Osama bin Laden is dead. The news that U.S. forces killed the leader of the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001,  attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, sparked patriotic celebration in cities and on college campus across the nation, including Iowa State.

This event brought to an end a nearly decade-long manhunt for the man responsible for the largest single loss of civilian life in American history. Bin Laden’s death also brought closure to the many families that lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks.

The initial reaction of many Americans was celebratory.

“Victories like this are celebrated by people in this country because they’re kind of a patriotic thing,” said Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science. “It’s a big rallying around an event that has a lot of meaning for Americans. I see no problem with that.”

Lawmakers in Washington expressed their pleasure with the success as well.

“I compliment President Obama for continuing the crusade to get [bin Laden] that started with President Bush,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, was unavailable for comment, but released a statement Monday morning.

“Just a few months short of the 10th anniversary of the worst attack in our nation’s history, U.S. forces brought to justice the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden. This victory is a testament to the quality of our intelligence service and the courage and precision of the Navy SEALs. I commend the Obama administration and thank the servicemen and women who carried out this operation,” according to the statement.

Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, issued a statement as well, praising the end of “the reign of a ruthless killer” and expressing his gratitude to American military and intelligence officials.

The implications of bin Laden’s death are more complex than simply bringing to justice a terrorist who has been on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most wanted fugitive list for 13 years.

Heightened terror threat

Of most immediate concern to Americans, and to military and national security extensions of the U.S. government, is the threat of retaliatory action against the U.S. and U.S. citizens, whether domestic or abroad. The U.S. State Department issued a worldwide travel alert Sunday, warning U.S. citizens abroad of the “enhanced potential for anti-American violence” following the killing of bin Laden.

Grassley confirmed that the government has concerns about possible terrorist action.

“I think we have to worry, yes,” Grassley said. “Our own government feels we have to worry; that’s why they put out alerts.”

He said that, as always, we must remain vigilant in any circumstance, but “a little more vigilant now.”

Richard Mansbach, professor of political science, expressed similar concerns.

“Anybody who has anything going is going to try to do something, so they can associate it with this event,” Mansbach said. “I don’t know if there are any, but I think, for example, the foreign secretary of Britain was quite correct when he sent a message around to all British embassies and said ‘review your security procedures carefully.'”

Mansbach said any terrorist action could be as much an effort of the organization to make its continued presence known as it could be a retaliation for bin Laden’s death.

Summer travel and airport security

Travel in the upcoming days and weeks has been cited by many as a concern. The increased threat of attacks has some worried that the airport security process will be significantly increased and security will operate at a heightened level.

Schmidt does not expect this to be a problem.

“The security is always as high as the people doing airport security can get it,” Schmidt said. “This whole business of, ‘we’re going to raise the security,’ from what, like, not paying attention to people bringing explosives into airports, to now, paying attention? To me, it’s a bunch of bullshit. Security is always as high as they can get it.”

War in Afghanistan

Political questions are some of the biggest questions raised following the events of Sunday night. Both Mansbach and Schmidt see the death of bin Laden as the perfect time for Obama to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. They said ending both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would allow for focus on other domestic and foreign policy concerns, including deficit reduction, balancing the budget and focusing on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Charles Dobbs, professor of history, said the purpose of continued American military presence in Afghanistan following bin Laden’s death is unclear.

Dobbs teaches military and diplomatic history, and points to a military doctrine called “the nine principles of war.” The second principle tells commanders to “direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective.”

“The first thing they teach military officers is that an objective must be clear and attainable,” Dobbs said. “What’s the objective in the war on terrorism? If there’s one terrorist left, does that mean we lose? How do we declare victory in this thing? If the objective is bin Laden’s death, then it’s over. But it’s obviously not over.”

Grassley said the U.S. will not immediately withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.

“But I don’t think it’s going to slow down our decision to start withdrawing this year, or gradually pull out until we have the last troops out in 2014,” Grassley said.

2012 Election

Political questions will also influence the election in 2012. Obama is likely to see an uptick in his approval rating following bin Laden’s death, according to Gallup.

However, the spike in Obama’s approval rating is temporary, Grassley said.

“I think people are more concerned about the domestic economy, jobs, budget deficit, inflation, more than they are about what’s going on in Afghanistan,” he said. “The election is still a long ways away.”

Schmidt disagrees with Grassley’s assessment.

“This is a big feather in Obama’s hat, because he’s the one who got it done, and so he’s going to get credit for following through,” Schmidt said. “It’s going to remove another thing that the Republicans are trying to push, which is that Obama is weak on foreign policy.”

It will also make it difficult for Republicans to attack the Obama administration in public. Doing so would be viewed as unpatriotic and would be unacceptable, Schmidt said.

“Short term, it’s a big bump for [Obama]. Long term, it’s one more thing the Republicans can’t raise questions about — that he’s weak on defense and weak on intelligence,” Schmidt said. “It may not be an active part of the campaign, but it neutralizes the doubts about him that the Republicans have raised.”

Democrats in general will likely experience a boon from Obama’s actions, which will help fight against the stereotype of liberals being weak in the areas of defense, intelligence and foreign policy, Schmidt said.