Today one of the top terrorists of the al Qaeda network, American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Yemen. It's one of several successful take-downs of top level al Qaeda terrorists that have come in the wake of the May raid on Usama bin Laden's compound by Navy SEALs, where the man mainly responsible for the attacks of September 11th was finally killed.
It got me thinking about how, despite a reduced presence in the Middle East, we've managed to be doing pretty well when it came to fighting terrorists compared to how we were doing for nearly a decade. It soon became apparent that the difference could be compared to two distinct stereotypes of the silver screen: cowboys and gangsters.
Cowboys want a fight out in the open. When a cowboy was President of the United States, that's what we got: two foreign wars fought with full military mobilization. We wanted our targets alive, to follow up with gut-wrenching instances of interrogation to lead us to more. If not that, we surrendered them to tribal codes of law televised for the whole world to see. It was how we decided to fight against the threat of terrorism for eight years. In the end, however, it proved ineffective against the enemy we were fighting against; by the end of George W. Bush's second term the majority of top-level al Qaeda operatives and leaders remained at-large.
Gangsters choose to fight in the dark. Vicious gunfights in the middle of the street don't do much but alienate you from the neighborhood. Casting aside the criminal activities associated with true gangsters (just like we cast aside the criminal activities of true cowboys when comparing former Presidents to them) that's what we have in our current President Barack Obama. He comes from the land of backdoor politics, which is itself just a spin-off of the mafia mentality that's dictated Illinois's power structure for almost a century. This style has converted poorly when it comes to national domestic issues, but it reveals itself glaringly when it comes to the fight against terrorism.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
You're on a battlefield. In one of the trenches on the other side is an American citizen. You can see him in your binoculars shooting at your fellow American troops. You know it's your duty to shoot at the enemy soldiers with him, but are you going to refuse to shoot him, too? You can plainly see that he's helping to kill your fellow troops, and you know that if you don't kill him, he's going to kill even more if you insist on capturing him instead. How many of your fellow troops are you going to sacrifice in capturing him, if you tell yourself you can capture him, but not kill him even as he's trying to kill you?
Just something to think about....
2 - Igor
The conclusion one must draw is that Obama has been much more successful waging war than Bush.
It looks like Obama may quickly finish off what looked hopeless with Bush.
Maybe this will end the myth of republican superiority in matters of national defense.
3 - Yomi Digital
President Obama is the best thing that ever happened to America, unfortunately some self centered politicians refuse to give him due credit for fear he is going to win 2012 election. We should all put America first before our personal ambitions.
4 - Cindy
Not exactly the American way as far as the Constitution is concerned.
But putting a hit out on a American citizen without due process, that's not a problem?
5 - Cindy
The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
Read comment #1 and tell me what you would do in that particular situation, please.
7 - roger nowosielski
@4
Right on. It's a topic that barely gets any traction in our media, except the select few.
8 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn #1
Has war been declared on Yemen? Why are we there? Yes, if I were Yemeni I would shoot at Americans invading my country just like as an American I would shoot at any invader threatening the U.S. Your scenario is ridiculous because it only takes into account one side.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
It takes into account the side that the president is oath-bound to protect.
Kenn, how much did 9/11 cost us? In initial loss of commerce alone, the 9/11 attacks were estimated to have cost America $100B...and that's not counting our war in Afghanistan and how Bush falsely used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Awlaki had already been involved in three terrorist actions that occurred inside the United States...and tell me, Kenn - which is more important? Assassinating someone who was involved in training three of the 9/11 attackers and would eagerly use a WMD on US soil if he could get one? Or sticking with the ideal that the American government can't use deadly force against an American citizen to prevent more such attacks?
And FYI, the Yemeni government had already tried Awlaki in absentia for plotting attacks against foreigners and for being a member of al-Qaeda, and ordered him to be captured dead or alive. So that's why you haven't heard the Yemeni government griping a whole lot.
It's really funny how conservatives are suddenly getting all idealistic about the sanctity of American legal ideals now that we've got a Democratic president. Where were all of y'all when Cheney exposed a CIA agent in time of war? Where were all of y'all when Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses?
Hm?
10 - Kenn Jacobine
The president is oath bound to protect and defend the Constitution like the oath he took says.
Where is the proof al-Awlaki was guily of anything? Are we in the business of enforcing the judicial proceedings in other countries now?
You still don't understand that I am not a conservative and did indeed and still do criticise Bush/Cheney for their war crimes. However, even they did not mark American citizens for assassination.
11 - El Bicho
"However, even they did not mark American citizens for assassination."
Riiiight.
12 - Christopher Rose
Here is an interesting article from Reuters which appears to confirm that the USA can now kill its citizens without due legal process. This in addition to its use of the death penalty. Such fun!
13 - pablo
I never cease to be amazed at Glenn's utter ignorance concerning law, the rule of law, and of the separation of powers.
Given that Glenn is a reformed racist according to his own admission, I do try to give him a wide latitude concerning his other prejudicial biases. However when the so called liberal reformed Reagan republican defends the President's claim and use of lethal force against a fellow citizen I simply cannot keep my mouth shut.
It seems as if the thrust of Au Contrarian's argument is that the end justifies the means. This lame argument of course could be used to rationalize and justify ANY unlawful activity by the executive branch including torture.
I would also remind Glenn that the crime of treason is laid out in great detail in the Constitution itself, unlike any other federal crime.
The potential political ramifications of the executive branch of our government to be able to designate by fiat an american citizen as an enemy to be killed on sight are enormous and frightening for a multitude of reasons that are obvious to anyone except a person that has shown himself to be a bigot in the past. I say this because bigotry is sewn of ignorance and tunnel vision which Glenn still has in abundance.
14 - zingzing
kenn. really. really? come on. if this is the first time an administration has let it be known that they assassinated an american... god damn, man, you know it's been done before. i suppose a little transparency is actually a plus, right? what the fuck, kenn? either you're an idiot or you're blind. which one is it? you can't be anti-gov't and that trusting of gov't at the same time. you just can't. why do you lie, kenn? why!?
15 - Kenn Jacobine
Zing,
Why all the anger? Of course I don't trust the government and all administrations back to Grover Cleveland's. Obama said he could assassinate Americans and then he did. Bush never said he could and to the best of my knowledge he didn't. Do I believe he was evil enough to kill Americans? Yes. But Obama was the idiot who announced it to the world and then announced he did it. He either thinks we would all agree with him or he just doesn't care what Americans think. You decide.
16 - Kenn Jacobine
The real problem with debate on this site and in America in general is that folks get distracted by the competition between left and right and Republicans and Democrats while the country is going down the toilet. It doesn't really matter what happened in the previous administration anymore. What is important is the current course our country is on. Regardless of who caused the problems what we should be focused on is fixing them. Instead of personal attacks because you disagree with someone, there should be honest debate based on principles proposed.
17 - clavos
The real problem with debate on this site and in America in general is that folks get distracted by the competition between left and right and Republicans and Democrats while the country is going down the toilet. It doesn't really matter what happened in the previous administration anymore. What is important is the current course our country is on.
Quoted for Truth...
18 - zingzing
and nobody has a sense of humor.
"Bush never said he could and to the best of my knowledge he didn't."
so? what does that matter? man tortured people but said he didn't.
"But Obama was the idiot who announced it to the world and then announced he did it."
so you'd rather he do it in secret or what?
"He either thinks we would all agree with him or he just doesn't care what Americans think."
are those really the only two options? or do you think he didn't struggle with the same exact shit america is struggling with now? come on, kenn. the real problem with debate on this site is the absolute black or white nonsense that people write on it. you expect anyone to really take your poorly thought out junk seriously? please.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Well, it was the Bush administration that set the precedent for terrorists to be handled not as criminals, but as enemy combatants. They also had no hesitation in declaring American citizens to be enemy combatants.
While I personally disagree with this, believing that to do so legitimizes terrorists as warriors rather than the fantasizing idiots they are, it is odd that the Right only now suddenly has a vocal problem with it.
I am aware that people like Kenn and Dave disapproved of many of the previous administration's actions, but what we actually heard from them on the subject amounted to little more than a paternally wagged finger and a muttered "tsk, tsk".
20 - Kenn Jacobine
You are defending Obama's actions by arguing that Bush did the same thing. By your admission, both are war criminals . I can live with that.
21 - Kenn Jacobine
Dr,
You have a short memory. I criticized Bush as much as Obama and if Romney or Perry become president I will be right there with you criticizing them for the same things.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn (and pablo) -
Where's the proof that Awlaki was guilty of anything?
If any of you will go back and look at the link showing that he was either involved with or connected to each of the following:
- Fort Hood shooter
- Christmas Day "Underwear Bomber"
- Sharif Mobley
- Times Square bomber
- Stabbing of British former minister Stephen Timms
- Seattle Weekly cartoonist death threat
- British passenger plane plot
- Cargo planes bomb plot
So all of you who are horrified at the prospect of an American citizen being killed by our government, I want EACH of you to tell me what you would have done in Obama's place, given the following factors:
1 - Awlaki was known by his videos and by his own writing to have been involved with the terrorist actions above.
2 - Awlaki assisted in the training of three of the 9/11 hijackers.
3 - Awlaki wanted to commit more attacks against the U.S. and had obviously shown the means and motive and was only searching for the opportunity to do it.
4 - The Yemeni judicial system had already tried him in absentia and called for his capture dead or alive.
5 - If you sent in ground troops (as we did to get bin Laden), that would not only likely result in the deaths of more of our troops, but would also be yet another example of America sending troops into a sovereign nation.
So you're the president - what do you do? Make the DECISION, guys - do you kill him ASAP? Do you send in ground troops (again)? Or do you just patiently wait for him to leave Yemen again...given that he might never do so, but simply remain there to train terrorists and assist in their planning to attack America?
What do you DO? Hm? Answer the hard questions, guys -
23 - Kenn Jacobine
We knew where he was and we could have sent troops in, like we allegedly did to get bin laden, to capture al-Awlaki. He was traveling alone on a desolate road. Given our technology and troop training it would have been a piece of cake. Then he could have been put on trial to answer for his crimes.
24 - Dr Dreadful
@ #21: I accept that you did, Kenn. I shouldn't have lumped you in with the likes of Dave, who claims he did but lacks digital evidence to back himself up.
I kind of sort of like Romney. Of the candidates with any realistic chance, he's the only one with any detectable decency, dignity, professionalism and integrity. He's a palatable alternative to Obama, and those are in short supply.
@ #23: We would have had to get clearance from the Yemeni government to use their airspace and put boots on the ground, which would have been unlikely to give us enough time to get to him before he disappeared back into the woodwork.
Perhaps we should have waited for a better opportunity, although by all accounts this was a pretty damn good one. But if American lives were at stake I'm not sure I, in the President's shoes, would have wanted it on my conscience that we'd had al-Awlaki where we wanted him and let him go.
25 - El Bicho
"It doesn't really matter what happened in the previous administration anymore."
Yeah, why bother learning from the mistakes that were made and who were responsible