What would be the most interesting to conclude that whether this operation happened inspite of Pakistani intelligence's best efforts to save Osama or whether it happened with their active cooperation. There could be a third option too, that ISI was not involved whereas the other branches of millitary intelligence were. Each one of thse possibilities would have different, but very powerdul , effects on the future of Pakistan.

Bin Laden's death is a symbolic victory in the context of the tragedy of 9/11. President Obama's statement, I think, rightly focused on the emotional and moral aspects of his death, rather than the political or military implication. That the operation was completed on the ground rather than with airstrikes is also a PR plus. I hope it puts to bed the lingering conspiracy theories regarding White House/CIA collusion with Al Qaeda and other forces, over 9/11 or otherwise.

New questions will be raised: the proximity of Abottabad to Islamabad, and the military significance of the town, must be something that comes to the discussion over the implications of his death. The war on terror will not end, but given the recent Middle Eastern calls for change and now this, I think the carefully crafted propaganda that Al Qaeda has been trying to promote will take a huge blow.

I'm willing to stick my neck out there that this will be a win for Obama that he can use in the elections. I think will be dependent on a)the success of withdrawing troops b) the extent which he takes ownership of the Afghanistan war, and his upcoming rhetoric with regards to Pakistan and c) the information that comes out over the next few weeks regarding the kill.

What a send off for Leon Panetta, by the way.

We've not been told exactly when this event happened. It does seem, however, that OBL is no longer alive.
His death is more symbolic than indicative of any real departure in world events. It has been said that for some time he had not been much in control of Al Qaeda operations and that there had no longer been any well thought out large-scale operations which would touch the imagination of terriorists and ordinary people alike.
I beg to point out that for some time the principal user of terror has been, not Al Qaeda or Afghan Taliban, but Pakistan. Its ISI has created several successive terrorist outfits - LeT, JeM, HuM, LeJh, TTP, and lately the Haqqani network - and used them for its policy objectives. The policy here spoken of is the ISI foreign policy, which was not always on all fours with the official foreign policy of the government of Pakistan. However, in the absence of fuller information, it will be difficult to delineate with any degree of certitude when it was Pakistan government's foreign policy and when it was ISI's foreign policy. In some senses, though, ISI has been for quite some time a state within the state and not always under the full control of the Pakistan civil government. For that matter, the Pakistan army itself has not been under the Pakistan civil government's control: it has been said that the army chief calls the shots in most matters.
In recent times such personages as Anne Patterson, Obama and Mullen have said that the problem of terror within Pakistan is not being handled as well as it ought to be. The Raymond Davis affair has been unduly blown out of proportion and painted into something larger than life. The point is that CIA and ISI do not like each other and can hardly operate together in any matter of significance. But there is no doubt, as Anne Patterson pointed out, that Pakistan shall not go after its terrorists because they are Pakistan's principal tool of foreign policy. The Pakistan government, the Pakistan army, and ISI are alike confident that at no point in time will the US government designate Pakistan state sponsor of terror, although one is not revelaing a state secret if one were to say that Pakistan has been using terror as instrument of its policies for at least 20 years past. Only the US does not say so, for reasons which are neither so obscure nor such that anyone would necessarily sympathize with them.
The business of terror has been in Pakistan's hands for so long that an event like OBL's death is unlikely to have any impact. Terror will continue to be practiced by Pakistan, and, at its behest, by other players farther afield. It has been said that even LeT has cast its vision far beyond the geographical confines of South Asia.
V. C. Bhutani, vineycb1@vsnl.com, Delhi, India, May 2 2011, 1039 IST

With respect to the end of the war on terror, a lot of news coverage currently has been, correctly, tracing much of the beginnings of this war to the 1990s and well before. 9/11 humanized the war, and Osama Bin Laden put a face on the war, but suffice to say it did not start in 2001 and it will not end in 2011.

"my worry is that the politics of this gives some politicians a very strong incentive to ratchet up this threat"

I'm sure they will try, but Americans are tired of spending so much blood and treasure. This gives everyone an excuse to accelerate the shift from all out war to a police action where America provides support from the shadows (i.e. Indonesia or Saudi Arabia).

To paraphrase T.E. Lawrence, "Better the do it tolerably, than you do it perfectly."

The hit on OBL was done perfectly. The rest can be done tolerably.

In the aftermath of bin Laden's death tonight, a 'Deather' Movement is spearheaded, unsurprisingly, by Donald Trump. In a statement given late tonight after filming for his new Television show, "The Apprentice: Cabinet Edition," Trump stated that he "demand[s] to see bin Laden's death certificate." Trump and disillusioned Tea Partiers (looking for something, anything, to rally behind) stated that it cannot be possible that bin Laden was killed due to an order from a non-American.. Per usual, their stance remains ambiguous, but in all official publications so far, 'flag' has been used 3.2 times per sentence, with 'troops' coming in slightly lower at 2.7 tps and 'American values' at 2.0 tps. More to follow...

Peter Bergen said on CNN that bin Laden's death is "the end of the War on Terror." Do you think he's right?

I think it will drain some of the potency out of the fight in Afghanistan. "Catching Bin Laden" was a potent, visceral goal. Bagging Mullah Omar and the Taliban . . . not so much.

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." - Mark Twain This is a great piece of news to all who loathe terrorism, but the world should now stop basking in this success and focus on Bin Laden's sympathizers who might now be plotting some retaliatory moves.

I'm worried most Americans will assume the war on terror is over just because we killed him. This isn't Call of Duty.

It's forever a battle of ideas, the conflict to frame the narrative correctly to ensure that OBL's twisted vision dies with him. There's a good bet many Americans will now scrutinize the need to continue our military presence in the world (as they always should), but a retreat into some quasi-idealist isolationism is not what we need. I'm afraid his death will overshadow and obscure some of the most important questions of our country's war on terrorism. I believe Dan and Steve Walt has written about the country's "overreaction" to 9/11 in regards to its foreign policy, now's a perfect window of opportunity to reassess where we are going as a country.

(I've written more on my Tumblr)
http://timphan.tumblr.com/post/5124420416/killing-voldemort-in-room-101-regarding-osama

Reports of Zomie Bin Ladne are going in! Run for you lives! Aiiiiiiiiigggh!

To be blunt I don't know how I feel about the death of Osama Bin Laden, other than boosting our own egos, the important question is what does this mean to the organization itself. I was talking with a buddy last night and I mentioned this could be the symbolic Hydra. We cut off the head and two more grow back just as bad as the first.

That being said back to the egos. I'm not the patriotic rah-rah-rah type, but I felt like flying a flag high when I saw that people were voting down Osama Bin Laden's compound on Google maps. That and the fact that the 1337's tweet by president obama was him giving us the news that Osama was dead was a great feeling. If you don't know was 1337 stands for here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

Osama bin Laden's death is a truly momentous event. I had come to believe that we would never actually get bin Laden. When trying to think rationally about what bin Laden's death means, I cannot help but become bogged down by contradictory thoughts. I wonder, is possible for the importance of an event to be both overestimated and underestimated at the same time?

Most of us commenting here know the standard story of the diffusion of the jihadist threat amongst several the al Qaeda affiliates, Taliban networks, and other groups. That threat will unfortunately be with us for a while. We also know that al-Zawahiri is believed to have taken over most, if not all, operational duties from bin Laden years ago. Bin Laden had become more of a figurehead than anything else. In addition, academic research (see Jenna Jordan’s work) shows decapitation of terrorist organizations really doesn’t work and that al Qaeda is the type of terrorist organization in which it is really ineffective. In short, most, if not all, of our operational threats and concerns regarding Islamist terrorism and the entire AfPak operation before bin Laden's death remains after his death. Further, there is reason to believe there are some new threats: namely revenge by al Qaeda and affiliates and the truly scary specter of an even further destabilized Pakistan. So, yes it is clearly very easy to overestimate the importance of bin Laden's death.

On the other hand, I think there are two very important rejoinders to this. One, despite the decline of bin Laden's operational control al Qaeda was still his organization. Not to overstate it too much, but Osama bin Laden was Al Qaeda. He founded it and the ideology of the core group served his vision and purposes. He wanted to establish a new caliphate with himself in charge. Further, Al Qaeda’s appeal, while never very high, had been plummeting for a while in the Muslim world. It would hard to believe that this would help them turn things around and aid recruiting. Further, one has to wonder about the relationship al-Zawahiri and the core group of al Qaeda will have with the affiliates. Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and Al Shabaab were founded as their own entities and later were incorporated into the al Qaeda framework. (This is also true of some elements of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.) These organizations continued to have their own unique goals. One has to believe the al Qaeda franchise just lost its single most important unifying element. I’m not saying that the Maghreb organization will change its name back to the Salafist Group for Combat and Call, but you have to wonder if these groups will gravitate back to more regionally focused campaigns against the “near” enemy rather than the “far” enemy.

Second, part of this is about American perceptions. Terrorism is as much about what the terrorists do as about how the target population perceives and responds. Bin Laden’s death will change how average Americans view the terrorist threat. I feel this is a rare opportunity to redefine the strategic culture in the United States. It’s possible, this could be the beginning of a peace dividend-type moment. You have to think this will help to sell cuts from the defense budget to the American people. A lot of the residual fear for many will subside. I think crowds outside of the White House, in New York, and places like State College, PA were just the initial release of that tension. So, this is the end of al Qaeda as we knew it, or at least as we had imagined it. I don’t think we can underestimate the importance of that.

This is not teh end of the "War on Terror", Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been losing influence in teh Muslim world since their brutality to fellow Muslims in Iraq came to light. But, like many causes, this one will continue to have the Hard Core followers who will keep pushing the cause.

The end of Terrorism will never happen. "Terror" as a weapon has been with us forever and will continue to be with us. The "World Wide" Jihad has been dampened, both by the Arab Spring and the shear brutality of it proponents. We will continue to see many Terror cells based on local issues.

And, for the immediate future, there are some who will be more the willing to "avenge" OBL's death and we must stay alert.

But this WILL provide very good cover for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

One serious question is who in the Pakistan Government allowed Bin Laden to build and live in a compound right next to their version of "West Point". Too many people had to know, and it should be a noted when we consider any future military alliances with Pakistan.

Well, Osama is dead, but what does the future reserve for us?
With the death Al-Qaeda's strongman, and the evident lack of charism of the Al-Qaeda's second man I started to worry. Why?
With the lack of charism of Ayman Zawahiri, will all the jihadists follow him ,or , by the other hand, lots of small groups with independent leaders will seek revenge?
This second options really frighten me, small groups are very dangerous, they may be less armed, less rich, but, they are certanly mad enough to be terrorists.
We might consider Bin Laden as an evil and heartless guy, but he controled his men, he was respected, he was the supreme authority just below Allah, what new atrocities are these small groups capable of?

March divided, fight concentrated, well, is Al-Qaeda going to follow this path?

If Peter Bergen said on CNN that bin Laden's death is "the end of the War on Terror.", and it is not out of context, he's a moron.
bin Laden was and is a symbol for a lot of delusional people out there. Destroying symbols is al-Qaeda's gig. They must really be pissed now.They're hatred for the west will now turn white hot and perhaps less organized.
I also would speculate that if you were to inspect that mansion compound one would find a network of tunnels under it and it would be quite interesting to see where they lead to.

OK, so I don't imagine anyone will argue with me if I say there was a U.S. domestic political component to the timing and manner of the assassination. And it's also true that until somewhat recently, the move would not have been politically expedient. The anti-war movements in against Iraq and Afghanistan would have been much more severe if this had happened sooner, and that may have influenced the resources dedicated to the task of making it happen. Conversely, once the U.S. has already given notice of its intention to withdraw from the place we were supposed to be looking for Bin Laden, it becomes highly beneficial for him to turn up dead. The Tea-Baggers might accuse the president of some fake assassination theory, but no one can accuse him of cutting and running in the next election after this. His deliberate association of himself with the op ensures it.

So, I think it's generally agreed that this will help serve as political cover for withdrawing from Afghanistan, something we were really going to do anyway. To my mind, more than anything, that's what the assassination represents. I really expect to hear later that there was a psy-op or at least PR objective as part of closing Afghani theatre involved in the decision. And at the end of a war like Afghanistan, the question no one is asking is, "did we win?" It's hard to answer that because it's not all that clear what the goals were to start with. But, whatever the goals were, it's probably pretty fair to say that most of them have been met by now. I'm reminded of Chomsky's stance on Vietnam that we didn't accomplish our highest goals, but the ones that justified the war from a geopolitical perspective were pretty much accomplished.

Specifically, the U.S. has installed its choice of government there. And while it is certainly not a very enlightened regime, and while there appear to still be some movements against it, it isn't going away anytime soon, even after we leave. The Arab Spring has not really touched it. In fact, the withdraw will likely support the regime's security, so that's another loyal client state for the U.S.

Something I'd like other opinions on is the TAP project. I first heard about a pipeline project in some shaky Afghanistan war theory based on late-90's congressional records, and didn't think there was anything to it. But surfing around a little later, I came upon an Indian article discussing the project, and the benefits and properties of the TAP project were extremely similar, even in the choice of wording to the proposals discussed in those Congressional records. So, while not wanting to sound like there was some cabal, I think it's somewhat reasonable to say that this something the executive branch may have been thinking about when it committed to war. Even more likely is that it contributed to keeping them there long past the window when Bin Laden might have been found there. That pipeline is now well underway and secure, and the necessary agreements to the pipeline have all been signed. I imagine that that being done is something that makes withdraw from Afghanistan a more feasible thing to do from a cost perspective. I really don't know much about it, and if you do, please take a moment to inform me.

So, we have withdraw from the region for reasons which we all know has nothing to do with terrorism (with that term having its usual technical meaning: "terrorism not committed by the U.S. and its client states"). And we can all agree that this is going to cover the action politically. That withdraw is going to leave the Afghani people in a state that is not great. I think it will end up (if it isn't already) another subjugated U.S. neo-colony. Its people won't see much of a share from the pipeline, it's economy and people have been ruined by the war, and the IMF is up to its usual tricks with debt-relief schemes with the help of the cooperative new regime.

But withdraw under any terms is good, and that's what is really symbolized by this particular assassination. I'm not so naive as to say that there will be peace or even serious repair bringing people's lives to their pre-war state, but the close of active military operations is good, and if the president feels the need to capitalize on killing a relatively insignificant flea to cover his ass against the insane American Right, well I can think of a lot worse things he could do to accomplish that.