How Bin Laden really died we’ll probably never know. The American Seals’ [special forces] blitz was quick, determined and left no trace. Within hours, the villa bunker was violated, the prey killed, his body flown by helicopter to a ship waiting in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The US narrative would like us to believe that he was even given an unlikely Islamic burial. Why not just arrest him and put him before an international tribunal, why such a hurry, why was not a single frame of the whole process, which was filmed live, shown?

The answer is simple: because the "Public Enemy No 1" had to disappear without a trace, and because a trial would open a cupboard full of skeletons which would not benefit the U.S. Secret Service and the Clinton-Bush administrations, or the image that the Obama administration would like to give of itself. As we know, Osama was used by the CIA for 12 years, from 1979 to 1991 as coordinator and trainer of international Islamic fundamentalism (Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was established in 1988) against the Soviet Union in the Afghan theatre of the Cold War. The Taliban themselves were invented by the Secret Services, aided by the Pakistani military intelligence (the ISI), financed by Washington, Saudi Arabia and the oil company Unocal, which had major projects in Central Asia’s exploitation, control and transport of oil and gas in Kazakhstan and neighbouring countries.

Afghanistan was supposed to become a territory through which various pipelines would pass to avoid the competing states of Russia and Iran. In this perspective, the previous American governments backed the Mujahideen of Rabbani and Shah Massoud, then dumped them to focus on the Taliban. When this card also failed they returned to supporting the Mujahideen, making the territory of Afghanistan even more unstable than before, despite the creation of the Karzai government, which is still in office.

Everything went to plan, except that the U.S. did not gain a thing, due to two "independent" variables; first the nationalist Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was eliminated before the offensive against the Taliban because he was reluctant to be used for a second time, then the "internationalist " oilman Bin Laden - who was unleashed by American sponsorship after the first Gulf War - and was then suddenly set aside due the US’ serious internal economic situation and their future imperial projects.

Whatever happened in Abbottabad the timing of a success against international terrorism gave the Obama administration a desperately needed boost on a silver platter. The current President, having failed to meet all the promises of his election campaign, and after touching the lowest approval rating of his short history, went up 10 points in the polls at a stroke after that fateful May 2. He thus raised his image in domestic public opinion and relaunched U.S. imperialist pretensions in the Asian theatre, pretensions which have encountered serious difficulties in recent years during the Bush administration and the devastating effects of the economic crisis.

Although he eliminated public enemy number one, Obama was quick to declare that the fight against terrorism was not over, that the elimination of Osama was a significant victory, but war on fundamentalist jihadism will be long and difficult. So the withdrawal from Afghanistan remains - as planned, to be by 2014 - provided that the Kabul government, not necessarily led by Karzai, shows it is capable of governing the country. The Pentagon might think otherwise and try to stay on. However things go, a significant military contingent to protect the interests of Washington will remain, both in the north and close to Pakistan.

While formally remaining a U.S. ally and a pawn in the strategic balance in Asia, for decades, a lynchpin of the US imperialist policy in the area, Pakistan has not given sufficient guarantees to its munificent patron. This had already happened with the previous Musharraf Government and the attitude has not changed with the current President, Zardari. On more than one occasion American irritation has resulted in open complaints about the ambiguity of the Pakistani leadership in combating terrorism, the Taliban, and all forms of political-military organisations that worry the U.S.. In simple terms, the accusation was that the government of Washington showered billions of dollars on Islamabad which did not make proper use of it and, moreover, did not keep to agreements on protection with the same force that they should have done.

The very way the operation to capture and kill Bin Laden in Abbottabad was carried out demonstrated this. The huge, disproportionate deployment of forces used (four helicopters, at least two drones, dozens of men belonging to special forces, connections to the naval forces based in the Indian Ocean) was not justified by the possible reaction of their prey who, by the way, put up no resistance, but by the concern that the ISI and the Pakistani army could make it harder to capture him or even assist his escape. It was obvious to everyone that Bin Laden could not have stayed in this house for eight years, seventy metres from a Pakistani army barracks, without the heads of the secret services and politicians in Islamabad knowing anything about the presence of their guest.

Terrorism aside, Obama’s focus is concerned with Chinese penetration in these territories. For several years Beijing has been penetrating ​​Kunduz in Afghanistan, an area rich even if only moderately, in gas and petroleum, as well as copper and iron mines in the centre-north. Whilst American imperialism was spending on military operations, support the corrupt regime of Karzai, the Chinese haveadvanced in the exploitation of mineral and energy resources of Kabul [with the consent of the Afghan government], by investing 3.5 billion dollars. The same happened in Pakistan, in the richest mining area in the country, Baluchistan, where it helped with an investment of $2.5 billion for the construction of the port of Gwadar which is destined to become a major hub on the major oil routes of the Indian Ocean. ⁽¹⁾

And this is not to mention China’s explicit support to Pakistan in an anti-Indian vein, and the undeclared aid of the two neighbouring states to the Taliban of the area. Not surprisingly, as we read in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago, President Zardari had tried to convince his counterpart Karzai to abandon the alliance with the United States for a more generous and safer alliance with China. This is the same Zardari who, since 2008, the year he took office has made five trips to Beijing, and certainly was not just making a tourist visit to the "Forbidden City". The Kabul-Islamabad strategic axis, which once operated according to the absolute pre-eminence of US imperialism now allows deep penetration by the Chinese. Energy resources, of oil and gas pipeline routes, the strategic value of the two countries in geographical terms, not least the opportunity for productive investments at paltry wage costs, are all part of this game.

If the current inter-imperialist clash sees the fortunes of the Americans gradually in retreat, the new "Obama line " is trying by every means to regain lost ground with the soft power approach. This is in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor, but with the same objectives. He is neither doing more, nor better than them, not only in the wars of intervention, so far disastrous and economically wasteful, but also with political acceptance of the "revolutions" in the Middle East, by taking up the Palestinian issue again, with the disbursement of two billion dollars to anyone willing to accept the patronage of Washington. The music has slightly changed, but the conductor remains the same.

With or without Bin Laden, imperialist manouevres have not ended. Capitalists, especially when they are ravaged by the effects of a deep economic crisis, cannot ever afford to stand idly by watching the system’s contradictions explode. They have to make the international proletariat pay the price, and they are forced to take all necessary steps on the international stage of imperialism to enable them to survive, even if the increased poverty and subjection of others is the condition for their survival.

(1) For an expansion of this See Financial Times “Islamabad military shopping list grows” (23 May 2011) or ft.com