The Right Choice

By Andrew Hagen

President Obama has made the right decision in not releasing photographs of Osama bin Laden after being shot through the eye and chest.  There is no reason to doubt bin Laden’s demise given the international reaction, especially that of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.  For the people that claim they don’t believe bin Laden is actually dead, or that it’s all a lie, there is very little that can be done for them since they would most likely claim the photos were altered anyway.

Photographs, just like burying bin Laden on land, would be nothing more than yet another rallying cry added to the many that the US has already provided Al-Qaida and others.  Why should we do this? Why should we release a gory, violent photograph into the already phantasmagoric ether that is the American media?  There would be absolutely no purpose served.

We have already shown ourselves to not be much better than Muslims that celebrate at American deaths.  I understand the need for catharsis, but there is a way to handle it with dignity.  Not even Jon Stewart handled it well, which I found to be disappointing.

Obama was right to observe Muslim traditions and give bin Laden a Muslim burial.  I know that there are plenty of people and talking heads out there that disagree and would have liked to stick bin Laden’s head on the spire at the top of the Empire State Building, but that is why they are no better than the idiots that drag UN workers and others through the streets of the Afghanistan, or behead journalists, or stone women.  Part of being better is acting better and not sinking to the level of those that are attacking you.

Ultimately, whether or not we killed bin Laden doesn’t change the fact that we have borrowed over a trillion dollars to do it.  Is that worth it? 

I’m not saying I have the answer to this question, but with everyone up in arms over our national debt right now, I think that it would be wise to reflect on the amount of money we have spent on the “war on terror” and what the opportunity cost was.  Every dollar we spent on invading and occupying Afghanistan could have been spent on a school, bridge, road, canal, power grid, high-speed rail, or some other project that could benefit the United States and help maintain it’s standing as an advanced country.

Bush not only kept the financing of both Iraq and Afghanistan off the books, but he borrowed every dollar spent.  So on top of the opportunity cost of money spend with little to no return, we are also paying interest.  In my mind, it’s all a damn shame.

Bin Laden’s plan from the outset was to lure the US into Afghanistan in order to bankrupt the United States.  Clinton didn’t take the bait in the 1990’s when our embassies were bombed.  He lobbed a couple of cruise missiles at him and left him alone.  Everyone says Clinton was weak in his response here, but in hindsight it might have been more prudent.  Then Bin Laden upped the ante and hijacked our planes and flew them into the symbol of American capitalism, killing a few thousand Americans in the process.  As a result, our history ignorant president took us into the “graveyard of empires” where we have been ever since.

Britain, the empire upon which the sun never set, couldn’t control Afghanistan.  The USSR, which was right next door, couldn’t occupy it.  What makes us think we can control it from half way around the world?  We assassinated the one person we held responsible and in the meantime managed to improve no relations with any countries over there whatsoever.

Hopefully, Obama gets us the hell out of the Middle East as quickly as possible.  We can make a much larger difference with our money both at home and in more specific and targeted interventions.  Tribes that have been battling with each other for thousands of years are not going to stop because we say so.  It’s just not the way of the world.

The really hard question to ask ourselves is this: if invading Afghanistan leads to the decline and fall of the United States, was the invasion and hunt for bin Laden in order to avenge September 11^th worth it?  I know that for those that were there or lost loved ones on that day this may be too personal of a question to really answer.   If I step back, and look at it objectively though, I think I would argue that it wasn’t worth it.  If we fall into ruin as a consequence of our wars in the Middle East, then bin Laden is actually getting the last laugh after all.  Even with two bullets in him at the bottom of the ocean.  And to me, that is not something worth celebrating.

Exit - Stage Left

By Martin Schatz

My friends and co-writers Eric and Andrew agree that the importance given to the death of Osama Bin Laden has been greatly overstated.  From a strictly strategic view, I can understand their points.  Eric cautions that the death of Al Qaeda's (AQ) inspirational leader will lead to retaliatory strikes on U.S. and other Western targets.  This is certainly correct.  Andrew points out that Bin Laden was no longer the strategic leader behind AQ, and had not been for some time.  Also true.  Both are embarrassed by the displays of triumph in New York and Washington D.C. after the news broke.  On this point I am more willing to forgive the people celebrating in the streets.

People are people and it is not realistic to expect that everyone should be sombre and reflective in the wake of this kind of news.  Bin Laden was the face of the worst attack on our country since Pearl Harbor, and in terms of destroying our sense of security, it was even greater.  Thousands were killed in the center of our most important city, and it was done in a way that struck at the very core of our identity.  The images of men and women joining hands and jumping from the burning upper floors of the towers is very clear to me today.  Even as someone who is fundamentally opposed to our continued occupation across large stretches of the Middle East, my first thoughts upon hearing the news was "We got that son of a bitch."

I can't stand WSJ columnist Bret Stephens and think he's a war-mongering, jingoistic and smarmy prick, but I found myself agreeing with him in his letter today.  I quote:

"...you can trace the decline of [President Bush's] presidency from the moment he said that "I don't really care [where Bin Laden is].  It's not that important.

Wrong.  It was of the essence.  Americans didn't merely want to be secured against another attack - an achievement experienced only in the absence of fresh outrages and appreciated only in hindsight.  Americans wanted vengeance.  It's what they had wanted after Pearl Harbor, too: what took the Marines up Mt. Suribachi, the Rangers up Point du Hoc.  Revenge is a glue that holds a fractious nation together in the service of a great and arduous cause."

The argument goes that justice is greater than vengeance, and perhaps that is true.  Certainly it is desirable in a perfect world.  However, with Guantanamo Bay still operating and the idea of open and civilian trials a lost cause due to the capitulation of Mayor Bloomberg and others, do we really think that capturing Bin Laden alive would have led to a trial where justice could even be served?  From all accounts that I have read, Bin Laden fought back and "taking him alive" was not possible.  Sometimes vengeance will have to suffice where justice is not viable.

So now what?

Handled appropriately, this may be the excuse to redefine our Middle Eastern policy.  As CNN correspondent, Fareed Zakari correctly noted, this mission shows that "we do not need to occupy vast tracts of Afghanistan in perpetuity to keep Al Qaeda at bay."  If we are smart, we can use this to emphasize a strategy that emphasizes counter-terrorism instead of nation-building.  President Bush's strategy of nation-building is larger, more visible, and far more likely to incite nationalism and patriotism within the occupied country.  It is impossible to not be seen as an occupying and imperialistic force, especially when our presence spans a decade (and going). 

As Eric correctly points out, this is a phenomenon that we in the U.S. are completely sheltered from.  Wars are something that take place "over there" on some distant battlefield in some exotic country that most of us have never been to.  Our geographical isolation has sheltered and protected us from the cruel realities of what war means, and that has led to a very blase attitude towards military action.  Consider that the U.S. has engaged in over 200 military interventions since World War II.  Whether you call it a war or not, war-like actions feel the same to those who are on the receiving end.  

It is long past time to rethink our strategy.  A global war on "terror" is ludicrous and baldly impossible.  How does one wage war on a tactic?  That is like saying that we are declaring war on flanking maneuvers.  Guerrilla tactics are and always will be the strategy used by a group that is over-matched.  In our own history, look at the success of Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion against the larger and better-equipped British forces.

We need to stop creating new terrorists and stop making ourselves a target for those that exist.  How do we do this?  We could start by refusing to cast the lone dissenting vote that vetoes any action or judgement against Israel in the United Nations.  We could drop the vitriolic rhetoric against any so-called "evil-doers."  We could stop invading sovereign nations and occupying them for years while the civilians are starved and killed in "collateral damage." 

Unfortunately, we will be targets for a long time.  I am picturing my family murdered by a foreign army and trying to decide if I could ever forgive.  The answer is a resounding "No," and we can't expect others to feel differently.  This is where the counter-terrorism strategy comes in.  While Eric will strongly disagree with this, we will need to monitor and act in areas where training camps and terrorist plots are hatched.  These should be purely military strikes against specified targets, and NOT an excuse to set up a new government that is more "friendly" to western business interests.  By dramatically reducing our presence in the Middle East and Northern Africa, we can avoid much of the hate and hostility that comes from seeing foreign troops every time you step outside of your ruined hut. 

Unlike in Iraq, the stated goals of Afghanistan have largely remained the same since the beginning.  Capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and cripple Al Qaeda.  With the death of Bin Laden, and the numbers of Al Qaeda in the country rumored to be under a hundred members, we may finally have the opportunity to declare victory and go home.  If Bin Laden's death provides us that opportunity, then it is every bit the big deal that it is being made out to be. 

Mission Accomplished?

By Andrew Hagen

Needless to say, when my friend relayed the text she got from her brother to everyone at the dinner table last night that Osama bin Laden was dead, I was more then a little skeptical.  My girlfriend astutely turned on the television and lo and behold there it was.  Ten years after September 11^th, we finally killed bin Laden. Much like my reactions to the attack on September 11^th, my reactions ranged at this news.  Initially I was happy, but then as I later lay in bed and thought about it, I decided that it wasn’t that great of a day.

I disagree with many of the talking heads on television telling me that I will always remember this day for the rest of my life.  May 1, 2011 is not like September 11^th, 2001.  I can tell you the day of Pearl Harbor, Columbine, and the Oklahoma City bombing, but I can’t tell you V-Day (sometime in June I think) or the day that Timothy McVeigh was found guilty or the day that he was executed.  The day that sets the wheels in the machinery of retaliation is generally more significant than the day the gears grind to a halt.

In this case though, killing bin Laden has ultimately changed nothing.  We are still in Afghanistan.  Bin Laden was no longer the sole brain behind Al Qaeda.  He was a figurehead that has symbolic value but changes nothing in our operations.  Am I glad he is dead? Absolutely.  And I doubt that there are 72 virgins waiting for him.  But was May 1 a monumental day? No.

Let me quickly offer a disclaimer.  I am speaking as someone who was not directly affected by any of the events listed above.  For those that were in New York on September 11 or had friends and relatives perish in the towers’ collapse, they will without a doubt remember May 1, just as the friends and families of the victims of Columbine or the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City will remember all the pertinent days regarding their experience.  I do not mean to diminish what the day means for these people, only put it into perspective in the overall historical context.

The fact that it took us ten years to get bin Laden takes away from the impact.  Al Qaeda has spread throughout the Middle East.  We are now occupying Iraq as well as conducting military maneuvers in Libya. The big news would be if this was also the end of our engagement in Afghanistan.  That would be much more significant.

I do think President Obama handled this situation well, though.  He gave a good speech that gave credit appropriately to our military, and recognized the significance of the event, but was not smug or boastful about the situation.  He addressed the Muslim world directly and once again said that the US is not at war with Islam, even though there are some of us that still don’t understand that.  And that was it.  I find it even more amusing now that Obama chuckled to himself at the Correspondent’s Dinner a day before when Seth Meyer made a joke about never catching Osama.

It’s also easy to imagine how Obama’s predecessor may have handled the situation by jumping into yet another fighter jet and flying to some random location with a banner declaring “We Got Him!”  It is clear that Obama’s priority is Afghanistan and this is a political win for him that he handled gracefully and adeptly.  Of course, certain “news” outlets will make sure that credit is given to their political party, but that is the way of the world that we come to live in.

Returning to my discomfort with the event, I realized somewhere around 2:37 AM what it was that made me uncomfortable with the whole situation, why it was awkward to see people cheering and partying as if a war had ended.  We were celebrating a person’s death (who without a doubt had it coming) in a way that seemed very familiar to the way that we see footage of people in the Middle East celebrating deaths of Americans (who are innocent).  The presence of innocence and guilt on the person(s) killed, however, still don’t seem to justify either celebratory response.  Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who felt this way and David Sirota makes the case much more eloquently than myself.

I am happy that I got to experience the news of bin Laden’s death in the way that I did – during dinner, with people that are important to me in a reflective, relieved, and balanced perspective.  There were no chants of “USA!” in my living room, but rather amazement, and muted relief with the occasional brief discussion.  Hopefully, bin Laden’s death signals the beginning of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan where we continue to lose innocent lives (both American and Muslim).  To me, that would be something worth celebrating.