Sometimes New York Times’ columnist David Brooks writes an article that adds something new and insightful to the national discourse. And then sometimes he writes an article like he did in the aftermath of the Osama bin Laden assassination, which leaves me shaking my head and mumbling: Man, this guy really doesn’t get it.
His piece entitled “What Drives History,” makes it clear that Brooks only sort of understands how history actually works. After opening with a biography of bin Laden that emphasizes the quirks in his life, Brooks writes:
I repeat these personal facts because we have a tendency to see history as driven by deep historical forces. And sometimes it is. But sometimes it is driven by completely inexplicable individuals.
In a word: No. History is not driven by individuals, completely inexplicable or otherwise.
Brooks is espousing an approach to history so dated that real Historians threw it overboard decades ago. It’s what we used to call the Great Man Theory of history, which was summed up by the Scottish intellectual Thomas Carlyle, who wrote: “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.” Carlyle penned those words in his 1841 book On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.
History is like many other professions in that it continues to adapt and improve. Just like plumbers, farmers, and accountants don’t practice their professions exactly the same way their predecessors did 170 
years ago, neither do historians. That’s not to say that earlier generations of historians, or plumbers, farmers, and accountants for that matter, were stupid or inept. Hardly. It’s just that the world changes and we change with it. Technologies change. So do ideas, values, cultures, and methodologies. And all of those changes mean we all do things a little bit differently now.
Historians have long since discarded the notion that history is “driven by individuals.” Individuals can certainly have important roles in history, but the reasons for that are as much about broader historical forces as they are about the genius of the individual. Take Osama bin Laden as an example.
Bin Laden did not have such a major impact on the world simply because his biographical profile is in line with the early lives of other important historical figures, or because he found a way to channel his mad genius and personally wreak a holy hell on the world. Rather, large historical forces really are the important factors in shaping his life, influencing his decisions, and enabling his “accomplishments.”
For example, much of bin Laden’s life is defined by growing up among the elite of modern Saudi Arabia, a nation whose present form is the direct result of, among other things, 19th century British colonialism and the rise of fundamentalist Wahhabist Islam. Those are both abstract historical forces.
Another large, abstract historical force called the Cold War was responsible for the 1979 Soviet invasion of 
Afghanistan and the brutal, decade-long war that followed. Bin Laden was greatly influenced by his involvement in that affair. It deepened his religious fundamentalism, cemented his dedication to violent methods, and gained him valuable political connections.
As has often been documented, U.S. Cold War policies also led America to fund and support bin Laden and other Islamic Mujahideen armies in Afghanistan. And after the Cold War, an abstract historical force called the economy led the United States to invade Iraq, which involved stationing some troops in Muslim holy areas of Arabia. These actions played a critical role in stoking bin Laden’s animosity towards the United States.
It is clear then that abstract historical forces are essential to understanding who Osama bin Laden was. But what about explaining bin Laden as a powerful individual who shaped history through his exceptional talents, charisma, and willpower?
Here’s the problem with that: all of these abstract historical forces had a profound impact on millions of other people, too. Remember, bin Laden wasn’t some Hollywood super villain who personally high-jacked four jumbo jets, rammed them into internationally renown buildings, and then parachuted to safety at the last minute.
What did Osama bin Laden actually do? Like most important historical figures, he got other people to do things.
Was the mad genius of his charisma important? Of course. But people did what bin Laden told them to because they believed much the same things that he did. And all of these people believed those things because they were also influenced by the same abstract historical forces that bin Laden was.
Super heroes and super villains are great for movies, but they’re just not useful models for explaining 
history.
Let me close today with one other quick comment about the need to toss dated, 19th century ideas, and how it relates to all this.
During the operation to assassinate Osama bin Laden, the U.S. military gave him the code name Geronimo.
This is racist bullshit, and it needs to stop.
The popular culture is rife with Jeep Cherokees and Apache helicopters. Here in the 21st century, we need to start treating Indigenous people and cultures with respect and intelligence, and stop casting them as two-dimensional, 19th century stereotypes. Enough is enough. Even the French are mocking us for it.