UNITED NATIONS - / www.MaximsNews.com/ - 25 April 2006 - Once again the world has heard from Al-Qeada leader Osama bin Laden, and once again the global media and, notably, the U.S. administration, are seeking to analyze every word and nuance of his latest missive.  

The White House has declared that bin Laden “is on the run”—language curiously evocative (whether intentionally or unintentionally) of the American West, with its colorful history of notorious outlaws relentlessly pursued by determined lawmen.  

Meanwhile, the political opposition has used this opportunity to point out once again that the Bush administration has failed to capture “public enemy number one.”  

Since 9/11, when the names “Al-Qaeda” and “Osama bin Laden” first entered the lexicon of mainstream America, the capture and/or death of the mastermind behind the attack on the Twin Towers has been something of a national obsession.  

Without the benefit of formal polling, it is certainly safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. citizenry is eager to see bin Laden brought to trial or, more simply, killed outright.  

Indeed, in 2004 both U.S. presidential candidates made a point of identifying the death of Bin Laden as one of their stated security objectives, confirming that the issue transcends the limitations of political party or ideology.  

Today the death of bin Laden is a long-stated objective of the U.S. administration, the military, and the American public-at-large.  

Despite this apparent national unity, or perhaps because of it, there has been little or no public discussion of what the death of bin Laden would actually mean in terms of advancing U.S. objectives to combat terror or for enhancing national peace and security. 

In other words, no one has come forward to explain what happens after bin Laden dies—whether at the hands of military forces or simply as a result of natural causes, such as his diabetes.  

Conversations with a variety of individuals suggest that this lack of discussion is directly attributable to the belief, whether openly or tacitly expressed, that with the death of Bin Laden will come the death of Al-Qaeda, rather like cutting off the head of Medusa.  

As one former U.N. colleague recently expressed to me, bin Laden has such influence on the radical Muslim element that vast numbers of parents are naming their newborn children after him.  

As this individual expressed it, to eliminate bin Laden is to eliminate the idol that these radicals worship.  

This line of reasoning assumes that with the absence of such a charismatic leader the force behind Al-Qaeda would somehow fade and its adherents would lose much, if not all, of their zeal.  

The historical model here might be the Mahdi of the Sudan , famous for having massacred the British stronghold at Khartoum under General Gordon and embroiling Victorian England in a distant land war for years.  

That upraising came to a somewhat abrupt halt when the Mahdi died.  Moral of story: No leader, no more insurgency.  

It is an interesting scenario, but is it realistic?  

Is it logical to think that with the death of bin Ladin the radical element within Islam will cease to name their children after this departed leader and will simply walk away from their religio-political agenda?  

Or is it just as possible, even probably, that the death of bin Ladin would only elevate his status to that of martyr and further incense his followers to acts of revenge and retribution?  

There are certainly ample historical role models for this scenario, from Joan of Arc to Davy Crocket.   Nor is there particular reason to imagine that the movement that bin Laden represents would significantly change simply as a result of his departing.  

After all, we have all seen generals, CEOs, even Federal Reserve chairmen come and go, but the institutions that they represent remain basically unaltered.  Is there any reason to think the power base of Al-Qaeda is not equally as stable as, say, the Pentagon or General Electric?  

The urgent question, then, is not about the death of Bin Laden but about what comes next.  Will the United States and its allies simply face the prospect of another bin Laden, or even a never-ending string of bin Ladens?  

Might the world witness new and even more vicious assaults by Al-Qaeda on certain peoples and institutions?  

Or, to speculate less negatively, might we one day identify an opening for some tentative discussion with a “legitimate” representative of radical Islam?  

The scenarios, of course, are many and varied, but the time to think about them is not when the global media are blaringly the news of bin Ladin’s death (as they undoubtedly will), but now, while there is still time to carefully consider all possible options, both military and political.   

Yes, there are a great many in the United States and elsewhere who will feel that justice has been served should bin Laden be captured or killed, much as was the case with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  

But one would hope that the aftermath of bin Laden’s death will be more thoughtfully considered than the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq .  Not to do so would be inexcusable.