The Death of Osama bin Laden: Cheering in the Streets

As I was about to call it a night at 1:30, still feeling the effects of an unexplainable warm feeling upon hearing of the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of Navy SEAL Team 6, I got a message from a friend of mine. He was asking me what I thought of the celebration being televised on all of the major networks, with America's youth waving flags and chanting "USA! USA!" I didn't know, but my friend said that he felt a bit uneasy about it; that something about it felt off. I had thought the same thing.

To try to explicate my emotions right now—never mind in the immediate minutes and hours following the announcement—is impossible. It simply has not registered yet. I think back to that sunny Tuesday when I was a sophomore in high school and being called to an emergency meeting. The rumors flying around, the announcement from the headmaster, the blurry passage of time for the rest of the day. It had taken a long time for the significance of this day to settle into my brain. I distinctly remember sobbing in the back of my mother's car at the end of September upon the sudden realization that things could never be the same again.

So I certainly understood the reaction from many of my co-generationalists. I would be lying if I said that I did not have a warm fuzziness inside of me as I climbed into bed late last night after recording my podcast. As my friend Craig Milch pointed out to me, it is almost as if Newton's Law has fulfilled itself 10 years later: the same emptiness and fear that I struggled with as a teenager was now being replaced with jubilation and a hope that things could possibly go back to the way they were. Who wouldn't want to celebrate that?

But my pragmatism tempered my naivete. It would be great if we could take back the PATRIOT Act, if we could leave Iraq and Afghanistan, if we could close Gitmo. The simple fact, however, is that we will not do any of those things. When those airliners crashed into the World Trade Center almost ten years ago, the United States and the rest of the world crossed a threshold from which there was no turning back. The fact that Osama bin Laden's body is beginning to rot at the bottom of the ocean as I type these words will not change that.

In a world with few tangible successes for peers in my generation, it would make sense to seize a moment like this to celebrate. We came of age during the War on Terror, in which bin Laden was public enemy number one. It is similar to the reaction to the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" in which the U.S. was able to defeat the Soviets in the midst of a fearful Cold War, a recession and a disappointing president. The key difference, obviously, is that one was a celebration of a sports victory and the other of the violent end of a human being. This is the origination of the uneasiness.

Some have called the celebrations disgusting and compared them to those we saw in certain parts of the world following 9/11. They share the same fundamentals: at their cores, both are celebrations of the death of human beings, it just depends which side you identify with. But the human psyche is too complicated to simply paint these celebrations with such a broad brush. The emotions involved with revenge and a feeling of some kind of karmic justice are complex. Again, it depends which side of an issue (and, too often, the world) you are on. It is too easy—not to mention a bit dishonest—to call one reaction appropriate and the other uncalled for. In a perfect world, no one would celebrate the death of another member of mankind.

But as the history of man has proven time and again, we do not live in a perfect world. Every generation has their version of the boogeyman—for our grandfathers it was Hitler, for our fathers it was the Soviets, for us it is terrorists. When Hitler's death was announced, no amount of jubilation could cloud the fact that the world had been irrevocably changed. The fall of the Berlin Wall did not see a sudden burst of warm relations between the Kremlin and the West. So it is with the death of bin Laden. Long after fish have picked his bones clean his legacy will continue to shape the way the world operates and that is nothing to celebrate.

Photo - A throng of revelers gathers outside the White House following the announcement of Osama bin Laden's death. (Flickr via thisisbossi)

Fundamentalist Florida Preacher Declares 9/11 "International Burn a Qur'an Day"

I don't have much to say about this story, except that it makes me really ashamed as an American. Our country was founded on the premises of religious tolerance, freedom, and moral authority. The controversy in Florida contradicts everything we are supposed to be as a country. The first amendment gives any fundamentalist Christian the right to burn a Qur'an, and any fundamentalist Muslim the right to burn a bible. But the level of ignorance, thoughtlessness, and pure hatred required to carry out such an act is startling, and abhorrent.

Ground Zero Mosque Debate Rolls On; People Cannot Separate Islam from Terrorism

Reading today's New York Times article on New Yorkers' take on the Cordoba House really disappointed me. A key aspect of this entire project that people are completely failing to grasp is the connection (or lack thereof) of everyday Islam to terrorism. The article quotes people delusional enough to start naming how many blocks away from Ground Zero would be appropriate for a mosque to be located.

9/11 Health and Compensation Act Voted Down in House

On September 11, 2001 the entire world fundamentally changed. For the majority of us the changes were macro in nature - from fear and confusion to small things like inconveniences at the airport and increased police presence in transit hubs. For a small, but significant, number of Americans the repercussions from the 9/11 attacks were, and continue to be, extremely personal. Over 2,800 people died that day. The two wars that have resulted from the cowardly attacks have seen over 5,600 military fatalities - 4,413 from Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1,212 from Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). These numbers do not reflect the other Americans who have been personally touched by 9/11 - friends and family members of those killed in lower Manhattan that day and those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, those wounded on September 11 and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those otherwise affected by that day and its repercussions.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Afghanistan?

You don't. I want to spin a quick yarn about a country back in the 1970s and 1980s that played a massive role in bringing down one of the most militarized nation-states in recent history. This country was a mountainous region with a very weak central government and was ruled over mostly by tribal warlords and religious extremists. When a very large nation-state to the north encroached on their territory and wanted to export their version of government, the tribal warlords and religious extremists mobilized against this foreign force. They eventually wore down the foreign army over nearly a decade, forcing them to withdraw. Now, we all know that the foreign army that retreated was the Soviet Union and the mountainous country it failed to keep under its control was Afghanistan. And clearly the story is a little more complex than a short paragraph (CIA Stingers, ISS corruption, etc.). But the fundamentals remain the same: the Afghan mujahideen was able to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan and then embarrass them on the world stage during the Soviet-Afghan War.

Fast forward to 2001 and while some of the circumstances have changed, the fundamentals remain the same. We've been drawn into Afghanistan by a Soviet-Afghan War veteran who understands how powerful guerrilla warfare tactics can be against a superior military. Compounding this, bin Laden has had two very lucky breaks. The first was Tora Bora in November, 2001 when we let him get away (a conclusion reached five months after the fact but made "official" by the Senate this week) and the second was Iraq. If we catch bin Laden in November we take out a major figurehead of the terrorist movement in Afghanistan and clearly and unequivocally send the message that you do not fuck with the United States. Instead bin Laden escapes because of crucial errors in judgment and tactics, becoming an even more mythic figure. Secondly, we go into Iraq, allowing Afghanistan to be relegated to red-headed stepchild status, with funds, troops, and materials diverted to the desert to find non-existent WMDs.

At the height of the Soviet-Afghan War, the Soviets had about 118,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. With Obama's plan to send another 30,000 troops to the war-torn country it will bring American troop levels to about 100,000 (with an additional 45,000 NATO troops). We are, essentially, sticking to the game plan that the Soviets had back in the 80s, at least in terms of troop levels. If it did not work for them, what could possibly make those in Washington think it will work for us?

We could sit here all day and talk about the failures of the past 8 years in Afghanistan, but that's not going to help with the future. What are our options there? I don't know, as I don't have top-level security clearance. Going on public information, though, one major issue is the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan that border Afghanistan, where it is believed bin Laden is hiding out and from where Al-Qaeda is launching attacks on American forces. We could talk to Pakistan to try to get permission to follow skirmishing Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Haqqani forces whose tactics include ambushing our armed forces and running back over the Zero Line, but Islamabad has no tangible control over the area. We could try to set up something similar to a DMZ on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan akin to that between North and South Korea and try to contain the terrorist forces. We could pack up and leave like we did in the 80s and allow the area to fall out of control (yet again) and hope we don't get attacked twenty years down the road. Pick your poison.

It's important to remember that in war nobody wins. Whether the insurgent forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan want to claim victory or the Americans and their "coalition of the willing" want to claim victory, the reality is we have all lost. Afghanistan has become even more war-torn, is now home to 90% of smack production in the world, and is stuck between two warring groups. Americans have seen our reputation both at home and abroad mocked, we've lost nearly 1,000 men and women in Afghanistan alone (with that number rising each year), and we will more than likely have some type of military presence in the country for at least a decade. You want the definition of a quagmire, here it is.

9/11 Billboard Creator's Loose Grasp of Reality

A misguided man down in St. Cloud, Florida has somehow amassed a large amount of money to post billboards around the Orlando area with a picture of the Twin Towers as they burn after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with the words "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat" next to the towers, along with a plug for www.therepublicansong.com, a website where the man, Mike Meehan, hawks a song that he wrote and sings about why the Democrats are so horrible. Naturally, the Democrats have come out and condemned the poster, and the Republican Party has even gone so far as to label the billboard "inappropriate." The real mind-boggling part of all this, however, is how little Meehan understands of the situation.

Meehan claims that 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault. He says that Clinton had the chance to take down Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda all by himself and refused to do it. He says that had a Republican - seemingly any Republican - been president from '92 to 2000, 9/11 would not have happened. Anyone who has a tangential grasp on what occurred during the Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s understands why Meehan is way off the mark. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda rose from these Republican administrations' mujaheddin - also known as "Freedom Fighters" - during the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s. This, of course, is completely lost on Meehan.

Also lost on Meehan is the fact that in the months preceding 9/11, the Bush Administration was served warning after warning regarding Al-Qaeda's plans to commit a large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil and ignored them. Hell, the Feds had some of the hijackers on their radar because of their activities, but nothing was done about it. Yet Meehan says that Bush has done a great job in the anti-terror department. Never mind the fact that the Bush administration had Osama pinned down and essentially let him go. Bush may have some successes when it comes to battling terrorism (though the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan is troubling), but the cost has been enormous. Blatant ignorance of basic constitutional liberties, such as habeas corpus and numerous amendments in the Bill of Rights (namely the Fourth) have eroded our democratic principles.

But politicizing 9/11 is nothing new, and it is hypocritial for the Republicans to come out and say anything remotely similar. It was President Bush who said during the 2006 midterm elections that the terrorists would win and America would lose if the Democrats were granted control of Congress. National security was also an issue in 2004, when the Republicans said that the Democrats were weak on national security and implied that if Kerry won the White House, the country would be less safe.

Getting back to these billboards. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." It appears that Meehan does not fit Jefferson's parameters of who can be trusted with their own government. This country was founded under the assumption that the electorate would be well-informed and educated before going to the polls. Meehan's use of 9/11 as a political attack against Democrats shows that he does not have a firm grasp of what is and is not appropriate, and his comments regarding 9/11 and the past four presidents clearly shows that his grip on political knowledge is minimal. This is America, and he has every right to put a moronic billboard like that up if he can find someone willing to do it (which he somehow found in Beech Outdoor Advertising) because of the First Amendment. Under that same liberty, however, those of us who disagree with his shortsightedness also have a right to point out where and why he is gravely mistaken and correct him. Peace.

Photos - The billboard in question (Pensito Review), Mike Meehan (The Republican Song), Thomas Jefferson, an advocate of the informed electorate (Harvard Square Library)

Next They'll Be Calling Them Freedom Fighters

If you have not read Seymour Hersh's article in the latest New Yorker, do it. If you were alive during the 1980s you may think that Hersh's article is merely a history lesson from the Reagan era, complete with toppling Iranian governments, CIA-funded middle eastern minority factions, and moronic decisions coming from the White House. Alas, Hersh's article is a startling look at America's covert operations in Iran meant to destabilize the ruling government to make an invasion easier on the ground. What is even more worrisome is that Congress's intelligence leaders - a group Hersh calls the Gang of Eight - know little about the program, thus allowing the Bush administration to wield unchecked power (kind of like in late 2002 and early 2003 leading up to the Iraq War).

To begin with, to invade Iran would be a grievous mistake. It would prove that the leaders of the current administration have learned absolutely nothing from the situation in Iraq. One would think that Vietnam would be an indication that America should stop fucking with other parts of the world where it has no business, but if that is not enough, then Iraq should certainly prove to be sufficient evidence. But when you're as thick-headed as Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration, logic is as scarce as cheap gas. Hence, the step-up of covert ops in Iran.

The most mind-boggling part of all of this is the complete and utter resemblance it has to Reagan's mistakes of the 1980s. Where do you think the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda came from? If you think they just popped out of the blue in the early 1990s and came to existence solely to do harm to the United States for no reason, then I truly feel sorry for you. With the millions and millions of dollars pumped through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviets, the Taliban formed, followed by Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. Washington's logic was that both the United States and the ultra-extremist (and America-hating) "freedom fighters" both wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It's middle school philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But 9/11 showed us how flawed Reagan's logic was. Without American help in the Middle East, Bin Laden and company would not have existed. Bin Laden has been kicked out of every country in the Middle East; only the Taliban (formed with American help) would accept this wealthy outcast. So he sets up shop in the tunnels of Tora Bora (again, with American help) and plots his revenge on America (who left him and his new country in ruins once the Soviets were defeated).

So what do we do in 2008? We pump money into minority factions, just like Reagan did in the 1980s, in order to fight a common enemy using the same philosophy, even after it proved tragically wrong on 9/11. The funny thing is, the 2008 case is almost a carbon copy of the 1980s. Instead of Khomeini spouting anti-American rhetoric to stir the masses, we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (both figures were inspired to rail against America due to CIA reasons - Khomeini because of revelations that the CIA and Israeli intelligence helped form and fund the oppresive, brutal secret police of the Shah [SAVAK] and now Ahmadinejad due to covert American ops in Iran's borders). Replace the mujahideen, Reagan's "freedom fighters," with new minority groups like the Kurds and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. Replace the setting of Afghanistan's mountains to the deserts of Iran. Brilliant.

Let's look at one of the factions we are funding: the Kurds. The Kurds are a significant minority spread throughout northern Iraq, western Iran, and southern Turkey. The Kurds probably do not like America too much due to our dealings with Turkey allowing Turkish forces to enter soveriegn Iraqi land to attack Kurdish extremists (some of whom we are now currently funding). Just like the mujahideen, the Kurds are not America's biggest fans. When all is over and the proverbial dust settles, the Kurds will want America to set up a Kurdistan, just like Britain set up Israel for the Jews. However, America will not set up a Kurdistan because it will bring more instability to the region, just like Israel did. Turkey will be pissed, as will Iraq (though by then we will have set up a puppet government to do whatever Washington wanted) and Iran will be in pieces and won't have time to deal with the headache. We'll be there for decades trying to sort shit out, or we'll leave after stirring the shit beyond recognition and wait 12-15 years for a major terrorist attack to happen on American soil to realize we made a huge mistake. Either scenario is unacceptable.

If Cheney, Rove, and company are not going to be put in jail, they should at least be forced to read a history book. Of course, Bush's legacy will be forever stained by the leeches he surrounded himself with. Bush is not bright enough to come up with all of this (look at his one piece of legislation - No Child Left Behind - that was his pet project). Of course, what can you expect when you surround yourself with Nixon-era crooks (Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular). To end this post I will quote Immortal Technique on a song from his new mixtape: "The government pimped 9/11 to go to Iraq / And now history repeats itself right on track / Cuz it's a tragedy and then the comedy begins / Because it's funny motherfuckers don't see it come around again." Peace.

Photos - Two men making a huge mistake (Time), Bin Laden, whose power is arguably a product of disastrous American foreign policy during the Reagan/Bush era (Encyclopedia Britannica), Neo-Cons, a major threat to American security (Writing Shop)