Great news. Osama bin Laden is dead. He was killed in an attack today which was months in planning and struck him deep inside Pakistan. They have the body. They've verified the DNA. The bogeyman who financed the 9/11 attacks and inspired 10 years of war and nationbuilding under two administrations is gone and the mission declared in the beginning of the War on Terror has now truly been accomplished.
Was it worth the trillions of dollars spent and the bankrupting of our nation? Was it worth the loss of more than twice as many more American lives as were lost on 9/11 itself? Did it return to us some profit beyond a long drawn out revenge? Is the world safer now than it was 10 years ago? Is this the end of the threat of terrorism?
Obviously the answer to most of these questions is no. The cost was too high, the results are anticlimactic and terrorism remains a multi-headed monster which isn't going anywhere. Tonight President Obama said as much:
"Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must — and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad."
This raises the specter of the eternal state of war against phantom enemies of 1984. I realize that terrorism isn't going away and I know that there are fundamental problems in Islam and in the cultures it dominates which generate chaos and societal defects which aren't going to be cured in one night. But is it too much to hope that the death of bin Laden might ben an opportunity to pause and reconsider the disastrous character of the War on Terror?
In the heady aftermath of victory and delayed gratification finally satisfied, it may not be popular to say it, but let's keep in mind how little this really means and how much it cost. Killing bin Laden is about 98% symbolic and 2% meaningful. It doesn't justify more of the same. It's just a punctuation mark at the end of a legacy of failure. There should be no tolerance for those who want to use this marginal accomplishment to vindicate the torturous process which led up to it and to justify doing more of the same.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - El Bicho
Sounds very good, but don't think it will happen
2 - Paul
Do you realize how many people (soldiers) would be out of a job if we ended occupations in other countries? It's not like we would need to continue to have nearly as many enlisted men if we kept them all stationed here. Sure, the government would save a load of money - but thats a lot of lost jobs in the short term, particularly for otherwise generally unskilled laborers. Thoughts?
3 - Dave Nalle
Exactly, EB. It won't happen and therein lies the hypocrisy of the current administration.
Dave
4 - Greg Tutunjian
Well said. Could happen with Obama at the helm, but I worry about the leadership changes at DoD and CIA. Will see.
5 - Cindy
Paul,
Maybe open up some new job opportunities by putting them to work torturing prisoners at home?
(Don't come too close, I bite...grumble, grumble, hiss...)
6 - REMF(MCH)
Apparently those "fortified compounds" aren't as safe as some people think they are...
7 - Cindy
Good article, Dave, the gist of which, I agree with. It would be a good start.
8 - Jerald Cumbus
Writing about the foreign policy implications as we speak... look for it in a day or two on BC. I think the immediate effects are quite real and substantive. It gives a symbolic closure to what was for Al Quaeda (9/11) a largely symbolic event. We didn't kill Obama praying piously in some cave. We caught under the watchful eye of Pakistani intelligence enjoying the goodlife in his multi-million dollar compound. Maybe he should have hired a PR guy before he got himself killed? American foreign will begin to turn a page today and it is a very good thing.
9 - handyguy
The Dave Nalle who wrote this piece and the Dave Nalle of say, 5 years ago, seem to be two different people with two different voices.
His former rationalizations and defensiveness about Bush-era policies and his current call for a new isolationist posture couldn't be more diametrically opposed. Is either stance for real?
10 - handyguy
Obama is realpolitik personified. He deals with the world as it is, makes bargains with it designed to obtain the best possible results in a hostile environment. This is what has disenchanted the idealists of the activist left, who deride him as the Compromiser in Chief.
The irony is that any Republican or Democratic president would have handled the Bin Laden pursuit and the continuity with Bush-Cheney antiterror policies in a roughly similar manner.
So describing this administration as hypocritical in this area is meaningless. There is no other likely president who would have handled it differently. We are all hypocrites on this bus.
The main difference is that a GOP president would not likely have tried to close Guantanamo by fiat and tried to initiate civilian trials of terrorists on US soil -- both of which Obama initiatives were beaten back by Republicans [and some Democrats] in Congress.
Another irony is the near certainty that if Obama didn't have realpolitik to contend with, he would have withdrawn from Afghanistan and closed Guantanamo. His steadfast belief that he must deal with the world as it is, not as he wishes it were, is intellectually deft but has cost him politically, mostly on his left flank.
11 - El Bicho
"We didn't kill Obama praying piously in some cave."
As you work on your article, Jerald, make note of who actually got killed.
12 - Dave Nalle
His former rationalizations and defensiveness about Bush-era policies and his current call for a new isolationist posture couldn't be more diametrically opposed. Is either stance for real?
I'd like to know where I called for isolationism. Certainly not in this article. There's a big gulf between not wanting to engage in nation building and wanting to be isolationist.
Dave
13 - Heloise
I don't know about you but I feel safer and a sense of relief. It also vindicates my stand back when Bhutto was killed: Pakistan is not our friend but a painted whore.
You can't convince me that they did not know about Bhutto, this has come out, and that they did not somehow relish having the greatest terrorist alive living in a big backyard in their backyard.
Too bad he won't go to hell.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
No, you didn't call for isolationism. In one of your earlier articles, you called for militarily EXPANDING the "War on Terror" to other countries in the Middle East and even Africa. It's all there for everyone to see:
Bush ought to look for one or two other soft targets to move on to once the situation in Iraq resolves itself. He needs to steel himself to selling the American people on the idea of ongoing warfare in multiple locations with the objective of keeping the terrorists occupied and spreading order and democracy in troubled parts of the world. His next target should probably be Sudan, because it's a breeding ground for Islamic discontent, relatively easy to take on, and will win him some good credit internationally. He ought to move troops there as soon as a significant number can be taken out of Iraq. Operations in Sudan shouldn't take more than a few months, but the situation there will require long-term occupation which we'lll have to do even if the UN doesn't get off its ass and help. After Sudan Bush should look closely at Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia. If they don't start implementing democratic reforms in the next two years he should use military pressure to bring them to their senses.
That's a far cry from the "we should get out of the Middle East Right Now" that you and most of the other BC conservatives have been saying for some time now. But that's not the only interesting flip-flop I found in that same article:
The problem in the system is those who aren't poor enough for Medicaid and either choose not to or are unable to pay for their own insurance. The answer for them is a system halfway between Medicaid and private insurance - government mandated and underwritten gap insurance. Short term coverage provided to anyone who seeks medical care and does not already have coverage or qualify for Medicaid, which the recipient pays for at a discounted rate because it is partially underwritten by the government.
That statement stands in stark contrast to what you railed against in this article a little after four years later - that is, when the Democrats were trying to pass a health care reform bill that (as time went on) included that same government mandate that you once supported.
In other words, Dave, you've done what a lot of conservatives have been doing since Obama was elected: when he decides to do what you supported in the past, you shift radically away from said position and castigate him for trying to implement something akin to what you wanted in the first place. Yes, politicians of all stripes have been caught flip-flopping since, well, elections were first held in human history - perhaps among Neanderthals around a campfire. But I must admit I am strongly suspicious of those who flip-flop merely for political positioning in the apparent pursuit of power, and I much prefer the politicians who honestly try not to flip-flop, or who own up to their flip-flop and give a good, valid reason for it.
That's why I enjoy not being actually involved in politics - I have the luxury of remaining true to what I believe in.
15 - Dan(Miller)
As I observed in a comment here, President Obama and his whole crew must be tried instanter for war crimes.
Osama should have been gassed (harmlessly) on the basis of a properly supported and issued warrant, put into a deep sleep with the advance permission of Pakistan (judicially approved, of course, at all appellate levels) and transported to New York City for trial in a civilian court. There, he would have had all of the constitutional protections available to those other poor souls driven by abject poverty and by our wicked ways to inflict well deserved harm on the United States and her excessively rich parasites. That’s what we do for those poor Pirates of Somalia when we catch them. Osama is little different and President Obama is guilty of violating his human rights in the most egregious manner possible. Ditto those who suffered collateral damage.
What must Attorney General Holder think? Was he even consulted? Why has the Civil Rights Division not been heard from yet?
It’s just not fair! Where are the Libruls? The sound of silence can be deafening.
Dan(Miller)
16 - Glenn Contrarian
btw - it looks like "deathers" are cropping up, saying that Bin Laden either isn't dead (it was somebody else) or Bin Laden's been dead a long time and this was all a made-up conspiracy in order to make Obama look good.
Once these take hold, stand by for Tea Partiers and the like to be caught on camera espousing some variant of "deatherism"....
17 - El Bicho
The sound of silence is likely due to people being put to sleep by your weak attempts at humor
18 - Dan(Miller)
Re comment #17, Thank you for your persistent and helpful attention to my writings. I regret that I am not available to respond to your comment at this time with the substantive reply it so clearly warrants. Please rest assured that your comments continue to be welcome and that I shall, as always, give them such attention as I deem appropriate.
This is a recorded message. For an operator, please press *3 for French, *7 for Spanish and *6 for multilingual and continue to hold. Thank you and have a nice day.
Dan(Miller)
19 - handyguy
The wall-to-wall news coverage ["hear the inside story on how CNN broke this story" -- at exactly the same time everybody else was breaking it, identically] is not unexpected.
But the spontaneous demonstrating crowds in Washington and New York were disconcerting. Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour, but they all looked like college kids celebrating at a kegger or a homecoming bonfire. The football-style chants of "U-S-A" just weirded me out.
The immediate speculation about how this will affect the president's poll numbers and reelection prospects, while also inevitable, do seem pretty crass.
The world is better off without Bin Laden in it, even if it is probably true, as Dave says, that the significance is mostly symbolic. I would add, mostly symbolic and psychological. But these are not the same as trivial and unimportant.
Peter Bergen, pretty knowledgable in these areas, was more definitive: the "war on terror," he said, is over. The remaining terrorist 'leaders' are dwarfs compared to Bin Laden.
20 - Andy Marsh
Why would Americans chanting USA weird you out? Must be a liberal thing.
How do people singing the National Anthem make you feel?
21 - handyguy
Yes, Andy, shocking as it may be to you, there are people who see the world differently than you do. Some of them just might be right.
22 - Dave Nalle
So Glenn, I'm not allowed to change my opinions over the course of 7 years and with the acquisition of additional data? Sorry, not playing the game that way. And for the record, I changed my position on this well before Bush left office, so it has nothing to do with Obama. I refer you to my article from may of 2008: The Irrationality of Iraq. So this is not exactly a new position for me.
And I do stand by my original statement on Medicaid. Nothing's changed there. Obamacare does not include that kind of pragmatic approach to the problem and is the wrong way to address it. I've written at length here in favor of a simple, voucher-based healthcare system like those which are very successful in Australia and the Netherlands. I stand by that.
Dave
23 - El Bicho
Glenn, you seem surprised people wouldn't trust what the government tells them. Considering the stories first told about Pat Tillman proved to be knowingly false, it seems like a valid response.
Dan, it's hard not to pay attention to your writing with your tiresome--er, tireless self-promotion.
24 - Jordan Richardson
I think David Sirota sums up what I think about the "USA!" chanting. In part:
"This is bin Laden’s lamentable victory: He has changed America’s psyche from one that saw violence as a regrettable-if-sometimes-necessary act into one that finds orgasmic euphoria in news of bloodshed. In other words, he’s helped drag us down into his sick nihilism by making us like too many other bellicose societies in history -- the ones that aggressively cheer on killing, as long as it is the Bad Guy that is being killed."
25 - Glenn Contrarian
El B -
What's the difference about the Pat Tillman case? If you count all the way up to Bush, it's likely that perhaps a couple dozen knew about it, and almost all of them were on the same side politically. When it comes to the bin Laden assassination, however, this would require hundreds, many of whom are not on the same political side as President Obama.
No, there's no conspiracy here...save perhaps on the Right where pundits even now are trying to spin this in a way that gives more credit to Bush.