MY (SO FAR) TWO CENTS ON BIN LADEN’S LONG DELAYED DEMISE

5/4/11

As one who tries to comment on the pertinent news of the day, I feel obligated to write something on the bin Laden killing. It hasn’t been easy to comment on this story for several reasons. First, I try to say something unique or especially insightful (hence the name of this blog) about the events or statements on which I comment. The most salient, and important, things about the bin Laden episode have already been said numerous times, to wit, that this was a gutsy, heroic move on the part of the SEALS, and all military and intelligence personnel, involved in the operation and on the part of the President. If this operation had not gone as smoothly (Actually, it didn’t go all that smoothly; note the loss of a helicopter, but SEALS are taught to improvise and think on their feet, thank God. But I digress.) as it did, at least some of the SEALS would have been dead and the President would have been figuratively drawn and quartered. Brave men did brave things and are to be commended.

Second, it’s hard to comment on the bin Laden situation because the story keeps changing. First bin Laden was armed and then he wasn’t armed. First one of his wives was killed and then she wasn’t killed. First there were no high tech items in the compound, no internet service, no telephones, in the compound, then the place was bristling with computers and other high tech gear of various levels of sophistication. First the downed helicopter clipped a wall of the compound, then it got caught in a vortex. The story seems to be fluid. This is at least partially understandable. The SEALS who conducted the operation didn’t have time to take notes and record accurately every step of the raid. Most of the witnesses are now in Pakistani custody and are doubtless telling tales that serve their, and doubtless the Pakistani intelligence service’s, motivations, motivations radically different from ours. But, regardless of the justification or the reasons behind the ever evolving nature of the story, it does make one, especially those of us who are predisposed toward distrusting government, suspicious about our government’s motivations for couching the story in what can be described as flexible terms. It will be easier to comment intelligently on this story when the story clears up, and that might never happen.

What is worth noting, though, even at this stage, is just how quickly three utterly predictable reactions to the long overdue demise of Mr. bin Laden unfolded. These reactions can be encapsulated in three news stories:

First, in yesterday’s (i.e., Tuesday, May 3’s, page A3) Wall Street Journal:

Governments around the world, warning against complacency in fighting terrorism, prepared for the chance of retaliatory attacks in the wake of bind Laden’s death….
The State Department warned Americans around the world of the “enhanced potential for anti-American violence given recent counter-terrorism activity in Pakistan.”…
Al Qaeda may within days launch a large-scale or several smaller attacks “as a vehicle to introduce its new leadership” (Raphael) Perl (head of something called Action Against Terrorism Unit at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) said.

One of my first thoughts after learning that we got bin Laden was that our government, and governments throughout the world, will have to find a new boogey man. Government always need boogey men to keep their populations cowed, willing to turn to government for security, and eager to endure such otherwise out of the question silliness as strip-teases at airports in front of ill-trained and indifferent government employees and to support wars that have at the very best only extremely tentative connections to their ostensible purpose. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the elimination of the Red Scare that served this purpose so well, Western governments, and especially, the U.S. government, have searched desperately for a plausible substitute. None has worked as nicely as bin Laden; if he never existed, the government would have had to invent him. Now that he’s gone, the government needs a new bad guy lurking under the bed. I’m amazed how quickly it found one.


Second, in today’s (Wednesday, May 4’s) online edition of the Chicago Tribune:

U.S. acknowledgment on Tuesday that bin Laden was unarmed when shot dead had raised accusations Washington had violated international law. Exact circumstances of his death remained unclear and could yet fuel controversy, especially in the Muslim world.

This is insane, but you knew somebody, somewhere, when learning these latest circumstances of bin Laden’s demise, was going to question the justification for shooting and killing an unarmed man. One can almost see the tears streaming down the faces of those questioning what they deem the extreme cruelty of the soldiers who committed such a heinous act. Let’s just hope these complaints against our brave SEALS are coming from overseas quarters sympathetic to al Qaeda in general and to bin Laden in particular and not from, say, the faculty lounges at Yale and Harvard, the editorial offices of the New York Times, or the overeducated and underemployed busybodies at the ACLU. Given the sad history of American political correctness, though, I suspect that those hopes are in vain.


Third, from today’s (Wednesday, May 4’s) online edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

Meanwhile, the top staff member for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is objecting to the U.S. military’s use of “Geronimo” as bin Laden’s code name.
Geronimo was an Apache leader in the 19th century who spent many years fighting the Mexican and U.S. armies until his surrender in 1886.
Loretta Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday that it was inappropriate to link Geronimo, whom she called “one of the greatest Native American heroes,” with one of the most hated enemies of the United States.
“These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating,” Tuell said.

All one can say about such silliness is that it provides further evidence of the strong positive correlation between one’s hyper-sensitivity and the amount of time one has on one’s hands.