Irrational Exuberance?

Many Americans are rejoicing in Osama bin Laden's death and seeing it as a significant blow to Al Qaeda's operations. The media is spinning it as pivotal in the war against terror. Political analysts foresee it as being a big chip for Obama's reelection efforts. Basically, the optimism--though guarded somewhat with announcements that the national security team continues to be vigilant against possible retribution by Al Qaeda--is overwhelming. While I think it's definitely a milestone in helping the US in its fight against terrorism, I find myself wondering how important bin Laden has become to the Al Qaeda movement, especially after reading this article by The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/05/osama_bin_laden&fsrc=nwl

bin Laden was definitely everywhere post-9/11--on the front of newspapers, magazines, TV channels, etc. Everyone was probing into his background, his origins, how he came to be the number one leader of the largest contemporary ideological movement against the West. But as the years passed, as he became more elusive to military agencies, and the search for him became sidetracked by the war in Iraq, his name faded into relative obscurity, with occasional pop-ups of videos he released of himself denouncing the US and the West. I honestly don't think he made a front page news headline in mainstream media recently, until two nights ago when he was dealt his ultimate fate.

Is bin Laden's death really a monumental blow to Al Qaeda? Or are Americans being prematurely celebratory and equating his death to something more than it should be? I'm not an expert on the matter, so what I say shouldn't be taken seriously. But as someone observing the happenings of terrorists that have made headlines in recent years, it seems like radical Islam has become something bigger than Al Qaeda proper. The Underwear Bomber, the tragic train explosion in London a few years ago, the attempted blowing up of Times Square in New York, are all events in recent years that didn't directly have bin Laden's name attached to them. Terrorist acts led by fundamentalists dot the globe--the mainstream media in the US just don't report them. The Philippines, Indonesia, Central Asia, Western Africa--these are all places where I've at least scanned a news article about terrorism being a security issue. It seems like the terrorist network has organically and legitimately taken on a life of its own. It's surpassed Al Qaeda, and if that's the case then it's definitely carried on, with or without bin Laden.

I think it would be really interesting to see what people who belong to the anti-West pro-fundamentalist Islamic movement are thinking about bin Laden's death. I read an article reporting on comments made in internet forums and there's been a whole range of responses. Some were angry and grieving while others thought that bin Laden was replaceable--'it should be easy,' I remember reading.

I can foresee complacency toward the strength and willpower of the terrorist network now that bin Laden--a symbolic figurehead of the West's worst enemy--has been killed. If it's true, I think that might be more dangerous than when he was alive.