Destor on Ordering a Pizza Conservatively in Texas
Ramona: Hatred in a Lovely Church
Gallup: Obama 46, Romney 46
|
Destor on Ordering a Pizza Conservatively in Texas Ramona: Hatred in a Lovely Church Gallup: Obama 46, Romney 46 |
Read |
It is strange to rejoice at death. And there has been a lot of death related to this rich kid, this jihadist, this narcissist, this bin Laden. The deaths of 9/11. The deaths of wars following 9/11. Lots of death. I have never in my life been happy about a death. It's not nice, and it's not how I was raised. But tonight in hearing that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, yes, I am happy and unapologetically so. Crowds on my TV are waving flags and cheering. But what will it mean? What does it mean?
For now, security is heightened in military theaters. There is a fear, a concern, that there will be violence against Americans for the sake of the American taking and killing of bin Laden. I don't think so. In reading about Pakistan, I have gotten the impression that the same civilian populace that is weary of western influence and occupation in the region is distrustful of the al Qaeda presence. So sure, al Qaeda itself, already beset with intelligence-aided drone attacks, would want to lash out, but how much more true can that be today than last week? I doubt much.
I think in the middle term, it will be important for America's attempt to claim moral authority to turn from this event to pulling down forces in Afghanistan sooner. At home, we have been told that the troop drawdown is to begin soon -- June 30, 2011. Politicians will use this to argue for speedier withdrawals, and I and so many war-weary Americans are with them. But abroad, the world cannot tell well why we are still in Afghanistan. After this, we have a chance to declare some piece of victory, but those who oppose and even those who simply cannot explain what we are doing will oppose it more and will be less able to comprehend our continuing presence. To have a narrative arc of what we've done and what we hope to be internationally, we should pivot from this toward steeper, quicker drawdown.
For those touched by 9/11 personally, it has to bring some closure. New Yorkers, this is for you. Families, friends of the victims, this is for you. Pentagon families. Ted Olson too. I used to read about the victims in all of the New York Times profiles. Reading about the sorrow of their families. The loss. The sadness of Ground Zero, of Shanksville, of the Pentagon. The solemnity of it. I have not felt your loss. I have only felt it vicariously, the way Americans generally have. But for all of the people who felt and tonight feel that loss, I hope very earnestly that they get some closure, some growth or healing or triumph or whatever helps make one whole after a loss within an essentially genocidal act.
Unity? Can Americans reclaim any unity in this? President Obama's remarks noted the spirit of unity that followed 9/11. For me, it can't come back, over nine years after war began, and soon thereafter, deep dispute over it (I favored going to Afghanistan, but to displace the Taliban and get bin Laden and al Qaeda leadership, and like many was frustrated when we turned to other things, from those just and proportionate goals). But it is possible to love our troops and want them all home, to oppose the wars and honor sacrifices of men and women and their service to and love of country. At this moment, thanks to the troops, to the folks who have ever put themselves on the line by joining the service, and who wanted this moment of taking bin Laden. Pat Tillman and all the people whose names we don't know just like him. Let's have some unity in our respect and thanks for them.
As for politics, it is profane to forecast the political impacts of this. We can do that later, and there will obviously be some impacts that way (the NYT is already out with instant political analysis). There was discussion of politics way too fast after the Giffords shooting. It felt sickening to me, here so near the shooting. But politics doesn't wait for war, they both run in parallel. As sick as the mixture of politics and death can be, it is likewise inevitable, as the highest-stakes choices breed the toughest fights.
Tonight, an evil man is dead. A guy who bred a lot of death. And we think of the dead from September 11, their survivors, and all of the historical progeny of that horrible day, including lots of displacement, and lots more death. A world so deeply changed from one day.
And I hope for some healing, for some turning away from death, and more death. For a retreat from wars in the hope of a perfect safety that cannot be achieved, least of all by an escalating cycle of war. And still, I'm very glad bin Laden has met his richly deserved death. Recent history gives me little hope, but I'll hope we can get from here to a better place.
We need to.
By Elizabeth Weingarten, ForeignPolicy.com, May 23, 2012
It was 2009 in Peshawar, Pakistan, and Mossarat Qadeem was sitting on the floor of a house with about a dozen young Pakistani men -- some of whom had nearly become suicide bombers. Qadeem's goal: to undo the destructive brainwashing of the al-Qaeda and Taliban teachers who trained them in extremism, in part by asking the students to narrate their life stories.
"We were handling one of the boys, and he just came, put his head here in my lap, and he started crying and weeping," Qadeem recalls. "I was taken aback. It is very unnatural in my country that a man that tall can just sit at your feet and put his head here. [The other men] were all crying with him, and I was looking at him, and thinking, ‘my God.'"
All in a day's work for Qadeem. She's the national coordinator of Aman-o-Nisa, a coalition of Pakistani women that convened in October 2011 to combat violent extremism in Pakistan at the grassroots level. [....]
The issue of sexual assaults on American Indian women has become one of the major sources of discord in the current debate between the White House and the House of Representatives over the latest reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
.......
“We should never have a woman come into the office saying, ‘I need to learn more about Plan B for when my daughter gets raped,’ ” said Charon Asetoyer, a women’s health advocate on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, referring to the morning-after pill. “That’s what’s so frightening — that it’s more expected than unexpected. It has become a norm for young women.”
The difficulties facing American Indian women who have been raped are myriad, and include a shortage of sexual assault kits at Indian Health Service hospitals, where there is also a lack of access to birth control and sexually transmitted disease testing. There are also too few nurses trained to perform rape examinations, which are generally necessary to bring cases to trial.
By Ismail Kahn, New York Times, May 23/24, 2012
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A Pakistani doctor who helped the Central Intelligence Agency pin down Osama bin Laden's location under cover of a vaccination drive was convicted on Wednesday of treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison, a senior official in Pakistan said.
A tribal court here in northwestern Pakistan found the doctor, Shakil Afridi, guilty of acting against the state, said Mutahir Zeb Khan, the administrator for the Khyber tribal region [....]
By Sergei L. Loiko, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012
MOSCOW — Stiff new penalties aimed at opposition protesters were given preliminary approval Tuesday by Russian lawmakers loyal to President Vladimir Putin, the target of mass rallies and demonstrations before his March election victory.
The bill, which opposition parliament members termed draconian and protested by threatening to file out of a legislative session, calls for fines of up to $50,000 and up to 200 hours of community service for organizers of rallies and demonstrations that grow violent or exceed the approved number of participants.
The sanctions were approved on first reading by parliament's lower house, which is controlled by Putin's United Russia party. They mark a return by the Kremlin to a tough stance against critics after concessions during the recent election campaign [...]
Also see:
Russians back Putin, strong leadership
Washington Post, May 22, 2012
A Pew survey of 1,000 Russians found that President Vladimir Putin is well-liked by more than 70 percent of citizens, especially older adults.
Associated Press, May 21, 2012
HAVANA — It was all sunshine, smiles and celebratory speeches as officials marked the arrival of an undersea fiber-optic cable they promised would end Cuba's Internet isolation and boost web capacity 3,000-fold. Even a retired Fidel Castro had hailed the dawn of a new cyber-age on the island.
More than a year after the February 2011 ceremony on Siboney Beach in eastern Cuba, and 10 months after the system was supposed to have gone online, the government never mentions the cable anymore, and Internet here remains the slowest in the hemisphere. People talk quietly about embezzlement torpedoing the project and the arrest of more than a half-dozen senior telecom officials.
Perhaps most maddening, nobody has explained what happened to the much-ballyhooed $70 million project....
Tonight I see unity. That is why I spent half the time on Fox. Even they are praising the Prez and the Intelligence community and our warriors and....
The unity will last about ten hours.
But there is unity.
People are celebrating in the streets on a work night! flags and anthems and dancing and USA-USA-USA.
Fox is dumping on Pakistan...I mean we took the guy out in a suburban gated community 35 miles from the Capitol...not in some cave and the installation was about 5 years old...
Like I said, give it ten more hours.
We can get back to hating one another. ha
Dick, I'll take ten hours of unity right now. Thanks for making that point.
Like most folks who focused on Pakistan during the 2007-08 campaign season (a perpetual source of discussion in debates), I see a lot of room for concern regarding Pakistan. The nukes, the instability, factions in the ISI, the culture that took out Benazir Bhutto and brought forward instead Musharraf.
I hope that our getting bin Laden reduces our engagement in Pakistan and our entanglement with it.
I think you watch FOX so that we don't have to. There is no way the prior adminsitration would have the patience to do this. Frankly, I don't think the one before that could do it either. This was the product of hard work, not bombs dropped from the sky.
You got that right Barth.
I just watch the enemy when our side is rockin! ha
I take no pleasure in the death of the man; the symbol is another story.
Nemo me impune lacessit - no one attacks me with impunity - is a very old motto. It even inspired the Gadsden flag, the Don't Tread on Me rattlesnake. It is the chief sentiment many of US felt about 9/11. Never let someone do something like that to you and walk away unscathed.
I confess to feeling a sense of completion on hearing about bin Laden. Capturing him would have given me the same sense -- at least until he started droning on and on.
Only quibble I have is that it took such a long time.
I saw some Don't Tread on Me flags on TV just outside the White House. (Who just has some huge Don't Tread on Me flags lying around ready to run out to a flashmob?)
I am glad he was killed instead of captured. His time for giving gloating speeches is over now. There is no issue left to try, and his methods were essentially military.
the FINNBAR!
Articleman, I agree that it is a very strange feeling to be celebrating a man's death. I have tried to feel sad that he is dead, and I just can't. This evil man changed the face of America forever. He has hurt our country in ways we don't always think about. I resent having to think about him every single time I make airline reservations. So, I'm glad he's dead. And I don't feel the least bit guilty about it.
Now I hope we will declare victory and get the hell outta Afghanistan. We were there to get him, we did it, and we need to leave. There will NEVER be a better time.
There has GOT to be a better way to fight "the war on terror."
The Dark Knight is an excellent parable on how bin Laden hurt America.
I too think this is a great pivot point to accelerate moving out of Afghanistan, but I've believed for some time that we should be out. Thanks to our troops and allies, and time to come home. No better time indeed.
And on the "war on terror" I liked that Obama generally spoke of a war on al Qaeda in particular, which struck me as a limiting construction. Something limited but meaningful to win and to have won, as opposed to a perfect safety or security that never was or can be.
Yes, I agree, and was pleased to learn that. This is what the "war on terror" always should have been, with the vastly different meaning of this "war" explained clearly to the public as something that would almost surely be an ongoing--and necessarily collaborative with other nations, including Arab and Muslim-majority nations--effort.
I'm not even sure that is the best word for it because "war" has a number of connotations to publics which don't entirely fit what this conflict is. But I am not sure what a better one would be.
That was/would have been a broadly unifying, legitimate, comprehensible, meaningful and relatively specific objective, albeit one extremely and perhaps impossible to attain given how widespread is AQ's presence in the world. And this was reflected in the overwhelming international support we had for attacking and trying to capture AQ there. (Utterly ineptly as we know; I am among many who wonder to this day whether the Bush Administration, or all members of it in the key positions, truly wanted to capture bin laden at that time, or whether it saw strategic value in him being alive and at large.) All soon to be shattered by Ahab/Bush over Iraq.
Why did you use "Taking" in your title instead of "Killing?"
His body was taken; killing is a secondary meaning of taking, as in taking a target; it felt like the taking of an objective; and yes, it's not the best title.
I'm perplexed. "It is strange to rejoice at death"? Hardly. People do it around the world daily, for good reasons and bad.
And I'm glad they killed him rather than putting us through some mawkish trial where we'd have to walk the thin line between our conduct and his.
I'm glad they didn't notify the Pakistanis and made a point of describing it thus.
I'm glad the rescue team did a good job so we didn't get another "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" headline.
I'm glad bin Laden was hiding in a rich suburb, so he will be seen appropriately as a symbol of elitist wealth, and not a freedom fighter hanging out tough in the mountains.
And I'll be glad if this will put the boogey man behind us, that we don't have to jump at every 2-bit thug pretending they're the heir apparent of bin Laden, that they're some deep threat to America.
Regarding politics: it would be really really stupid for people to ignore politics in some fictitious mourning period, since smart people will be coordinating the political message for best effect. We've been sold the Unity Bridge so many times before - how it was inappropriate to bring politics into 9/11, when 9/11 turned immediately into an entrenched political football.
Anyway, we've now got 5 wars to fight. Whether this has any effect at all remains to be seen.
Oh my, they "buried bin Laden at sea". Great, here's a martyr/mythical assassination story ready to go viral. Couldn't they have done a public autopsy and buried him at Ground Zero? Maybe with a sign reading:
Never Give a Inch
Been wondering about that my own self. [Seems like we got the number two and three guys over and over.] Did they dump him in the ocean to preempt requests/demands for the body? Would it have been smart diplomacy to have given the body to his family or whoever else might have wanted to give him a proper burial according to his religion? Does he get the standard issue of virgins if he was hiding out trying to avoid being a martyr? So many questions to be answered about this particular body.
Do you think the Saudi royal family would have loved having Bin Laden buried in that country? Wouldn't the burial place become a shrine to a matyr to the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia?
I agree with most of this comment, although for me it remains strange to rejoice at death. I am very glad to have no trial. I also agree with you that the unilateral nature of the strike (like Clinton's in August 1998) was appropriate here. The proof is in the successful completion of the task, which the ISI had 9 years to do itself, were it so inclined.
And yes, it would be stupid to ignore politics. But I'm not to write a happy political spin on something that is a function of so much human death. There's time enough for that soon. The interesting aftereffects to me will not be in American presidential politics (the obvious), but whether it bends the arc of overseas involvement-ism. I doubt it will, but hope it does. The politics of bring the men and women home. Where's Ron Paul when his one useful attribute is needed?
I don't feel happy. More like this was a dangerous animal that needed to be put down - now it's done. Pretty emotionless. Mostly I am against the death penalty - never sits easy with me even when it seems necessary. Glad the chapter is almost done (not forgetting Zawahiri).
In outback Idaho, the PiggieMart random sample appeared split - there are those who think crafty Obama pulled this out of his hat just as he was on the ropes to being impeached (smallest faction), those who don't really believe we got him (including the guy who thinks we killed him earlier and had him on ice ... most expressive lot), meh (a respectable showing - Pepsi), and those who believe this is an excellent excuse reason to buy a shitload of beer (notable majority). Oh yeah - and some Canadians, who didn't mention Bin Laden but seemed awful stoked to take their picture in front of a sign saying "Piggies". Comfortingly not unexpected reactions all around.
(nicely written btw - especially so fast).
Thanks for that last sentence. Funny how the conspiracism is already running. Not much anyone can do about that. I did find some of the football-game-like screaming in flashmobs on TV last night weird. It's a national catharsis of sorts, right down to the weird lore your PiggieMart folks are inventing.
Similar reaction on my end. I am not a blood-lust type of person. I grant that I might be towards a given individual had I lost loved ones to a murder or terrorist attack but I think revenge, when it needs to be served, is, as the saying goes, best served cold, with no gloating or celebration.
Also an early reaction was to wonder whether we are going to see short-term retaliatory attacks in response--again, I don't know how any of us could assess the likelihood of that. I think many of us who live in NYC and DC in particular just have that in the background post-9/11 whether we choose or like to acknowledge it or not, and even if, as in my case, we are conscious of it and think about it infrequently.
I'm not entirely comfortable with the formulation that justice has now been served, even recognizing that the vast majority of fellow countrymen will be entirely comfortable with that formulation. Or at least I am not sure what concept of justice underlies that claim (other than a political concept of justice).
Was justice done because he was killed? This was justified retaliation. If he could not have been captured [was there anyone in the Administration that might have wanted him captured instead of killed?] I am not morally bothered by his death given that we are at war with him and his organization but most of all given what he has done. This is justifiable self-defense. Not because he was killed, I would say, but because he is no longer able to continue to aid and abet the killing of innocents. The latter would have been the case had he been captured as well. And, yes, figuring out what to do with him would have presented a slew of wretched choices.
I think it is far too soon to have any sense as to what the consequences of this will be. The speculation of course began immediately, inevitably, and understandably.
There of course will be efforts to make bin laden a now pure(r?) martyr, even long past his peak popularity. We shall see what comes of that. One of the realities of our world is the unbelievable amount of destruction and damage one or a very small number of individuals can inflict--there being perhaps no more vivid an example than 9/11, of course. It could be the case that the dominant reaction is not to trigger a new round of attacks or to attract new recruits or to recommit with even greater tenacity to "the cause", and yet a minority reaction of greater willingness to undertake short-term attacks could do a great amount of damage. Let us hope not.
If it sounds as though I'm looking for a dark cloud to surround a silver lining, I don't mean to be--just to be realistic about who and what bin laden in 2011 may have been, as opposed to who and what he may have been in 2001, and also aware of how what has transpired since 2001 creates the context for today. I don't know how any of us could really have an informed opinion of bin laden's current role and importance within AQ today. I'm not even sure the US government really knew that, either. Of course going after him was the right and necessary thing to do.
There are no doubt many individuals who risked their lives to make this happen. I am deeply grateful to them.
I really doubt he is a martryr to much of anyone. He could have chosen martyrdom instead of hiding in a posh lair. He chose a private, cowardly life in seclusion. There are lots of horribly impoverished wartorn areas where on the Islamic and Arab street people want food and a government that works, not drones or bin Ladenism.
It is totally justice. A trial would be less just here, not equally so. There's literally no issue for trial. He's guilty of conspiring to commit 3,000 murders or an act of war, whichever it is matters not for this purpose. It's not usually so clean and easy. Here it is perfectly so, and true as it so rarely is that process would subtract and not add. OBL had it coming. And if it aids turning away from, or limiting, America's military commitment, then that too will be good.
What makes you say that? That you--and I and many others in our country and around the world--fervently hope it be so and think that by rights it should be so doesn't, it seems to me, affect the likelihood of it being so. To the America-haters out there he can seem like a hero of sorts for having struck the most powerful blow to date. Some may not need to know much more beyond that to conclude that the enemy of my enemy--or at least of a country I hate--is my friend.
Again, I hope you turn out to be right--I guess I am just a bit skeptical on this, and think we're not likely to know for awhile yet.
I think there are pockets of sympathy for bin Laden in Yemen, and other Middle Eastern areas where there are not lots of U.S. targets.
Everything I've read about Afghanistan and Pakistan suggests to me that while folks don't want the U.S. occupation or drones, neither did they welcome the antiAmerican AQ folks, who they saw as bringing conflict to their land.
And I have read how there are tensions between fundamentalist jihadists in northern Pakistan on one hand and Pakistanis who are more western and nonjihadists, all Islamic folk, with very different objectives and cultural imperatives. I'm not saying we're so popular there at all. I'm suggesting people want subsistence, to be let alone, freedom from permanent war. I think the "street" has bigger fish to fry than a rich famous jihadist from far away from their land. But we'll see.
I remember people on TPM saying Obama was naive in his campaign, when he said he would unilaterally enter Pak to get terrorists.
That was before we took over Pakistani airspace.
And escalated our drone program.
And before Raymond Davis shot 2 Pakistanis and then paid off relatives Sharia style to flee the country. And before Pakistan expelled 335 US operatives working throughout the country.
That was back in the day when people thought Obama was into ending wars, not expanding them.
He was the peacenick candidate back then, a combination of Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy.
Some even said he was naive when he said he'd close Gitmo.
A presidential campaign is an imperfect forum to judge what a person will do once in office. That is true of Obama, and it would have been true of Eugene McCarthy, Robert F. Kennedy, and anyone else in between and beyond. To believe otherwise is to believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
Bruce, wake up. These are real people making real promises and setting expectations to get elected. They're not the Easter Bunny created by someone just to entertain kids.
Sure, real life changes situations, but it's a 2-year job interview that better damn well tell us something about how the candidate will perform, or else it's a counterproductive waste of 2 years and a billion dollars vetting him/her.
Either you're playing naïve or super-hardened cynical, can't quite grasp which.
Folks who I corresponded with at the old place know what I felt about candidate Obama back then, and it was laced with realism in response to what I saw as unreasonable expectations. I'm not justifying the art of making campaign promises one can't keep. I've just seen quite a few presidents at this point in my life, read about quite a few more, and have come to recognize that some things, like unkept campaign promises, are inextricably intertwined with the territory.
Folks at TPM know that my problem with Obama had to do with fairy tales, and that I preferred candidates who tried to keep their promises, like... Bill Clinton
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/2001/02/cannon.htm
And I still have problems with people letting candidates back out of every promise because they hit some kind of "trifecta".
So yes, lying politicians is frequently a well-deserved stereotype, but there are people like Alan Grayson and Al Franken and Bernie Saunders and Ted Kaufman and Russ Feingold who seem to be able to keep fairly close to their promises and their duty, even if being unpopular loses them an election.
Giving politicians a permanent hall pass means an end to responsibility to voters. Why shouldn't they baldly lie to you if you forgive it as just part of the game?
On the issue of Bin Lden, here is what candidate Obama said in an October 2008 debate with McCain moderated by Tom Brokaw.
TOM BROKAW: Next question for Senator Obama. It comes from the F Section, and it’s from Katie Hamm. Katie?
KATIE: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies, like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Katie, it’s a terrific question.
And we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.
So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there…
But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars, and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I have said is we’re going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.
And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out.
We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.
http://www.alan.com/2011/05/02/flashback-candidate-obama-promises-to-go-into-pakistan-and-kill-osama-bin-laden/
I think you see anybody who gives Obama points for getting Osama Bin Laden without reflexively criticizing Obama is an Obamabot in your eyes. I do think many of the people you attack have criticized Obama on other issues.
I didn't expect people to criticize Obama. I just didn't see what killing OBL and avenging 9/11 tells us about Obama's "heart", as bslev expressed it. Do you?
Your quote is from a later debate - the earlier was much the same though: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
In this particular case, we seem to have come off quite well. In other cases, we've killed up to 25 civilians, elsewhere we had bad intelligence and weren't even attacking military targets. Elsewhere our drone attacks have mixed results. Raymond Davis was our acting CIA chief in Pakistan and shot 2 men dead in January with no explanation. "Self defense", even though he rushed into traffic to shoot them.
So we're promoting vigilante justice for ourselves, but when others claim the same right within US borders, will we accomodate them?
Note one of Obama's lines in your quote was about the Taliban. But we're not at war with the Taliban for being the Taliban. We threw them out for harboring Al Qaeda - a lesson they've likely learned. Why would we prevent Pakistan or Afghanistan from making treaties with the Taliban to stop the violence and drug smuggling? Actually Karzai *IS* trying to make a treaty with the Taliban despite receiving billions, and his election was highly controversial. Are we going to throw out our own dictator because he befriends the wrong people?
Alright, cowboy justice will live on, whether Bush or Obama. I liked better the Israelis smuggling Eichmann out of Argentina and putting him on trial. No one questions whether Eichmann was really alive, nor whether he's really dead now. The only reason I said I was glad about OBL not standing trial is because we would have likely put our new tribunal orders on it that make a mockery of justice. (e.g. limits the accused's rights to access of basic information, such as anything they might have divulged themselves while being tortured)
Thank you for posting his comments then and now. Funny to get a thread about this event turning into a thread about glass-half-empty and politicians who don't do what they say. If promises are the glass, this event is all water, folks. He did what he said. And it is a good thing.
Yes, likewise, rmdoo. I remember hearing what Obama said at that time and having a couple of reactions--"yes!!!!!" because I thought what he said would go over very well with the electorate, and also that I agreed with everything he said in re to being willing to kill bin laden in Pakistan if the Pakistanis were unwilling to help us or give us permission, and thought he said it all very well. I'm totally fine as well with what may have been the reality in this situation of having damned good reason not to tell the Pakistani government--as infested with double or triple or quadruple agents as it is--before the fact and just doing it when we were ready.
Well, you ignore the drone attacks, and Raymond Davis' murders, and our other actions in Obama "doing what he said". While we can be happy for a victory, how does this pre-emptive /cross-border justice server our larger goals of a democratic world?
What does it mean in terms of our cooperation with Pakistan (did ISI help us, hinder us, both....) and our wars in Afghanistan and Yemen and Libya?
Is this a new Monroe Doctrine, allowing us incursions wherever we see someone who did us wrong, whenever a government won't extradite? Or is it more limited? Will paratroopers pull Roman Polanski out of France? Julian Assange out of Switzerland or UK or wherever he is right now?
The killing of OBL won't raise too much fuss. (though dumping him in the ocean before any review does give an unsatisfying denouement).
But what about our other military activities against Al Qaeda and Taliban and any arbitrary military group? Direct attacks on Qaddafi's compound are now okay to "protect civilians". Yemen's complained about some US drone attacks, though not certain which ones it actually signed off on.
Will he turn water into wine?
Des, goodness knows A-man is quite able to respond to your comment and probably will. But it seems to me you are putting words into his mouth on this. How is what he wrote "ignoring the drone attacks", etc? He's responding to this specific action, at least that's what I read him as saying, trying not to read into what he actually did write a wholesale endorsement of all, or any other specific, Obama foreign policy decisions, as it seems to me you are doing.
I know--as "third man in(to this exchange)", I automatically get tossed. I now exit...
But A-man is responding to the situation in Pakistan above - is not limiting himself to talk about OBL and OBL only. When he says if the glass is promises, this one's all water, I think about all the broken glasses to get one right.
And that some of us were hoping that Obama would come into office and back out of these wars as a step towards righting our ship, use the excuse "Under New Management" and walk away, giving more Cairo speeches about democracy, and less overfly zones leading to new engagements.
AD is right, your reading of me is way off. My post calls for getting out of Afghanistan, laments all the other death, and my comments up and down the thread in terms of what I want us to do as a go forward aren't readily separable from yours.
So your saying my comments about OBL "ignore" the drone attacks are indeed pretty badly misdirected.
If you really need a point of disagreement with me, then sure, not every drone attack is wrong. Some drone attacks kill AQ folks on the ground. I'm ok with that particular outcome, though also not with doing it forever, as I've also said enough times here, you can't do that forever, and you never get to perfect safety. We need a longer-term solution that doesn't depend on a forever world of Predator drones.
Your comments about Obama in this thread are kind of gracious. Maybe sometimes we can recognize when people do something right, and can discuss in parallel those other things they don't, instead of using the one to jam consideration of the other.
In terms of executing a commando raid, well done, and that means Obama leading. We didn't need another Black Hawk Down, or the muddled Iran hostage rescue.
My issue with the drones is both 1) the collateral damage, and 2) the use of them extra-legally to cross borders without permission. We've headed into an "America can enter your country at any time to enforce getting bad guys", for which bad guys can mean drug lords in Colombia, AQ sympathizers in Yemen, use to attack troops in Libya, probably to net even an Assange or Bradley Manning. We're still assuming the mantle of noble better-than-all democracy, despite some rather prominent cracks the last few years. Extraordinary renditions on one end, extraordinary invasions on the other, but we don't call those "war", just expansive "no fly zones" and other euphemisms for war-not-war.
Dude, I'm not "ignoring" these points. This thread isn't about Assange or Manning.
But to keep it on OBL, as I pointed out to someone, I can't imagine OBL hanging out in Oregon for ten years without being caught. A corollary of cross-applying the law enforcement model of dealing with terrorism is some rudimentary ability of the state in which bin Laden lives to actually do law enforcement.
You can go chicken egg and blame the US or drones for Pakistan being a failed state. But that's the issue. If the ISI delivered him in the last ten years, I suppose there wouldn't have been a raid of this style, or in a vacuum of advance notification to said ISI. So we can privilege the notion of national borders to the point where we even deplore the taking of bin Laden, or not. Do you also deplore Clinton's missile attack on him? No prior overflight notification, you know. I approve of both.
I vote for super-hardened cynical, and I don't think he's wrong. You're the one who brought up Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy (not that there was anything wrong with that), and Bruce correctly pointed out that while one can judge campaigning McCarthy and (RF) Kennedy against campaigning Obama, we have no President McCarthy nor President (RF) Kennedy to compare him to. Don't get me wrong, like Bruce, Obama has disappointed me, but I knew he would, and voted for him anyways.
See above - I think Clinton basically kept his promises, and was still mostly successful.
Clinton said he'd approve NAFTA if elected - liberal voters then had the choice to reject him based on that stance, not on a lie. He said he'd put more police on the streets, and he did. Clinton promised to raise taxes, and he did - how ballsy is that? If you listened to Clinton's campaign promises, you had a good sense how he would govern - like it or not. These promises informed your vote.
My bringing up Eugene McCarthy and RFK was a slur against Obama, the once-peacenick who had somehow courageously taken a stance against the Iraq War once, but now doesn't seem to find a war he doesn't like. I don't know much about McCarthy's promises, but I have a sense that RFK was steady enough and knew enough about Washington to keep pretty close to his agenda. And agenda in feel and deed, not just in empty form.
And as relates to OBL, while killing OBL is fine with me, the most important principle always was and is whether we crumble our values just because of one person. With our porn scanners in airports and expanding military role of world's (Mideast) policeman and embracing torture techniques, it seems we haven't met that standard still. America - still seeing stars 10 years after being cold-cocked.
I guess I don't have the same recollection of Clinton as you. There have been those who have commented that Obama's campaign promises were a mirror of Clinton's. If Clinton basically kept his promises, how is this so? For what it's worth, I voted for Dole in '96. I can't say I regret that vote, since if Dole had won in '96 we wouldn't have had Bush in '00, but I do think there was a certain amount of naïvete in that vote. Either that, or I've just gained an awful lot of cynicism since then. Or both. Probably both.
Just like his brother did?
I put a link re: Clinton's promises vs. performance - did you read it?
Note: promises on what you're going to work on don't mean you'll succeed on every item. But he put it on the table - health care, DADT (a major step forward at the time), minorities in government, other strong steps. He might have "triangulated", but he made his positions clear.
I found the link to rely on subjective memory, picking and choosing which campaign promises were kept. I much prefer those sites that try to find all campaign promised made and evaluate them in their entirety. Sure, one can then decide that some of those are more important than others, but I feel it's at least a starting point. I've seen some good ones in the past, but a quick search didn't turn them up, so here's a mediocre one:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jan/14/counting-oba...
I find it better than the Clinton link you provided, but still not as good as ones I've seen before which break it down item-by-item in a cleaner manner. And, yes, I am a reductionist at heart. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to listen to holistic arguments, but I want to know what pieces the whole is comprised of.
Well, I can think of lots of let-downs in sentiment if not actual wording:
- keeping super-expanded-FISA
- not closing Gitmo / not really trying
- expanding drilling in the Gulf
- expanding Afghanistan and the not-quite-pullout of Iraq (50,000 troops left)
- extension of the Bush tax cuts
- support for looking at "ways to cut Social Security"
- watered-down health bill that doesn't do good jobs of cutting costs for normal people
- poor support of abortion rights, including a major anti-abortion victory blowing away George Tiller and letting his clinic close
- demonizing unions - Arkansas, Detroit
- crap jobs programs
- crap support of mortgage owners
- support of huge transfers to Wall Street, including low-interest loans to lend back to government at a profit and other egregious acts that didn't help the recovery, only lined fat-cats' wallets
- his "they said it was okay" ho-hum over Bradley Manning
the once-peacenick who had somehow courageously taken a stance against the Iraq War once, but now doesn't seem to find a war he doesn't like
Seems to me you are confusing Obama and some Obamabots and doing that doesn't take you to the right place about what's bothering you on this issue. You can't blame the man for people turning him into something he was not despite all evidence. To anyone without denial of reality problems, during the presidential campaign, Obama was consistenly more aggressive on Pakistan/Afghanistan than any other of the Dem candidates and even got chided by Hillary for some of the more aggressive statements. He never intentionally gave any impression he was a "peacenik" :I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars-Oct. 2002.
From your comments, seems to me the issue that bothers you is the denial of reality peeps and not Obama. Keep in mind that Obama's hawkishness, long evidenced to anyone not in denial because of his opposition to "dumb Iraq war" was probably quite helpful in getting him the presidency vis a vis the votes of people who are not "peaceniks."
Amen, brother. Look at how Lehman changed everything. The campaign was about a healthcare reform in an economy that stopped existing before office. The crises that made 2009 what it was hatched as the campaign ended. And even were those things not so, there is an inevitable part-disconnect between the campaign and governance.
Bear Stearns' collapse was Mar 2008, Fannie Mae was Jul 2008, AIG & Lehman Brothers were Sept 2008, TARP was early Oct 2008. Somehow I recall quite a lot of crisis during the campaign, and pretty much everyone except the comatose knew there was a huge housing bubble waiting to pop all through the campaign.
Sometimes when you say something and later do that thing, it is a good thing.
I remember thinking those people were crazy.
Bin Laden alive was more of a danger to people around the world, and not just Americans, in life--even life in prison--than he will be now in death. I take solace in knowing that he was found with at least some of his wives and his family in a comfortable mansion, rather than in a cave somewhere. Now those who for whatever reason may have been drawn to him understand that this son of a billionaire never lost his interest in things material. Indeed, perhaps his penchant for all that glitters is what ultimately smoked him out. And so, among other things, this son of a billionaire dies a fraud.
As Richard aptly notes, for a moment at least there is a sense of unity among most of the American people. And with that comes, among other things, political capital for President Obama here and abroad. It is capital he has earned, but of course it is not something to be spent in haste or recklessly. Someone like President Bush was unable to understand this simple truth, and so he left office with a whimper and not a bang.
I now stand behind the president because whatever one might think of Obama, few can argue that his heart is not in the right place. And I hope we can help him help us and the people of all nations around this tiny speck of a planet.
Nice work Mr. President.
"few can argue that his heart is not in the right place"? Come on, Bruce, he continued a program to find OBL - a no-brainer, but he didn't even set it up - and what does it have to do with his heart? He didn't cure world illiteracy or do away with disease or even take a step towards stopping war.
Enough hero worship. But nice work, SWAT team.
I don't think you read what I wrote or perhaps I did not make myself clear, but I worship no man or woman. One might say that perhaps you, for just a minute or two, should let down your aura of cynicism and let a little bit of hope shine in. It couldn' hurt.
Interesting. You take the opportunity to take a dig at Bush, who set up the OBL program, and tell me to let down my cynicism and let hope in.
And I just can't figure where the righteous desire for revenge tells where someone's "heart" is. Now, if it's someone personally invested into extracting retribution, a Simon Wiesenthal, then I might get it, or if it's a keypoint of the Administration. But this program is just a line-item on the yearly budget, and other people do the work.
If you point to Obama's increased activity in Pakistan, I'd have to credit that as part of catching OBL, but then we get into the debate of what's the purpose, where's it going, our getting embedded in Pakistan along with our surge in Afghanistan. And that's a conversation that promotes cynicism and little hope.
Well, for one thing, the president successfully assembled a team that kept this under wraps domestically and apparently and perhaps more importantly, in Pakistan as well. I think one of the most important things a president needs to do is to assemble an effective team, and lead that team during crash course-like on-the-job training. Obama has fucked up quite a bit in my opinion and I've not been shy to point out his errors, but I have no trouble applauding him here.
I'm not worshipping the man Decider, and I only related a simple truth about President Bush who bragged of his political capital in November 2004 and squandered it on his push to privatize social security just a few short months later. I also distinguish between what I see as justice, and what you see as simple revenge.
Justice is when we do it, revenge is when they do it.
Yes, there is justice in killing OBL - did I say differently? But we don't want justice for the people held at Gitmo - most having nothing to do with OBL but held anyway. So I'm overall indifferent - pleased he was taken out, displeased that the rest will continue as before.
And I was actually coming back to give Obama more credit for leading the attack team. I still imagine some of the prep intelligence came during the Bush years, but the actual implementation sounds like a heavy role for Obama.
And I still think it doesn't say anything about his heart.
PeterR at FiredogLake notes that vengeance is not justice, and justice is about what society does, not just getting something they deserved.
I remember a judge noting his job was to mete out justice, not to decide right-and-wrong. A subtle distinction sometimes, but an important one.
You are right, his heart is in the right place. The right response is that everyone's heart is in the right place on this, not that Obama's is not. This is the low-hanging fruit of doing right, but it was done, and it was right.
And I'm glad you're focusing on the bin Laden spoiled rich kid thing. I put that in the first paragraph of my piece, and Des also noted that in his comment, somehow, it matters. Good riddance to him.
The many ways in which this is true will be helpful in stomping on the upcoming efforts to portray him as a modern-day saint. That said, the guy did, voluntarily at first, undergo a good deal of physical hardship in pursuit of his aims. Which not all spoiled rich kids would be willing to do.
Kind of funny to read this comment under a Pakistani News International story from a few days ago:
Throughout the PK paper there are a lot of comments to the effect that kidney patient OBL has been dead for years. The burial-at-sea business will only feed into that.
And Obama didn't even share with Oprah. Sheesh.
Too bad he didn't die of rotten kidneys and his death revealed by his own people. The news I am already hearing is all about how it is a great victory for our intelligence services. They say the first lead came from a detainee a couple years ago. I have heard both two and four years. Maybe they haven't decided yet whether or not to give Bush some of the credit for being brave enough to have people water-boarded. Regardless, it will be used to justify every dirty action they have taken and everything they come up with tomorrow and the next day.
Facts are facts. I deplore water boarding and any use of torture by my country. But if it works that's a fact ,nothing is gained by denying it. It's entirely possible for a good country, or person, to know that something works, and don't do it because it's wrong. Even the church finally gave up on the auto de fe.
Waterboarding never works. Torture is counterproductive according to intel experts. It's real pragmatism to get this, and it's where principle and pragmatism converge in this area.
But come on LULU, this isn't the Sixth Amendment exclusionary rule where it's better if bin Laden dies alone based on a critique of Gitmo. He killed 3,000 innocents. It's far better he die as he did. It is more just.
Slow getting back. I made a couple quick comments and then had to leave. I certainly didn't say that torture hadn't worked. At TPMCAFE we had long involved conversations about torture. In those days we were all against torture for any reason. I argued several times with people who kept saying torture never works. I said then what you say now, that it sometimes works and so denying that it works is a bad argument if you want torture stopped. I recall Quinn agreeing with that part of my argument but virtually everyone else said I was nuts. I further argued that when a time came that it could be shown that torture had worked that [even more] people would then say that torture was justified.
He may well have been caught and killed just like they say. That is, they may have picked up his trail from information gained by interrogation of a prisoner. If it is leaked or implied or just inferred by the general public that the information was gained through "harsh" interrogation then it will be taken as justification for torture.
I am glad that he is gone and that the world knows it but I would rather he had died a natural death and the world knew he was dead IF the story we get plays out in a way that justifies past crimes and makes it more likely that those crimes become accepted policy.
Torture does work. I just tortured my cat, and now it eats the nasty smelling dry catfood. Unreliable though. Doesn't work on all brands.
The problem is that by applying the tools of honest reason, it is not possible to logically infer the conclusion "it works" as a declarative from the circumstances as we created them. It took over ten years to get him. That CERTAINLY eliminates the "ticking bomb" line of necessity-based argument.
Additionally, controlled studies - that actually hold a certain level of legitimate scientific validity - indicate other methods produce better intelligence more quickly. Combine that with the decade it took to accomplish the mission. Then bear in mind our invasion of a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and a color-coded "terror threat" warning that zigged and zagged in direct response to what we now know were "confessions" made just to end the torture. That makes it impossible to truly assert if torture provided a net benefit. Most metrics of worth seem to weigh heavily on the "produces fucked up outcomes" side when looked at across the time period of the entire saga. It certainly is impossible to assert the situation was resolved more quickly than if other methods had been used. It appears as if the practice simply obscured the real behind so much babble that it was operationally useless through years of chaff-sifting.
Also, the assertion totally begs the question if damage we caused to innocents by treating each desperate false confessions with equal weight to real intelligence caused more violations at our hands against innocents than the act we were seeking justice for.
All and all. It was a bullshit assertion when Cheney first made it. It is a bullshit assertion today. Don't fall for the bullshit.
I can't speak for all New Yorkers, particularly those who lost loved ones, but I derived no sense of closure from Bin Laden's death. Last night, I felt some optimism and relief but no joy of vengeance or justice.
Bin Laden had little connection to my memories of 9/11. Rationally, I understand that men under his command created the tragedy, but emotionally it always felt and still feels like a random disaster--like an earthquake or a flood. The violence was so pointless, so inconceivably brutal. If I felt rage, it was directed at humanity and the dogmatic fever that leads people to commit such horrors.
Bin Laden, in consequence, always seemed like George Bush's man. He was the villain that all those Americans far from New York City needed to get their blood up and send their children to war, the catalyst for their own dogmatic fevers.
You write that it would be profane to forecast the political impacts of this, and last night, when I offered a first tentative tap at that nail, others chided me. But I don't understand that. To me, Bin Laden has always been a character on the American political stage, in death as in life. Last night, what I truly felt as I watched the president's speech was that Bin Laden was George Bush's man, and Obama got him.
I love you Genghis, and you're like one of my political gurus, but I don't think you are speaking for all or even most New Yorkers today. That said I didn't feel any closure per se, still haven't, but I do feel a sense that justice was done yesterday. And I say that understanding very well that the death of Bin Laden is doing little or nothing for the kids whose Moms and Dads were killed that day in 2001, and that Bush and his supporters undoubtedly exploited Bin Laden for political gain that has led to the tragic death of far too many boys and girls to die in the deserts of Iraq.
OK, let me admend my opening--I speak only for myself, a New Yorker. I'm probably deficient in whatever gene or hormone drives the demand for retributive justice. Here's one kindred spirit, though:
I thought Saddam was Bush's man. I *wish* bin laden had been Bush's man but I don't get the sense he ever cared nearly as much about bin laden as Saddam. Heck the guy had to be told by Colin Powell in the immediate 9/11 aftermath that, no, first, we have to go after bin laden in Afghanistan before we can go after Saddam, even as Bush was asking Richard Clarke to find him anything Clarke could find linking Saddam to 9/11.
Great point on Saddam Hussein. (I refuse to adopt the cutesy-media-Bush41-and-43-ism of one-naming him "Saddam," like Madonna or Pele.) That was Bush's man, not America's. Last night was America's, I think.
I don't mean to chide you, friend, I'm just saying how I feel because I do so much political horserace stuff myself. It will have political impacts, and as I've said, I hope they're to help speed the end of our heavy commitment over there, our entanglement in things and places we can't make right.
Your experience of 9/11 is your own. Traumas are like that, everyone has their experience of it, so it's not for me to comment on yours other than reading you sharing it.
But on the more analytic and less personally emotional part of your comment, I don't feel that bin Laden was W's man. He was everyone's. John Kerry wanted him dead. I did too. Barack Obama did too. And was in a position to order it. Is there something vengeful in that? Sure. He killed thousands and traumatized so many more. And that's part of the positive that some people feel with this. We had a need that this villain be caught. Not a political need (though it has impacts there), but a personal need rooted in our feelings of that day.
I didn't read you as chiding me. Nor was I offended by those who did. (Nor am I even completely sure that they were chiding me). I was mostly questioning the sense that the moment calls for a temporary refrain from the usual political games, as if the deceased were a great man or a dear friend. I understand, of course, that the restraint is an offer of respect for the victims, not for Bin Laden; I just don't understand why the occasion of Bin Laden's death demands such an offer.
But it does seem to me that a lot of the Republicans who have been hardest on Obama for being "soft on terrorism" now have to shut the Hell up. And, sorry, I couldn't imagine a President Palin ever making a decision like this in a cool or credible manner.
I'm glad he's dead. My daughter works across the plaza from the WTC,sometimes used that subway stop so we had some concern that morning. My grandson's nursery school was next door to fire house which the children visited and were welcomed of course. It lost several people that day.
I'm glad a black was president when Osama was killed. And would be if it had been a black republican.I'm glad he called Bush last night.to tell him. I believe that if their roles were reversed Bush would have called him. There are of course mean spirited politicians. They aren't.
That's not retroactive approval of Bush's policies with all of which I disagreed
I'm also glad that this black was president. He's a good human being and has been a good president . I very much hope he'll have the chance to continue being that for another six years.
I for one am glad he is dead. Yes I am, and in that the President preempted Trumps awful show made it that much better.
Once again Articleman hit it out of the park. (Steroids, perhaps?)
I find these cheers and chants a bit unsettling. Jingoism and chest thumping does not come naturally to me. I would have been grateful for V-E day and kissed a nurse on V-J day, if she would let me, but I was not born then, so could not.
This event is important in asserting that an attack on our country will not go unpunished amd perhaps that is itself something that tells us how little has changed in the centuries since we first started fighting one another.
I will not chant USA, USA and not cheer a death, per se, but, as with so many people, the evidence that my country will protect me and the rest of us, is very important.
Yes, I may be a hypocrite, but that this was accomplished while the presidency is occupied by a person with a sense of what military force can do, as well as the limits of force, is also reassuring to me. The sense that this was carried out in a more surgical manner than simply dropping bombs on a place we think might hold the target, also resonates for me.
Our current president said this minutes after being sworn into office:
Outlast is the word. Instant gratification—what many Americans think to be important—-is not.
Our mission as a nation is clear, and it is not one of conquest, as another president said in a different time, but one not all that long ago:
It can be a great day in our history without cheering specifically about one person’s death.
This isn't WWII, and I share your unease about some of the extreme bar-style street-cheering, but for me, it's not quite jingoism for people to get ramped up about this particular event. This is the real thing, it's not a caricature of catharsis or a national victory. It actually really is one. It doesn't make right other things that are wrong. But this thing itself is right.
I would have been glad for this to be accomplished on anyone's watch. I am glad for the President I worked for that it was on his, and I hope this burnishes his bona fides on war issues to where he can do more of what I want, which is out of Afghanistan, where I feel based on observation and Woodward's reportage that Obama felt and acted more constrained than I would have liked.
I heard hints of that possibility last night in his use of the narrowing phrase "war on AQ" but that too can be misused to make permanent a type of fight that can't be. Let's get Zawahiri and get our folks home.
I remain quite torn on Afgahnistan. I don't think there is a simple answer there, but I am concerned that our departure will bring on things that are not good for most of the world.
But I don't know.
I would assume Pakistan officials, and maybe Americans too, are happy bin Laden was not captured alive. Dead, he cannot spill the beans or sully the waters about our 'steadfast ally' Pakistan, by detailing any aid he received from Pakistani government/ISI/Army officials in residing 'in plain sight' 1/2 mile from a major Pakistani Army base, within a recently constructed (2005) barbed wire secured fortress with 12-18 foot walls.
I suspect US intelligence has a lot of the details of Pakistani connections to Bin Laden.
Details that neither government would like aired in court if he was put on trial, be it a military court or civilian. As it is, it is an big embarrassment to Pakistan, and well deserved as they have played both sides of the conflict. The BBC video at link reports that the Navy Seals flew in under Pakistani radar from Afghanistan, and then dropped onto the roof of the compound.Why under the Pakistani radar? So the Pakistan military couldn't inform bin Laden to scoot to safety, bin Laden did not have his own radar at his compound.
McCain/Bush of course had said they would never operate on Pakistani soil without Pakistani approval, and many said if Obama did it would start a war with Pakistan. Well, it hasn't.
I think the operation is a credit to Obama, an in your face operation that shows Pakistan that the Bush/McCain position of just giving money to the Pakistan military while the US ignores Pakistan support or complicity with terror organizations operating from Pakistani soil is over.
Also, if the operation had failed, and Navy Seals were killed or captured, perhaps seized by the Pakistanis, it would have been like Jimmy Carter's Iran hostage rescue debacle all over, bearing a huge political cost to Obama. Obama did not let the chance of failure deter him, and his administration and the US forces pulled this off without any mistakes, and all involved deserve huge credit.
“What will the ‘taking of Osama Bin Laden mean?” (Random thoughts)
A lot depends on which version of the facts we end up believing, I’d think, or as Flavius might say, which version Obama thinks will serve our interests best. Last night’s version seemed to serve most people well, especially the majority of us who believe that the War on Terror was a soccer match, and has winners and losers. “USA!” the crowds outside the White House chanted over and over as the President used to tag end of the Pledge of Allegiance to proclaim again American Exceptionalism, and not just because we are ‘rich and powerful’. Hell, most of those 20-year-olds were children on 9/11.
How great was it that Obama pre-empted ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ in order to address the nation? And then let the anchors and pundits ramp us the anticipation that gave some of the idiots a chance to again falsely tie the Iraq War to the murders of the Twin Towers. Oy; something like 45% of Americans still believe they were related, and that Saddam had WMD. Thanks, Brian Williams and others, for that idiocy.
The same anchors went with narratives that all the servicemen who have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan will now know what they were fighting for was worthy. Really?
Will we ever know how far the ISI was complicit in this, or if they and Zardari knew OBL was living comfortably in a compound next to a military instillation in that Atta-something town of half a million folks? Did Raymond Davis have anything to do with it? Did the President offer a nod to Blackwater in his speech? Some people thought so; if so, I missed it. Why was OBL’s body ‘buried at sea’? Why did Benazir Bhutto die soon after she said years ago that he was already dead? Was she lying, and why? Why did Condi entice her back to Pakistan? Will this silence critics upset with the targeting of Gadaffi, given this worked ‘so well’? We ‘took’ (assassinated and buried at sea) the Number One Evil Lord. Guess if I were cheering it, I’d thank Joe Biden whose plan this always has been (well, and a lot of other drone-killings, too, but…)
“We’re unified’ many of you say. Goddamit; this is one more time I’m standing outside the crowd. And unless we really and truly learn something about cause and effect and tell the truth about war, and ask truthfully what the fuck motivated the massive war efforts to eradicate an organization whose titular and ‘spiritual’ head was ten years later an old geezer on dialysis and not scurrying from cave to cave in the mountains, we’ll just find the next one: al Sadr? Al Sistani?
If we don’t in fact press some major foreign policy reset buttons, it will be a crying shame. But I am not hopeful, especially with Petraeus as DCI now. JSOC and apparently Xe just proved their worth in most people’s eyes I’d imagine. STFU you leftie nags; this shit works! Keeps us safe!
Seriously; will this help secure Pakistan’s nukes? What will be the takeaway for Zardari, ISI, and even Karzai next door? I don’t know; I can imagine several different scenarios.
But in the meantime, it sickens me to say that in far too many respects, Bin Laden won this decade. His stated aims were to get the West (US) out of the Muslim Holy Lands, and barring that, to create so much havoc that we would wage war for long enough to empty our treasury and kill enough brown people, occupy nations to such a degree that we’d be despised rather universally in the Muslim and Arab worlds. What will the blowback be? Spring offensive in Afghanistan and all...or will the Taliban have learned their lessons...?
Now on the other hand, if the President can listen to his Cairo speech and take heed of the messages he sent out over the air…I will feel almost grateful that this chapter might be at last put to rest. Can we learn that war and revenge and eye-for-an-eye are unhealthy and don't fit with the fact that we're 'the most religious nation on earth' or whatever? Pretty big disconnect there somehow...
In the meantime, including last night, I'm embrarrassed for us, and I keep hearing this song in my head; the 'words pouring out like endless rain into a paper cup', and 'Nothing's gonna change my world' themes...
Embarrassed for us last night? What reaction would have suited you? The entire country just heard that the man who brought us 9/11, the man who hounded and taunted us for 10 years (now that was embarrassing), has been killed. He didn't die peacefully from natural causes, but was killed by U.S led forces. We did it! We finally did it! Okay. . .no big deal. Let's not get all excited here, and besides that, we're not worthy.
Better?
Star, I'm sorry but I have to agree with Ramona on this one. I wasn't jumping up and down last night, but those who were jumping didn't embarrass me in the least.
Interesting take. Especially this bit:
Bin Laden won this decade. His stated aims were to get the West (US) out of the Muslim Holy Lands, and barring that, to create so much havoc that we would wage war for long enough to empty our treasury and kill enough brown people, occupy nations to such a degree that we’d be despised rather universally in the Muslim and Arab worlds.
I wonder how Bin Laden saw the Arab Spring. After spending twenty years exhorting the arab youth to rise up and depose the "apostate hypocrite tyrants", he must have had mixed feelings when seeing the result, something like "dammit, this is not what it was supposed to look like!" Was he really "winning"? The Arab street comprehensively rejected International Jihad, the US was firmly ensconced in the region, the Caliphate had become the MC Hammer of political aspirations (where one wonders aghast - what were we thinking?), regional feelings towards the US amount to little more than indifference. If he was "winning" it was something like how Charlie Sheen is "winning".
That said, much like he must have had mixed feelings, getting instantly turned into a meaningless anachronism, I think the US foreign policy elite is going to have mixed feelings about his death. All of a sudden, the context for the Af-pak war is going to be radically changed. All we have now is the US fighting an independence movement in a stone age country on the other side of the world, an independence movement fighting horribly corrupt regimes in Kabul and Islamabad.
You do realize everyone stopped reading at the point you outed yourself as an MC Hammer fan?
And Stardust is likely now "Catatonic in Colorado," after imagining... Obey.... in... Hammerpants.
We may need to send Navy Seals to her house to revive her.
Sick bastard.
You laugh now. But hammerpants are coming back! Soon!
I noticed someone buying them up on eBay - should have figured you were trying to corner the market.
So YOU'RE that Hammer4evah character I had to keep outbidding...!
Only after I got side deals with the vendors. Either way I'm ahead - I like those stakes.
(Planning on a retro revival with "It's Clobbering Time" - just have to mask over 1 word)
eBayFraud4Evah!!! If I were any good at math, I could have been an inside trader
Oopsie; I forgot we're not to say the F-word. Changed: Ack! Bugger off, you all.
Though I got called a Penis (schmuck) on Bslv's blog, crickets. Feh!
Quinn, Obey; sorry for being so gnarly. (My mother made me say it.) Sorry I didn't laugh, Q; it was pretty funny, though I've already sseen Cho in those harem pants; kinda used to it. Sorry Des; Lady didn't mention you, so I'm still considering...
Our fault. We all know perfectly well the high esteem in which you hold the music of Mr Hammer.
We shouldn't have mocked.
Chastened, we turn to go.
*snicker*
Hammerpants!!!!!
Cancel the Seals, by the by.
Thing is, there are these five ginormous turkey vultures sittin' on fenceposts just outside the bedroom door to the invisible deck. I can tell there here for me, see; they stretch their scrawny necks at me and narrow their eyes...and I almost have this yen to yell, "I'M COMIIIIIIINNNNG!"
Thing was, I really needed to go back to their claimed territory to score some juniper branches for my fake bird-photo trees. Got a bit edgy about it, and finally after bein' so pissy, I decided to Tempt Fate. Walkin' out there, I was sorta sanguine about the results, see, but once I got there, they'd flown north. Mebbe the Hogworts dude did it.
"We love our hammerpants; oh, yes we do...we love our hammerpants, and we'll be truuuueee. When they're not near us, WE'RE BLUE! Oh, hammerpants we love you (with Obey in 'emmmmmmm."
He was winning, IMO, in that we are still occupying those nations a decade later with no hope of military solutions, , or arguably by now, political ones unless in Afghanistan, Karzai makes some deals with the Taliban. We have ever-increasing military and security budgets, and trillions spent on the wars, and have countless deaths both here and aborad, millions in diaspora from Iraq... Iraq is a bloody mess, and Malaki is repressive as hell; lotsa protestors there being killed, all with a hammer put down of journalists so the world is largely ignorant, and the troops and contract forces we have there allowing it. Civil war is okay now, I guess, and imprisonment/torture of dissidents.
No, Arab Spring didn't factor in to my thoughts of the decade, but they are really recent. The smart money was on jihadi movements being less attractive, so what bin Laden may have thought would have depended on whether it were good outcomes or just his personal power and influence as more meaningful. Reading some of those links Des put up from 2002 about bin Laden in Sudan gave me pause: he was really involved in some good projects there; hard to reconcile with the monster he became.
But I don't think the US is seen with such indifference as you do; contempt may be closer. And many are choosing to do end runs around the US, which I think is great, as is the largely non-violent pushback against dictators the US has counted as allies for far too long.
I loved "dammit, this is not what it was supposed to look like!" ;o) Might be just right.
Well, winning for Bin Laden would in order of priority involve
- Ending the US occupation of Saudi Arabia
- expulsion of secular dictators in the region
- rise of fundamentalist Islamic regimes in the region
- reestablishing the Caliphate.
So that's one for four. And that one is still pretty tenuous. But there has been a regional shift in focus - the intense sense of grievance towards the US has given way to more constructive forms of direct resistance of the people to their regimes. You call that contempt, I call that indifference. A difference with no content, as it were...
And, imho, it's not that "hard to reconcile" a penchant for terrorist tactics and a penchant for playing with construction equipment. Even terrorists need hobbies.
Fine, Obey. "Obey deconstructs stardust". I'm tired.
Go run your forklift, you'll feel better. Or take a backhoe to the back lot.
Naw. Just disagreeing. But, now, are you getting enough sleep there...?
;0)
No. And I should have said I enjoyed you deconstructing another's blog/comments. Stardust can't take it today. The end.
I didn't know that people really believed the 'establishing a Caliphate' idea (past the Palin/Bachman folks) but Spengler at Asia Times is thinking that OBL is a casualty of the Arab Spring. He thinks Saudi Arabia encouraged Pakistan to give him up since they are wanting to be closer with them in yet another proxy war over Yemen (and likely Bahrain) between Riyadh and Tehran.
He thinks Saudi Arabia saw OBL as a loose cannon ginning up the destabilization, and heped pull the plug through the ISI.
'Difference with no content' is yet to be proven in Egypt, especially, IMO. And with regards to our relationship with Israel.
It means that Al Qaeda gets a new leader. Which I suspect had a lot more to do with the success of the mission than anyone can suppose.
Likely if OBL was that hard to track and confirm, he hasn't been much of an A-Q leader for quite some time.
The chatter surrounding the event was, not surprisingly, almost impossible to take. But s for the thing itself - to have killed Osama, straight up, end of a gun, with him having a chance to see, face to face, who his death came from? If that's truly the way it went down, then damn right. That's the way to do it, and when you get the chance, kill that bastard dead.
I feel a hell of a lot of sympathy for people caught up in war, or the low-level guys coldly executed or taken as part of the cost. But the mental cases that set themselves up as grand warriors? Who encourage thousands of the less well off and half-damaged and angry young men to go and sacrifice their lives? And to do so against the civilians of other nations? I have no sympathy. Kill that man, dump him at sea, and make no bones about it.
I wish he'd had a better life, Osama, and been a happier man and not so messed up, and made better choices. Maybe next life. But in this one, he was rabid.
When it comes to the celebration at the White House, my thoughts - genuinely - ran about like this. "Whoa. These people don't know how to do this anymore." People mock sometimes, when that Scottish blood thing comes up, and they show their sense of honour and that angry, potentially-violent edge. You know, honour and violence and blood and all that "malarkey." But I watched last night, and that was at the heart of what I saw. And that whole American thing people described up above, that no one gets to hurt you with impunity? That's old country, old-style, that is. And I don't mind. Most of the world's peoples have it.
The way it was celebrated though, culturally, struck me as a bit off. Too much like the mocking of the dead enemy you'll sometimes see on tv in other countries. You know, like effigies and such. I GET it. But I wish someone had been there to take the whole event in a bit deeper direction. There needs to be some sort of depth to the thing, some sense that there is no joy in the cycle of death, but there's satisfaction in ending the wrong-doer, and turning the page. As it was, it just looked like college kids at a Festival, so hey - maybe no big deal. They're gonna be like that for any event.
As for the talking heads... like Stardust, I just wish the system would somehow find itself capable of moving more to look at these things at their roots. How did someone like Osama come about? How did people get radicalized in Afghanistan? How did we, factually and practically, aid this guy in his rise? I just really really wish we had some more of that. Same as when our counter-jihad was launched, it just felt like dumb-ass violent revenge and loot scenarios were too much in play with Bush and co. You'd just like to feel that your modern leaders at least had the gravitas of the better clan Chiefs or Native Chiefs - some sense of history, the value of life, the way things go wrong, all of that.
As it is, Obama gets his chance now. He came in with all sort of things stacked against him. He was black, he was inexperienced, the economy had tanked, there were two wars and neither going all that great. But today? He's got some momentum. He just won something that many many people felt was the purpose of the whole Military Road Show. He's got experience. He's made his speeches, and by accident or design, that whole region is pushing back against tyranny.
I can only pray that this time, THIS TIME, he shows - the way Bush never could - that such moments can be seized, that opportunities like this can be turned to good. Please God, let this last, awful, fear-soaked, dark decade be ended.
Amen to that.
This is our time. Close Gitmo. Out of Afghanistan. We can do this. Don't stop pushing for it.
"We can do this."
Cute. That's the NDP slogan. ;-)
I saw it on the posters. Reminded me of "Yes we can." There was also a one-worder, like "hope," but I forgot what it was. Good luck!
There needs to be some sort of depth to the thing, some sense that there is no joy in the cycle of death, but there's satisfaction in ending the wrong-doer, and turning the page.
Sounds about right to me. It also depends on which page one considers turned.
Yes, if he could get us on the right side of the Mideast street movements, would be grand.
Are we certain that the reformers are actually democrats?
We're certain they're racist, sexist, and overall religiously intolerant, but being flawed human beings ourselves, we do the best with what we got.
;-)
Hey Q, someone at Huffpo reminded me of this:
Super Fly Catcher!
Super Fly Catcher!
......Cue Ron O'Neal and Curtis Mayfield
(reference for the aged)
I forgot Curtis did Superfly. damn
And O'Neal starred.
Here it is Aman. hah
Here is Elliot Abrams
LET THE DOMESTIC BATTLES BEGIN ANEW!
ahahahahah