapped 21 local officials. Any solace gained by the death of Bin Laden should be tempered with the knowledge that his terrorist heirs are again operating in Afghan havens.  4) Will this operation save the reputation of special ops?  Joint Special Operations Command, based in North Carolina at Pope Air Force Base and Fort Bragg, is the highly secretive command that ran the raid on Bin Laden&amp;#039;s compound. It&amp;#039;s been around since 1980, when the Iranian hostage rescue debacle highlighted the nation&amp;#039;s lack of a premier joint special operations unit. Army&amp;#039;s Delta Force, Navy SEALs Team Six, Army Rangers and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment all operate under the JSOC banner. Right now JSOC&amp;#039;s soldiers are hailed as heroes, but their reputation has been questioned in the recent past. Lacking Congressional oversight, and used at the whim of the Oval Office, these soldiers have been called the most dangerous men on the planet. And their reputation can swing wildly, depending on the operation\u2014and the administration. New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh called JSOC &amp;quot;an executive assassination ring&amp;quot; that reported to the Bush\u2013Cheney team, and alleged that they went into countries without notifying ambassadors or CIA station chiefs. JSOC has also been associated with unsavory actions like snatch-and-grab renditions and secret prisons. (JSOC operates 20 such prisons, including one at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.) In fact, a casual Google search find more articles mentioning JSOC&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;secret torture bases&amp;quot; than any military action. That is, until Sunday night. The new-found prestige of JSOC will do more than spawn new action-oriented TV shows or movies. It validates the secretive, hard-hitting approach that began in the Bush administration and has been wholeheartedly adopted by the Obama security team. As Obama&amp;#039;s CIA chief Leon Panetta moves to a new job as secretary of defense, the primacy of special ops as a tool of presidents is growing. And opponents of this secretive, no-oversight approach will have to answer the question, &amp;quot;Would you prefer that we&amp;#039;d let bin Laden get away?&amp;quot; "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6573/4-questions-after-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden-5676204/>