In his newest column, David Brooks of The New York Times points out that sometimes the personal history surrounding a major figure in history completely betrays the idea that “big” people emerged from a dramatic, bigger-than-life background.
Case in point: Osama bin Laden.

 Here’s an excerpt:

“He lived a suburban existence and was sent to an elite school, wearing a blue blazer and being taught by European teachers. As a boy he watched ‘Bonanza’ and became infatuated by another American show called ‘Fury,’ about a troubled orphaned boy who goes off to a ranch and tames wild horses.
“He was a mediocre student but religiously devout. He made it to university, but didn’t last long. He married his first cousin when she was 14 and went into the family business.

“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, who combine qualities you would think could never go together, who lead in ways that violate every rule of leadership, who are able to perpetrate enormous evils even though they themselves seem completely pathetic.
“Analysts spend their lives trying to anticipate future threats and understand underlying forces. But nobody could have possibly anticipated Bin Laden’s life and the giant effect it would have. The whole episode makes you despair about making predictions.
“As a family man, Bin Laden was interested in sex, cars and work but was otherwise devout. He did not permit photography in his presence. He banned ‘Sesame Street,’ Tabasco sauce and straws from his home.
“He covered his eyes if an unveiled woman entered the room. He liked to watch the news, but he had his children stand by the set and turn down the volume whenever music came on.”