Bin Laden Dead, War On Terror Alive

“He doesn’t call this a war but he is fighting it like one — unless hurling drones onto American citizens and others overseas without any judicial process is the White House’s idea of ordinary law enforcement.”

Which is exactly one of the problems. There should be a glaringly obvious difference between war and law enforcement. Any blurring of the two, while perhaps politically expedient, endangers civil liberties.

It disgusts me how Obama is bragging about killing Bin Laden, he acts like he was the one that pulled the trigger, instead of what he did do which was agonize for 24 hrs about a time sensitive operation before he could make a decision. And now he says that the supposedly war mongering myrmidon Republican Romney wouldn’t have ordered Bin Laden killed.

Also, what about the whole “not spiking the football” thing, isn’t his continued bragging a violation of his own criteria? How many times is he going to spike this football?

I guess looking back over his time in office the only thing that sticks out as a success is his continued following of the Bush policy of hunting for Bin Laden. The economy has been sucked dry by his $1.3 Trillion in borrowing every year, all the wasted time and corruption passing Obamacare was for nothing when the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, all the bowing and scraping to foreign potentates didn’t prevent the Arab spring from turning out poorly, the midterm 2010 election was a shellacking, the stimulus wasn’t stimulating or shovel ready and was only good for paying off political supporters, he didn’t close Gitmo, he didn’t have civilian trials of terrorists, Gunwalking, Solyndra, GSA in Las Vegas, Secret Service whoring, Dog eating, I could go on but all in all a truly miserable record of achievement.

On the whole, great, exuberant fun. I’m also inclined to agree with VM that, on this one at least, the public knows what it’s talking about.

As to whether the present conflict merits the title of “war,” why do I keep suspecting what we’re up against is something far less simple and far more insidious? For one thing, even if he could pull it off, a SMART jihadist (notice I didn’t say radical Islamist) would be a damfool to execute a second major terror attack on US soil. Why should he risk uniting all sorts of Americans at present so deliciously filled with mutual venom and contempt? Indeed, given our current levels of what I like to call “globally enlightened” political dividedness, we’re already doing half his work for him. And very commendably too. His REAL work is not to take over the world (even jihadists aren’t that deludedly mad, at least not in their day-to-day, month-to-month operations). The SMART jihadist’s real work is to keep democratic nation-states – or anything bearing the reasonable semblance thereof – FROM FUNCTIONING. At least not without great heaping gobs of corporately-serviceable mass surveillance. Along with, of course, the mounting divisions, rancor, ghettoization and mutual distrust that supposedly make them necessary. (BTW, help me here: Has there ever been a self-governing nation whose citizens had NOTHING in common – not even language – other than the frantic desire to make money and “better” themselves and [at most] their families, any @$#%in’ way they can?)

Meanwhile his own “element” gets more radicalized, more Wahhabized, more locally insular, more globally business-minded, and, best of all, demographically stronger and more independent with respect to their host countries even as they increasingly despise the “decadent” societies surrounding them. That, at least, is his AIM, the best I can discern it. As for those in his diaspora community who oppose him – even if it’s a great majority – he can always try to shame them into silence and compliance. As to his chances of success, I’m sure there are lots of congregations where a little Muslimer-than-thou sanctimoniousness goes a long way towards shifting the burden of guilt onto the “lukewarm.”

Again, if I were a SMART jihadist I would use a major terror attack against a Western nation only as a weapon of last resort – and even then primarily as threat (“Oh, you really DON’T want to see what we’re capable of, now do you? I’m just saying, it could get really ugly. Well then, let’s see how we can do business in future with more of an eye to our MUTUAL profit . . .”).

In short, I believe our enemy is both much smaller and much bigger – if not smarter – than anything that could ever be conceptualized acc. to accepted notions of conventional warfare. Besides the stakes being far greater than they were during our final contest with those blundering, flailing, hardly-any-belief-left-in-themselves Soviets (“But migod you blithering idiot, don’t you understand? They were trying TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!” Right; and, pray, which succeeded – the Russians or the Chinese?).

At stake is how long we Western nations can remain decent, mutual-trust-based, territorially self-governable societies. Naturally I hope none of us are crazy enough to think we can “stamp out” radical Islamism. On the other hand, if we CAN’T de-legitimize a form of “dissent” as hideous as jihadism – an ideology far more anti-human (not to mention more oppressive of Muslims) than our worst forms of Western racism and sexism – then eventually we shall be able to legitimize anything. And in a world where any “dissent” is legitimate, and therefore (at least technically) no one can be trusted, what kinds of FURTHER policing and surveillance are we going to “have to” legitimize in order to keep the “peace”? suppose that you, and I, and eventually everybody are going to need?

You don’t sound to me like you’re very well read in the history, tenets, theory and practice of Islam. Have you even read the Koran? Do you know what’s in it?

I think it is foolish for Obama to take too much credit for killing bin Laden, because a lot of the work trying to find
bin Laden was done during the Bush years. But I give him full marks for not messing it up – something any president might have done. And Obama has increased drone attacks which I have to conclude are a pretty effective way to redress the asymmetry insurgents have enjoyed in the latter half of the 20th century. I’d be happier if we were formerly at war and people like al Awlaki were tried and executed on the basis of something more substantial than a Presidential Finding. But that will do. I agree there still is a war on.

@ Mr Lea (#11),

Thank you (and everybody please disregard that last non-sentence; it was something I decided not to include and forgot to delete).