I think every American experienced some sort of joy when it was announced that Osama bin Laden was dead. For many of us, it was an overwhelming sense of relief that this particular chapter on the war on terror is over. Others got their schoddenfreud on and were rejoicing in his death itself. One radio commentator (sports) even imagined himself as Samuel L. Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction.
I've always had mixed emotions about rejoicing someone's death. You could debate his place on the top ten list of evil people from the last 100 years. I still have a hard time feeling jubiliant about someone else's demise. I'm not shedding any tears either. I fall under the first group. I am proud of our men and women in uniform and the Navy Seals in particular. I'm glad this chapter is over and I think it is perfectly reasonable for us as a nation to bask in the moment.
However, there are two things we must avoid in this time. First, we must ignore the impulse to play, "I told you so" game. Bin Laden was never in Iraq, never conspired with Iraq, and diverting resources to Iraq likely delayed this moment. Yet, the moment has come, so there is no need to drive that point home. On the other hand, we need to wait a long time before hanging the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
What we can do is use this sudden sense of unity to have a good discussion about the war on terror. I think every reasonable person agrees we should have a role in the war on terror, but what role should that be? Do we measure our involvement based on what they did to us? Do we measure it on what they did to their people? Do we base it on economic impact or impact on the stability of a region at large? These are all fair questions that need to be answered.
Obviously then you get into questions of whether to focus on nations that sponsor terror or the groups themselves. Do we strike before a group strikes or do we wait for them to make a move? May seem like a silly question, but I ask you the wisdom of arresting a teenager we just know is going to do something someday. We also must consider how these groups garnered so much support in the first place.
One of our big challenges as a nation is getting past the point of blame. Al Queda and other groups have been sponsored by the CIA. Why? Well, our intelligence organizations saw a bigger threat somewhere else at the time. So, they helped one terror cell defeat another terror cell. They did the same thing with Saddam Hussein. It was akin to releasing a gaggle of cats in your house to hunt down the mice. Then, the next day you bring in a pack of dogs to hunt down the cats. Where does it all end?
The temptation is to wonder whether a D or an R was responsible for this. They both were. Furthermore, most of the principles in those decisions are dead or long since retired. It would be like blaming Spec Richardson for the sad state of the Astros in 2011. So instead of blaming we learn. When Apollo I caught on fire on the pad and killed all three on board, they spent more time on fixing the problem then afixing blame. The rest is history.
There is no new world order unless we make it. Killing one terrorist no matter how influential and powerful doesn't change that. What killing him can do is give us enough collective good will to have a mature conversation about how we intend to move forward. On that fateful September day nearly ten years ago, this past week was the end goal. We now realize it can't be, but we also can't forget the original mandate.
Doug you posted quite a bit in dribs and drabs but let me respond by summarizing all of it to one of your comments: "My point is, isn't what the U.S. has done to all of the Countries [sic] is just as bad as what Bin Laden did to the U.S.?"
And my answer would be an unequivocal no. I can't believe that I would be defending W yet again, but as unjustified and based on lies as the second war in Iraq was, it is hysterical hyperbole and another false equivalence to place George W. Bush comparably to Osama bin Laden. For all his idiotic decisions, none of them were even close to evil as willfully hijacking unsuspecting civilian airplanes into civilian (and military) buildings. And bin Laden is not the head of any recognized government. He is a terrorist pure and simple. Bin Laden was planning attacks on civilian American railways when killed. “Taking down legitimate economic targets”? You ascribe way too much undeserving credit. Bin Laden wanted to sow seeds of terror on the American populace. Terror. Terrorist. See any correlation? Duh.
And as expected, it is not surprising that you would ironically pull another false equivalence with the justified (in my opinion) atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For one, Japan was a legitimately evil and imperialistic and fanatical country that sneak attacked the US unprovoked at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. Another day that will live in infamy. Sound familiar there doug? So military target or not, any unprovoked attack on the US, whether military or civilian warrants our outrage and response. Now let me provide some appropriately relevant analogies based on YOUR examples. As I noted, Japan attacked the US unprovoked in an undeclared war. We were neutral up until the time they massacred our people unprovoked. Sound familiar? Also note that the Imperial Japanese were quite the fanatics and regarded their human leader, Emperor Hirohito as a reverently as a god. Someone else more recently come to mind doug? In the battle at Iwo Jima, their civilians willingly jumped to their deaths from high cliffs with their children in tow rather than surrender to the “evil” US forces. Despite all attempts by the military with translators to stop them from killing themselves. And speaking of suicidal, guess who were the original suicide bombers? Why none other than the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Note any parallels THERE doug?
Now with all that in mind, and the horrific military and civilian casualties in the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa, imagine how many more US soldiers would be killed and maimed and civilians killed (or killed themselves) in a mainland invasion of Japan and subsequent city for city battle to the last man, woman, and child throughout Japan that would last for years on end? And as horrific as an atomic annihilation of a city was, in the bigger picture and in pure numbers, the Japanese surrender that the atomic bombings engendered SAVED countless hundreds of thousands more lives in Japanese military and civilians and more importantly the lives of OUR American soldiers in a war that we did not start nor did we want to join until forced to. Sound familiar there again doug? Oh and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial war centers so they were legitimate military targets in a declared war between two countries/governments. So back to my original point, when has the US targeted civilians ONLY as a declared and systematic tactic?
And I noticed you included Bosnia in your examples of “unjustified US attacks”. You do realize that was a UN sanctioned action right? You do realize that we went in (non-unilaterally at that) to prevent further systematic massacres of Muslim Albanian civilians by the Serbs right? If that action was unjustified, then I presume you felt it was ok that Clinton did nothing when 800,000 Tutsis were massacred by the Hutus in Rwanda? Bill Clinton has stated time and again that his one main regret of his Presidency was he did not step in to stop that massacre. And in the same vein, I presume you approved of the world doing nothing while 6 millions Jews were systematically massacred by Hitler and nearly wiped off the European continent?
I think what we need to do here is separate the who from the what and how. Doug is right in the sense that everyone has a why and that why is perfectly justified based on your point of view. The bugaboo comes in the other questions.
And finally finally finally for today, cause I got stuff to do..
Do you think the U.S. solgiers were terrorists in the revolutionary war? After all, the good British fought in the open, in columns,following the *rules* of war, whereas the U.S. revolutionaries knew they didn't stand a chance that way, so they darted about in the woods, and took shots at the British behind trees e.t.c..
Were our founding fathers terrorists Bubba? You can sure bet the British said that.
My last comment on this for today.
Bubba what do you think? Do you think that the people that work (willingly because there is no draft) for military institutions in the United States are fare game? After all, when was the last time the United States went to war for defensive purposes? World war two perhaps? Let's see..since then we have attacked Countries that have done nothing to us in South Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. (No Afghanistan did not attack us). A group BASED there did). And now that that group is no longer there, the war continues....hmmmm.
My point is, isn't what the U.S. has done to all of the Countries is just as bad as what Bin Laden did to the U.S.?
I don't think the 100,000 dead in Iraq are going to agree with you that the 3000 killed in the U.S. is far far worse, you know..just a level apart, because those 3000 worked at the economic hub of the United States.
So...Bubba if what I am suggesting is true, really wouldn't that make those that work for the U.S. Military a justifiable target in YOU"RE view? After all..you were against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. You must have known they did nothing to us. What do you think Bubba? You seem to get all worked up about Osama Bin Laden. Do you feel as equally bad (yeah, I mean equally) as GWB and Obama?
Are they as evil and as rotten as Bin Laden?
Bubba, you must feel completely, and I mean completely different about the people that were killed at the Pentagon on that day than the ones that were killed at the World Trade center. That is because one was purely a military target right? So the people that went to work there, the ones that had families, went to church, took their kids to baseball games, e.t.c. well...those kind of fatalities in war don't count much compared to the ones that happen in economic institutions.
What do you think?
One more thing Bubba,
Iraq did NOTHING to the U.S. and we responded by killing well over 100,000 of their people.
Wheras the United States and other Western powers have raped the Middle East and they've responded by only killed several thousand of us.
Get it? Kind of reminds me of my analogy of Obama and Bush. Bush LET 911 happen on his watch and couldn't get BIN LADEN IN 7 and 1/2 years, wheras Obama HAS NOT let a terrorist attack happen AND got BIN LADEN.
See a difference between the people of the Middle East, and us Bubba?
Maybe put you're ethnocentric rose colored glasses down....
Bubba, please..do not put words in my mouth. Please show me in the quote below where I provide justification for the attack on the World Trade Center?
Remember..the key word here is "justification". Did I say anywhere I was in favor of this act? You imply heavily that I feel this attack was justified. Words are important Bubba, and I'm going to hold you to them.
"I was wrong on the royalty, part, but the rest I stand by. You made a few comments that did not reflect what I said. I said Bin Laden was interested in overthrowing Saudi Arabia and other Countries, not just Saudi Arabia, so that is how flying planes into the World Trade Towers qualified as not trying to overthrow just the Saudi regime"
See Bubba? All I was saying was that by attacking the U.S. Bin Laden was not trying to overthrow the SAUDI regime, as you had said I said earlier. Does that REALLY sound like I'm saying the act was...justified? Now you're wrong on both of these points.
Bubba,
You can call that "crabbing' if you want. But that's you're choice. I again..did not call Osama a good person in that quote did I? I'm just trying to get you and others to open up you're mind a little bit, and perhaps see another side.
Here you want to know what I really think, cause I've said it many times now..I don't know if he was a good person or not, okay?
And how do you know by targeting the World Trade Center he was intentionally going after people, instead of trying to destroy the single biggest economic symbol in the United States? (Many Wall Street offices were located in those towers) You're not trying to say that the United States is wholly different in this are you????? Do you think when we go to war, we limit ourselves completely to those employed by the military? Why don't you tell that to the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Remember the opening night of "Shock and Awe" at the beginning of the Iraq war, when we bombed Bagdad. Do you think all those bombs were just directed at the military?
Bubba, I'm glad you were against the Iraq war, but you seem to be a victim of propaganda, and double standards.
Are you aware Bubba that almost all of the anger in the Middle East, South America, e.t.c. directed at America is NOT from a religious standpoint? It's economic. It's propaganda and lies that it's the religion that's motivating most of these people to do the things they do. We are told that though over and over, to make people like you Bubba, think that they are crazy terrorists, and we as a nation couldn't possibly have done anything to make people all around the world hate us. Well...we have....we've stolen their wealth, and left them to eat off of the streets.
Do you think the people fighting against us go around all day calling themselves...terrorists Bubba? Duh? That's a convient term WE call them. They fight asymetric warfare, because they HAVE to. The national armies have all been bought and paid for by their client governments supported by Western Corporations.
Maybe put that American flag down Bubba, and think....
,
Okay Doug now you are crabbing. This is your comment verbatim:
"You can usually tell a very good person, if they choose to give up wealth and live a life of sacrifice putting themselves in great personal danger, as Bin Laden surely did. The people of the middle east a few years ago ranked him as their most admired person, and it was very common to find his picture on the wall of millions of people."
Sure as hell sounds like praise for a terrorist to me. Overthrow a government? Flying hijacked civilian airplanes into a civilian building is legitimate "warfare" to "overthrow a country"? Are you for real? Bin Laden did it to strike terror in Americans and America. Hence the apropos label "terrorist". Duh.
And I figured you would pull the convenient but false equivalent of civilian casualties in a war. What war did NOT have civilian casualties? I did not support the Iraq War or their false rationale but that being said, aside from a few rogue soldiers, can you provide any proof that the US systematically and intentionally TARGETED civilians and civilians only as a stated policy in the war?
And I can't believe you just provided justification for bin Laden crashing HIJACKED CIVILIAN airplanes as legitimate tactics and approved "economic targets" for a terrorist. How is targeting and murdering civilians on the way to vacation or working to help transport people to their vacations or a stockbroker or a dishwasher at work or a fireman trying to rescue civilians in the World Trade Center "legitimate economic targets" and NOT a terrorist act? Keep it up. All you are doing is digging that hole for yourself deeper.
Okay Bubbabobcat,
I was wrong on the royalty, part, but the rest I stand by. You made a few comments that did not reflect what I said. I said Bin Laden was interested in overthrowing Saudi Arabia and other Countries, not just Saudi Arabia, so that is how flying planes into the World Trade Towers qualified as not trying to overthrow just the Saudi regime.
I also didn't SAY he was a good person, but I did say that usually when someone chooses to give up great personal wealth for a greater cause, that is a sign that they are a good person. There's a difference. I believe most if not all of Bin Laden's attacks have been on military and economic targets. That's standard fare for war....
Bubba, so Bin Laden killed 3000 Americans. Are you angry with the U.S. government killing 100,000 civilians in Iraq? That's a ratio of 30 to 1.
How would you feel if you're family was one of the ones killed in Iraq by U.S. soldgers?
No, but killing nearly 3,000 unarmed civilians in one day certainly puts him at the top.
Are you serious? Are you actually calling bin Laden "a very good person" just because he forfeited his family's wealth for a life of terror and murder?
And no he was not "Saudi royalty". His father was a businessman who became wealthy from exclusive construction contracts with the Saudi government.
And how does flying planes into buildings classify as overthrowing the Saudi government?
I'm sure Hitler was the "most admired person" in Nazi Germany and had his picture plastered everywhere at the time.
Would you feel the same Doug if your wife or a family member or a close friend was horrifically killed on 9-11 or any of his other terrorist attacks? Would you feel the same if your wife had to make a decision to either burn to death or jump to her death from a 110 story building?
You are entitled to your opinion but mine is you make no sense whatsoever.
To be honest, I don't know a lot about the personal history of Bin Laden, but I'll say I wouldn't put him in the top ten of evil doers from what I know. It appears that he passed up on the cushy life of Saudi royalty, to use his inheritance to attempt to overthrow the Saudi regime, which is a horrific institution. All of the wealth in that Country is concentrated at the top. I believe that was Bin Laden's motivation on a lot of other Countries as well. (to throw off the yoke of imperialism)
You can usually tell a very good person, if they choose to give up wealth and live a life of sacrifice putting themselves in great personal danger, as Bin Laden surely did. The people of the middle east a few years ago ranked him as their most admired person, and it was very common to find his picture on the wall of millions of people.
I don't think all of this qualifies him as being one of the worst persons in the world.
They've been talking some serious praise for the SEALs. One of my buddies brother-in-law was a SEAL. State champion wrestler, scholar, and straight as the proverbial arrow.
here's an interesting read from an interesting guy:
Critical Mass...Whitley Strieber. by coincidence I'm reading it right now and it seems eerily real...
I'm not sure those idiots know that Richard Branson owns the virgin group already...
I suppose the $64,000 question is just how motivated will the Al Qaeda rank and file be now that they have lost their leader. As Jay Leno put it last night, hey, everybody moved up one rank. But one has to ask the question how many are willing to die for their cause with that "dubious" promise of the virgins and all that? Perhaps their own facebook page and a subscription to Netflix will attract more of them. "Jihadh-ing" MAY be losing it's glamour. Let's hope.
No the CIA never sponsored Al Qaeda. However, the CIA did train and fund Bin Laden when he was a part of the muhajhideen, before and during the Russian Afghan War...
This has been common knowledge for decades. Just because the truth has been distorted over the years doesn't make it any less true.
The conspiracy part comes from the name Al Qaeda, which translates into - The Base
Which some say was a database the CIA created to track down extreme religious fanatics to be recruited into the muhajhideen.
"The Afghans were supported by a number of other countries, with the US and Saudi Arabia offering the greatest financial support.
The United States began training insurgents in, and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan in 1978. Then, in early 1979, U.S. foreign service officers began meeting insurgent leaders to determine their needs. One month after the Soviet invasion, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski actually flew to Pakistan where on the Afghan border near the Khyber pass, he motivated the local muhajhideen: “We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours, you’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again. Because your cause is right and God is on your side.” According to Brzezinski, CIA financial aid to the insurgents within Afghanistan was approved in July 1979, six months before the Soviet invasion, though after the Soviets were already covertly engaged there. Arms were sent after the formal invasion."
"US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army. Although the CIA in general and Charlie Wilson, a Texas Congressman, have received most of the attention, the key architect of this strategy was Michael G. Vickers, a young Paramilitary Officer. Michael Pillsbury, a senior Pentagon official overcame bureaucratic resistance in 1985-1986 and persuaded President Reagan to provide hundreds of Stinger missiles."
"In March 1985, the US government adopted National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 166, which set a goal of military victory for the mujahideen. After 1985 the CIA and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) placed greater pressure on the mujahideen to attack government strongholds. Under direct instructions from Director of Central Intelligence William Casey, the CIA initiated programs for training Afghans in techniques such as car bombs and assassinations and in engaging in cross-border raids into the USSR."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
Would like to point out the "car bomb" statement. ;) There is plenty of fact out there about this whole thing that is just as inflammatory as the conspiracy stuff.
And before anyone goes on about Wikipedia being my source, please note the 133 references on the page. You come up with something that has 134 references disagreeing with it, I will be happy to read it.
I posted this thought on Chris' (GOPLifer) blog on the chron but it got deleted by a wingnut. Yes I mean you lobotomy.
And I think history has taught us that maybe there is hope that there is a natural self correction in this world that I believe we as a country have done no small part to nudge there a little more quickly by how we live, conduct, and represent ourselves and by direct action when needed.
I am absolutely THRILLED bin Laden is dead and gone physically and symbolically. And what makes it even more satisfying is that the Muslim world has already decided on their homegrown own to point themselves one by one toward democracy as the better way, further marginalizing bin Laden, al Qaeda and their "philosophy" of hate and tactics of terror. And bin Laden knew he had "jumped the shark" before his deserving violent end.
Bin Laden was nothing more than a thug and a bully and we have shown the world for what he WAS (i.e. as in past tense, buh bye) and just as satisfying is that he had already been marginalized as an influence and power broker in the Middle East by his own people before his final denouement as he looked at a REAL American who symbolizes all that is good in this country in the eye before the SEAL put one right between his.
Okay, technically it was above one of bin Laden's eye. Call it poetic license.
I told ya' so... :O)
Cynical? That's not like you. :-)
Fact is, it WAS a "beautiful day in the neighborhood" until that SOB, MF, cut me off at the Jack-in-the Box.
On second thought, maybe you're right.
As long as the Replicators don't find the body, we'll be ok...
The CIA never directly sponsored al-Qaeda or bin Laden. That is a myth. His organization grew out of the separate MAK, which did its own fundraising for foreign mujaheddin.
I hate to peepee on anybody's parade but 'togetherness'. It's a circle jerk. The liberals are happy for the sense of closure and justice for those in New York. The Repubtilians are rejoicing that they killed that g*dd*mn camel jock. There ain't no 'togetherness'.
Nice piece. Indeed there are paradoxes involved in this event. Yes, we got bin Laden. Justice is served. But, justice is served late. We've been looking for this guy for 12 years. Through three presidents. And, it apears, we were looking in the wrong place. So much has transpired since 9/11 and so much of it due to this man.
You pose a good question. What now? Do we continue taking off our shoes at airports and searching nuns and 8 year olds for explosives? Do we continue to search out, capture, and detain anybody we think MIGHT be dangerouse to us. And how about monitoring email, tweets, cell phone conversations both domestic and international?
Do we still need "The Patriot Act"?
I hope you all watched Keith Olderman's video. Should inspire some interesting conversation, here.