Bin Laden's Death A Part Of Al Qaeda's Slow Decline

Osama bin Laden is dead. The leader of Al Qaeda was apparently shot and killed at a compound in Pakistan by American special forces. He'd been in hiding for almost a decade since ordering the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

The death of bin Laden is undoubtedly symbolic. As well as being the leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, he was its name and, through the video messages which had such a global impact in the months and years after 9/11, he was its face.

But, in practical terms, his death will have little impact on a network which has already been in gradual decline for some years. Bin Laden has been holed up in a house with little opportunity to communicate with the outside world, so his influence on Al Qaeda's people and operations has probably been extremely limited since 2001.

Besides, Al Qaeda, which roughly translates as "the base," has never been a conventional military or guerrilla type terrorist group, such as the Tamil Tigers or IRA. It's always been a very loose affilitation of groups in assorted parts of the world, often with wildly differing views and methods. The role of Bin Laden and his chief lieutenants has usually been one of financier, facilitator and, though his favourite philosophical notion of "propaganda by deed" - suicide bombings to you and me - inspiration.

The death of Bin Laden will weaken the idea of Al Qaeda as a central network still further. Groups such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is primarily based in Yemen, will carry on regardless. But with the Arab Spring suggesting that, in some countries at least, there's a desire for a democratic rather than Islamist future, those groups increasingly look like they're alongside Bin Laden on the wrong side of history.

Not Cricket

Gunmen have attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in the Pakistani city of Lahore. At least six local security officers were killed along with a driver, while seven of the cricketers were injured. Around 10 or 12 individuals actually carried out the attack, and none of them were arrested at the scene.

Some early speculation has put the blame on the Tamil Tigers, currently struggling badly in their struggle for a homeland in Sri Lanka, as the country's government carries out a brutal offensive aimed at wiping them out once and for all. But the attack isn't really their style. The LTTE have traditionally used suicide attacks, and have usually targeted politicians and other officials rather than cricketers. Sri Lanka's greatest ever cricketer, Muttiah Muralitharan, who was on the team bus when it was attacked, is a Tamil himself. It seems extremely unlikely that, even if the Tigers are still capable of carrying out a major terrorist attack, that they would try to kill one of their own.

A better guess is that the attack was the work of Islamist extremists. The similarities to last year's assault on Mumbai in India are striking - the level of planning apparently involved, the gang of about ten gunmen and the apparent use of grenades and rocket launchers. Within India and elsewhere, the Pakistani security services were widely accused of being at the very least complicit in the Mumbai attack, and no doubt similar allegations will now surface about possible Indian involvement in this incident, as retaliation. Whether that's true or not is impossible to judge at this stage, but if such a view becomes widespread, expect the tension between India and Pakistan to rise to levels not seen since the Kashmir crisis of 2002. All-out war between these two nuclear powers seems inconceivable, but don't be surprised if there's a build-up of forces on both sides, and possibly even military incursions into disputed territories, perhaps on the pretext of arresting terrorists. Today's attack could have an impact far greater than the cancellation of a game of cricket.

Murder In Rawalpindi

Pakistan's former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, has been assassinated at a rally in Rawalpindi, just a fortnight before a planned general election. It was the second attempt on her life since her return from exile in October. It's already leading to violence and tension on Pakistan's streets, as her angry supporters blame the government of President Musharraf for letting the assassination happen.

The first thing to say is that the direct involvement of senior figures in the Pakistani authorities, and the notorious ISI intelligence service, seems unlikely. Although they'd fallen out since her return in October, some kind of deal allowing Mr Musharraf to continue as President, with Ms Bhutto once again as Prime Minister, appeared a likely outcome from the election. The fact the attack took place in the usually-secure Rawalpindi is a particular embarrassment for Mr Musharraf, although it does suggest the killer or killers may have been helped by low-level figures within the army or the ISI. Musharraf may not have liked Benazir much, but he didn't want her dead, not that that will prevent conspiracy theories springing up in the coming days.

It's far more likely the killer or killers were Islamist extremists. Ms Bhutto was a hate figure for Pakistan's many religious zealots, both because of her own western education and modern outlook, and because she offered the prospect of a secular and relatively liberal government of Pakistan. Her killing makes it more likely the election will be postponed, and certainly raises the possibility of a more chaotic future in Pakistan, which would only help the Islamists.

But today could just be the event that unites Pakistan against the extremists - if the horror felt across Pakistan lasts into the weeks and months ahead. The beneficiary may be Benazir's old rival and sometime ally Nawaz Sharif. If he can tap into the support enjoyed by her PPP party, he may take her place as Pakistan's most popular politician. He may be unpalatable to Mr Musharraf (who ousted him as Prime Minister in a military coup) and a far more conservative figure than Ms Bhutto, but Pakistan's American allies will surely find him the least-worst option in a country increasingly threatened by the rise of Islamist extremism. With the death of one courageous politician, another must now step forward for the sake of Pakistan's future.

Stay Indoors

Pakistan's ousted chief justice has called on the country's people to take to the streets, in a bid to restore the constitution, following President Musharraf's announcement of emergency rule. Iftikhar Chaudhry has been a crucial figure in the crises of recent months - first sacked by Musharraf to widespread anger, then re-instated, and now both sacked and under house arrest, as are dozens of Musharraf's opponents.

Chaudhry's call is a bad idea. If ordinary members of the public were to start demonstrating throughout Pakistan, clashes with the military, and therefore both bloodshed and probably a civil war of sorts, would become inevitable. One good thing to be said for the days since Musharraf's decision on Saturday, is that they have passed off more peacefully than anyone could have imagined. As international pressure and behind-the-scenes talks with Benazir Bhutto and others take place in the coming days and weeks, we have to hope it's against the backdrop of a still-calm Pakistan. That, and not public protest, offers the best hope of a proper solution. The people should stay indoors.

A Hot Reception

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has survived an assassination attempt within hours of returning to the country from eight years in exile. More than 130 of her supporters weren't so lucky. Although extremists linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban had threatened to attack her with suicide bombers, the scale and timing of the blasts were still a shock.

It's tempting to look at this incident as a classic example of good versus evil. In the good camp there's Mrs Bhutto, the pro-democracy heroine with lots of popular support, twice thrown out of office in the past on trumped up corruption allegations, returning to Pakistan to take the country on from the Musharraf years. Then there are the baddies, the murderous zealots who want to see her dead and Pakistan turned into an Islamic state, that can be super-strong in how it deals with the likes of India and the US.

As often seems to be the case, these are uncertain times for Pakistan. Although Musharraf has many faults - the way he seized power in a coup and has hogged it ever since, his penchant for poncing about in his army uniform - he has managed to keep his country surprisingly stable (a relative term in this context) in the years since September 11th, when a weaker leader could have presided over a slump into anarchy. Now, after recent problems at home, such as the botched firing of a top judge, Musharraf looks weak himself, which is why he's cut a deal with Pakistan's own iron lady that would potentially allow them to share power as President and Prime Minister. But if things don't go well in the next few weeks, that slump into anarchy could happen after all.

Making It Up As He Goes Along

One of the main contenders for the Democrat nomination for the US presidential election, Barack Obama, has some pretty tough things to say about Pakistan. As President Obama, he says he'd be willing to strike Al Qaeda targets within Pakistan, with or without the approval of that country's government.

What he means here is that he'd be prepared to authorise a strike aimed directly at Osama bin Laden himself. Pakistan insists bin Laden's not in their country, and although most people in western intelligence services seem to think differently, it's not really considered good form for a presidential candidate to start criticising an ally, so Mr Obama won't be so explicit as to name the likely target of such a strike.

Mr Obama's real mission though is to try to prove to Americans he's got just as much hard-headed foreign policy nous as his main rival, Hillary Clinton. In the recent YouTube debate, he rather naively said he'd be happy to meet the leaders of various US bogey countries (Venezuela, Iran, etc) within a year of taking office, and was rightly criticised for it by Mrs Clinton. She's luckier than her rival, in that she's got some of her dad's old mates, such as Richard Holbrooke, around to steer her through the murky world of foreign affairs. This rather rash language on Pakistan shows Mr Obama could do with some help, too.

Trouble At The Red Mosque

Pakistani special forces have stormed a mosque in Islamabad, where a radical cleric was holed up with Islamist fighters and a large number of hostages. It's after a week-long siege at the complex, and the operation began following the failure of surrender talks. Although eight soldiers are among those killed so far, the mission seems to be going relatively well, especially when compared with how the Russians handled the Moscow theatre siege five years ago.

This is the latest round in the battle for control for Pakistan, between the pro-western President Musharraf, and the Islamists who help the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the north-west of the country, where it borders Afghanistan. Musharraf is proving to his western allies he's not afraid to use force, even in a mosque - an action which certainly runs the risk of further angering members of the public who might already be sympathetic to the extremists.

Although it's a welcome signal, it's not enough to win the battle against the Islamists, who among other things are probably continuing to shelter Osama bin Laden somewhere in northern Pakistan. That's as much a battle of ideas and ideologies as it is one of guns and military force, and a much harder one to win. This sort of well-handled operation at least proves the Pakistani government is taking the problem seriously, and wants the right outcome. But it's now even more important for the Pakistanis to make sure they win the propaganda battle following this incident, so it doesn't simply lead to more angry recruits for the Islamists.

Murder In Kingston

Last night's news conference from Jamaica at which police announced Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer was murdered is one of the most extraordinary I've ever seen. Despite all the lurid theories flying around since his death on Sunday, confirmation he was actually strangled is as stunning as it is unexpected.

The first thing to say is - yes the world cup should continue. It won't help the investigation if it's all scrapped, although I doubt anyone will care too much who eventually wins the thing.

As for why Woolmer was killed, the obvious reason would be some connection to match-fixing. The timing of his death, the day after Pakistan's shock (and now extremely suspicious) defeat to Ireland can't be a coincidence. Woolmer had a reputation for playing things fair - he refused to believe his South Africa captain Hansie Cronje had thrown games during the 1990s, and last summer during the fiasco at the Oval forced his Pakistan players to swear on the Koran they hadn't tampered with the ball. Did Woolmer know some of his players had thrown the Ireland game, and was he going to go public? If so, it's not difficult to imagine a desperate someone in a shady, big-money betting syndicate wanting him dead. Until we hear differently, we have to assume Woolmer was the man who knew too much.