Personal info

My photo
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
A blog of Post-Capitalist critique in general, economic, philosophical and political analyses, Post-Capitalist poetry and prose, Post-Capitalist philology, book reviews, Postcapitalist news, interviews, praxis, art and much more! For the record, Davide Ferri is a Postcapitalist, who graduated with a B.A.Economics(Honours) degree from Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University, India. He currently lives and works in Mumbai.



free counters


-ADD THIS BLOG TO FAVOURITES to stay tuned on post-Capitalist writings, poetry, polls, excerpts and videos!

Thursday, 5 May 2011


Davide Ferri 

US president Barack Obama announced that Al Qaeda leader 
Osama Bin Laden was killed on Sunday during a Navy Seals 
ground operation in Pakistan. 

'Servant of Capital' Osama Bin Laden — undoubtedly one of the 
most philistine symbols both of the decay of Islamic Bonapartist 
Capitalism and the irrational 'backfire' of US imperialism — dies 
at the age of 54, leaving behind many doubts to the 'liberal 
analysts'; especially those on the alleged willingness of Pakistani 
government, military forces and intelligence to provide the US 
with a full 'inter-capitalist' collaboration in the 'War on Terror'. 

The Saudi-born 'radical' had been nicely hiding for more than 3 
years in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad — a hillside retreat 
popular with retired paunchy Pakistani generals about two hours 
north of Islamabad — wherein he could build a concrete 
compound and even hire up private guards to be displayed on the 
structure roof and the surrounding area: 
all 'allegedly unbeknown' to Pakistani intelligence. 

The typical military and political 'negligence' of the Pakistani 
authorities — which emerged as particularly self-evident through 
the recent events — is nothing new for the US intelligence, which 
by no means trust its Asian ally in the War on Terror. 
The same CIA director Leon Panetta e.g. bluntly stated that the 
US did not intend to alert Pakistan for fear that the Pakistani 
authorities might have blabbed out all to Bin Laden [1] 
Beyond the rhetoric on the importance of such an operation which 
is promptly seasoned with liberal intellectual deliria on justice and 
the achievement of a safer world [2] — it must be said that Bin 
Laden's death has little strategic importance for the US affairs, as Auken pointed out. [3]

Though Bin Laden's mere existence 'as a wicked bearded monster' 
and his reactionary threatening video-messages kept on 
legitimising the US-led War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq in 
terms of propaganda, it is quite evident that the Al-Qaeda leader 
did not play a crucial role in the opposition to the US occupation 
in Afghanistan, despite the sheikh's rhetoric. [4] 
It is also self-evident that his demise is not going to wipe out the 
inherent problems of Islamic and Liberal Capitalism, as well as the 
oppression and repression of all the material/immaterial workers 
in Afghanistan and all the Middle East. 

Within the framework of US foreign policies in the 'patriotic' 80's, 
it must be said that Bin Laden's activity as a jihadist played an 
active role in favour of American Capitalism during what is 
historically known as 'the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan'. 

The Soviet occupation — planned in 'help' of the Stalinist clique 
of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan — definitely 
marked the determination of the US to give the final blow to an 
already-crippled bureaucratic USSR, at least abroad. 
Bin Laden greatly facilitated the US attempt to get the 'Soviet 
bear' stuck into mud in Afghanistan, along with the contribute of 
'less radical' Massoud and the jihadist clique of Hekmatyar. 

 For years, the US Reagan administration kept stirring the jihadist 
mob against the (fake) socialists of Afghanistan and the Soviet 
troops, surrounded by the usual inoffensive political passivity of 
'Liberal' institutions and NGOs; which are so much loved by post- 
Marxist apologists à la Negri and Hardt. 
The United States administration would historically succeed in 
hindering the geopolitical plans of the USSR. 
It would do it by dint of coughing out millions of dollars for the 
most reactionary anti-communist jihadists, whose practical 
approach was known as remarkably violent, especially against the 
women and petty bourgeois activities. 
The Soviet Union, in its turn, would soon fall into the neo-liberal 
abyss; especially thanks to the inherent contradictions of its 
Stalinism, whose loyal representatives all of a sudden revealed 
themselves as investor-friendly IMF friends in the 'happy' 90's. 

 As has been pointed out by Zuyara's words — which I will cite at 
length — the active role of Pakistani and US authorities is 
politically quite evident: 

 'Between 1980 and 1992 alone, more then 35,000 Islamic 
fundamentalists from 43 Islamic countries joined the Afghan 
mujaheedin. Pakistan had already given standing instructions to all its 
embassies abroad to give visas with no questions asked to anyone 
wanting to come and fight in Afghanistan. Among the thousands of 
foreign recruits, one was Osama bin Laden. […] 
Bin Laden once admitted that: “to counter the revolution in Afghanistan, 
the Saudi regime chose me as their representative in Pakistan and 
Afghanistan. I recruited volunteers from many Arab and Muslim 
countries who came to answer the call. I set up camps where Pakistanis, 
Americans and British officers trained these volunteers. America 
supplied the weapons, the money came from the Saudis.' [5] 

 In this regard there are several sources, both Marxist and non- 
Marxist [6][7] , which more or less shine a light on the current 
political ambitions of Pakistan, the United States and International 
Capital in general here in Central Asia; within the framework of 
what is commonly known as the new Great Game, as the 'old one' 
was already 'played' by British Capitalism against Tsarist Russia in 
the same region in the XIX century). 

 After the killing of Afghani president Najibullah at the hand of 
the Talibans — hanged to death with its genital parts stuffed into 
his mouth — the growing influence of the jihadist movement in 
Central Asia started revealing itself an unbearable burden for the 
american imperialistic ambitions. 
These puppets would slip out of control of the US authorities, 
which would soon invade Afghanistan, that meantime had become 
an Emirate on the footsteps of the first millennium caliphates. 

Soon after the events of 9/11, US president Bush authorised 
'Operation Enduring Freedom', that is, the invasion by US, UK et 
al of the then-Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with the excuse of 
capturing Bin Laden, regarded as the mastermind behind 9/11 
On the other hand, president Bush soon showed no interest in 
insisting on Bin Laden's capture, as he even admittedly confessed 
in an interview saying he was 'truly not that concerned' about the 
whereabouts of the Al Qaeda leader [8] 

The US authorities in December 2001 definitely knew that Bin 
Laden was hiding along with Al Qaeda fighters somewhere in the 
Tora Bora caves complex at the border between Afghanistan and 
It should be noted that Bush administration — which authorised a 
military operation against Al Qaeda in the same place commonly 
known as the 'battle of Tora Bora' — surprisingly failed in 
capturing the fundamentalist sheikh, allegedly 'by not deploying a 
consistent number of troops'. 

A Senate report on the battle of Tora Bora requested by US 
Senator John Kerry showed that by deploying a high number of 
US military forces both Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar 
would have been easily killed in the operation. [9] 
In this regard, the then US Secretary of Defence D.Rumsfeld 
ambiguously commented at the time by saying that a larger 
number of troops would have created resentment amongst the 
Afghan population.[10]. Gen. T.R. Franks, even more ambiguously, 
declined to comment on the matter though he pointed out the 
uncertainty of Bin Laden's presence inside the Tora Bora caves 
complex in the White mountains of Eastern Afghanistan. [11]. 

Leaving aside the rhetoric and non-rhetoric of the official 
wasn't Osama Bin Laden's capture one of the most important 
propagandistic 'Official' excuses to invade the then Taliban-led 
Emirate of Afghanistan after the 9/11 events? 
Wasn't it the most efficient excuse to go there and 'smoke him out 
of his cave and get him eventually' as US president Bush would 
have remarked in his cowboy-style rhetoric? 

Despite the liberal boring circumlocutions of high officials on the 
matter, there is evidence of Bin Laden's presence in Tora Bora 
complex in December 2001. 
Dalton Fury e.g. — allegedly the officer in command during the 
battle Tora Bora — stated in one article "Our job was to go find 
him, capture or kill him, and we knew the writing on the wall was 
to kill him because nobody wanted to bring Osama bin Laden 
back to stand trial in the United States somewhere," [12] 
Furthermore, Fury (who also wrote a book on the battle of Tora 
Bora) stated that, as the officer in command during the operation, 
requested a land mines dropping on the mountain passes which 
led to Pakistan — that is, on Bin Laden's escape route; but the 
plan was disapproved for reasons Fury doesn't know. [13] 

The US forces, attacking Al-Qaeda with fewer than 100 troops 
committed to the area, literally failed to capture Bin Laden, who 
then fled to Pakistan. 
It goes without saying that such events and evidences leaves plenty 
of doubts on the nature of US-led and UN-backed invasion of 
Afghanistan in the name of Bin Laden's capture for a safer world 
and the War on Terror. If trapped within the analytical framework 
of a liberal boring set of explanations, these events don't clarify the 
US 'official' geopolitical intentions in general. 

Now that Bin Laden has died — after years of relaxing absconding 
in Pakistan at few steps from one of its most important military 
academy — the average unconsciously-servile liberal journalist is 
surely more than ever confuse about the aims of US and Pakistan, 
after most of the western media supported the War on Terror, 
whether indirectly or bluntly, for the entire 2000's. 
Even a kid understands that Pakistani president Zardari's care for 
underlining no responsibility in the raid against Bin Laden [14] 
and at the same time his denial of any organisational negligence 
[15] by Pakistani authorities give blunt hints about the deeply 
rotten character of Pakistani Capitalism; both in terms of 
corruption, as well as economic and political organisation. 

However, though Bin Laden's demise represents little, many 'party' 
reactions to his killing means a lot; as they undoubtedly shine a 
light on the non-progressive and philistine political character of 
certain factions of the likes of Hamas [16] et al in Palestine; which 
put the entire struggle on 'ethnic', religious and postmodernist 

It should also shine a light on the 'perceptive' aims of certain 
European petty bourgeois 'socialists' and their worthy enjoyment 
of 'useless', nay negative, support for Hamas, which is everyday 
hindering the workers' struggle in the region by blows of post- 
modern apology in the west and Bonapartist bigotry in the east. 

Transcending all the liberal circumlocutions in regard to the 
recent events — Bin Laden's demise is not going to have any 
political consequence for the liberation of immaterial and material 
workers in the Middle East. 
Islamic and 'Liberal' Capital — from the vales of Chechnya to the 
mountains of Swat — is not going to stop lengthening its tentacles 
on the workers' surplus. 
In this regard, we should acknowledge that the primary concerns 
for US Capitalism are not the principles behind the War on Terror, 
but the economic and political returns generated from this 'War' – 
which has been material and ideal [17] 

The anti-Islamic mood generated by the events of 9/11 and the 
'patriotic upheaval' of European and American media certainly 
contributed, in terms of popular consent, to a more friendly 
environment for US imperialism. 

The regime of Saddam Hussein, once the 'petty bourgeois 
socialist' friend of the US, has been neutralised after the clique of 
Paul Bremer, without too many concerns, took direct political and 
economic control of Iraq by forming the Coalition Provisional 
This wouldn't have obviously occurred without the 'worthy' efforts 
of the US-led coalition in the Second Gulf War, shamefully 
disguised as 'War on Terror'. 
In fact, it must be said that petty-bourgeois reactionary 'socialists' 
à la Hussein in Iraq were certainly not the friends of the anti- 
communist sheikh wanted by the US.[18] 
The 'provisional' clique of Mr. Bremer — the 'US administrator of 
Iraq' — in the process of Iraq's privatisation and commodification, 
nicely allowed American firms to cast their tentacles on the 
national reconstruction [19], in a highly-devastated country where 
lakhs [20] of innocent civilians died; not to mention the huge 
'returns' of the American Capitalists achieved thanks to military 
expenditure for howitzers, tanks, equipment etc. for the US-led 
War on 'Terror'. 
It must also be said that a friendly 'Washington man' of the likes
of Al Maliki — whose government hasn't certainly boasted
democratic pioneering — is definitely more convenient for stable oil
pricing policies in Mesopotamia.

Bin Laden dies with the growing weakening of Islamic investor- 
friendly radicalism, which is nothing but a desperation sigh 
produced by the rottenness of Islamic Capitalism. 
Most of the workers of the middle east — though still unaware and 
confuse by the liberal promises — are now merely choosing a less 
Bonapartist direction.
We could witness such tendency in the last months in Egypt and 
in most of the MENA region in general, where Bonapartist 
capitalists like Ben Ali and Mubarak have been ousted through the 
unprecedented social (liberal) uprisings. 

On the other hand, in these areas the risk of philistine 'reaction' is 
still high. 
The clique behind the human face of Obama — who during the 
Egyptian uprisings acted with the 'let-us-see-who-is- 
gonna-come-to-the-top' strategy, typical of imperialism— is not going to 
drop the support to reactionary Bonapartist Capitalists à la 
Mubarak and Ben Ali. 
By no accident the United States, whilst caring for the 'Libyan 
human rights', they neglect those of Bahrain; wherein the US fifth 
fleet is based and where the élite of Al-Khalifa keeps repressing 
demonstrations and killing innocents. 
But the liberals pretend not to see. 
In their rhetoric of free trade, free choice and freedom, they only 
'see' what and where they want to see by self-flagellations of 
cognitive assonance, just like Hilary Clinton proves it in the flaunt 
of her miserable opportunism, with phrases of the likes of "I am 
impressed by the commitment that the government has to the 
democratic path that Bahrain is walking on” [21] 
The demise of Osama Bin Laden is not going to liberate the 
working class, but undoubtedly will make the reactionary clique of 
Obama sigh with relief, as the temporarily revived enthusiasm of 
the common liberal American will make the crises, the 
unemployment and the growing inequalities pass unobserved for a 
However, the economic factors — which determine the social ones 
—weigh like a burden on people's consciousness and will sooner 
or later make themselves felt. 
The demise of Bin Laden will not liberate anyone, just like its 
'social' consequences, though some idealist big professors in their 
enjoyment of false consciousness — whether within the 
framework of pure apology or post-Marxism — will surely not 
grasp it. 
As Marx would put it, the liberation is a material act, not a mental 
or spiritual one [22] 

Delhi, May 4, 2011 
[1] Al Jazeera, CIA feared Pakistan would alert Bin Laden, 
html, retrieved on May 4, 2011 

[2] Al Jazeera, 'Obama says world safer without Bin Laden', 
602.html, retrieved on May 4,2011 

[3] Bill Van Auken, published on WSWS, “The killing of Osama 
Bin Laden and the War on Terror”, May 3, 2011, 
May 4,2011 

[4] Ibid 

[5] D. Zayar, Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the hypocrisy of 
American imperialism, published on In defence of Marxism, 
Quetta, September 26,2001,
bin-laden-hypocrisy260901.htm retrieved on 4 May, 2011 

[6] Something to be read, though to be taken obviously 'with a 
pinch of Salt', is the work “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the 
CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to 
September 10, 2001”, of Steve Coll, 2004, Penguin Press 

[7]See the Interview to Gary Schroen on Frontline posted june 20, 
en.html retrieved on May 4, 2011 

[8] “Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (long version)” 

[9] Senate Report Explores 2001 Escape by bin Laden From 
Afghan Mountains, New York Times, A version of this article 
appeared in print on November 29, 2009, on page A20 of the New 
York edition. 
rieved on May 4,2011 

[10] Ibid. 

[11] Ibid. 

[12] Elite Officer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt, CBS, first published on 
Oct. 5, 2008. It was updated on July 11, 2009. 
7.shtml retrieved on May 4,2011 

[13] Ibid. 

[14] Al Jazeera, Zardari: Bin Laden raid not joint operation 
html, retrieved on May 4,2011 

[15] Osama bin Laden's Pakistan , Brahma Chellaney, published on 
Al Jazeera 
513531.html, retrieved on May 4, 2011 

[16] Noteworthy is that Hamas regards Bin Laden as an 'arab holy 
warrior', Haaretz, “Hamas slams killing of 'holy warrior' Osama bin 
Laden”, Published 14:27 02.05.11, 
killing-of-holy-warrior-osama-bin-laden-1.359416 retrieved on May 
4, 2011 

[17] The Oil Factor, behind the war on Terror, Gerard Ungerman, 

[18] Bill Van Auken, published on WSWS, “The killing of Osama 
Bin Laden and the War on Terror”, May 3, 2011, 
May 4,2011 

[19] The Oil Factor, behind the war on Terror, Gerard Ungerman, 

[20] 'Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006', Iraq 
Family Health Survey Study Group 
N Engl J Med 2008; 358:484-493 January 31, 2008, retrieved on May 
4, 2011 

[21] The Guardian, Bahrain protests a worry for US and its fifth 
protests-us-fifth-fleet, Thursday 17 February 2011 13.38 GMT, 
retrieved on May 4, 2011 
[22] Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1846 

No comments:

Post a Comment