OBL Death Is Symbolic
May 2nd, 2011 | 6 responses
The apparent euphoria erupting throughout the United States tonight — a celebration of the death of Osama bin Laden — seems strangely misplaced. His life had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq and has nothing directly to do with our presence in Afghanistan. His death is not V-Day, it does not end our military operations there.
In fact, as the State Department announced via a press release:
U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad should be alert to the potential for anti-American violence (tweet)
Moreover, Foreign Affairs noted in its March-April issue:
Summary: Al Qaeda is stronger today than when it carried out the 9/11 attacks. Accounts that contend that it is on the decline treat the central al Qaeda organization separately from its subsidiaries and overlook its success in expanding its power and influence through them.
However, it is a hawkish act that could help Obama in his re-election effort.
Stay tuned.
This ends nothing.
6 Responses to “OBL Death Is Symbolic”
Bitter about something? I find it odd that you attempt to disassociate Afghanistan from 911. Even worse, associate this action, OBL death, with Obama’s re-election campaign. I think it might be time for a little self-evaluation on this one…
It doesn’t matter. Whether or not Al Qeada will be diminished, this is wonderful news. We needed to get him for us, as a country. As Obama said, this is justice…
All I’ll say about the politics is that Obama deserves to feel satisfaction, history will see it a major achievement, but I’m not going to start thinking about partisan politics at a time like this…
Hello, Shannon – no, I’m not bitter about anything.
Annoyed, however, at the thousands of US troops who have lost life and limb and the trillion-plus-dollars the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost.
Disheartened to see Americans cheering this as though it were a football game or soccer match.
This is probably not the place to remind folks that we “trained” ObL during the Carter and Reagan Administration. You know, when we were outfitting Afghanis so that they could push the Soviet Union out. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
Then we “created” him as an enemy during the first Bush Administration, with our invasion of Kuwait and subsequent bases in Saudi Arabia.
I agree with Kathy about the inevitable inappropriateness of some reactions to this news based on the outsized (and many of us think unnecessary) sacrifices made by so many to reach this point. By the same token, we in the US place great importance on symbolic victories, and as such this one is bound to be celebrated at times in ways that are going to make many Americans uncomfortable.
We ‘created’ him as an enemy? Seriously?
That is like saying ‘you shouldn’t have worn that dress. You had it coming.’
It simply is not valid or appropriate in either case to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator.
Hi, Indefatigably —
It’s interesting to me that you don’t seem to argue with the fact that we trained him and found him and his buds to be our friends when their actions were directed against the former Soviet Union. For him, the face of the enemy changed when we became the aggressor. Our actions (Kawait, Saudi Arabia) were a catalyst for his vendetta against the U.S.