An eye for an eye and we all go blind.
Today’s word is: RETRIBUTION.
the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter – Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
So Osama bin Laden is dead. That is a simple fact and the complex culmination of thirty years of terrorist activity, initially funded by the Reagan administration as part of the Cold War opposition to Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
The reactions are mixed, ranging from the jubilant to the regretful. In all cases, however, there is a strong theme of “he had it coming.” Is this the tone we want to set as a nation?
The September 11 attacks were horrific acts of terrorism against this country. They were, in all likelihood, at least partly planned by bin Laden. That being the case, his apprehension, trial, and appropriate punishment was a desirable goal. A certain inarticulate rage at the man as a symbol of the attacks also makes sense, as an individual or collective response. It does not make sense as a matter of policy.
Military action has many viable justifications; it is also often messy and uncertain. But as the capture of Saddam Hussein proved, it can result in the capture – rather than the death – of a target. This action resulted (perhaps necessarily, perhaps not) in the death of the quarry, forever ending the opportunity to even attempt to resolve any open questions about the organization he led. Sadly, the death has resulted in President Obama practicing his “Mission Accomplished” moment, however more articulate he may have been.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history…
This is our aspiration as a nation? The death of one man, however notorious? The villain is dead, and we have exacted our VENGEANCE.
punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense – Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
For one day, perhaps one week, many in our nation will celebrate this vengeance, feeling justified. Ding dong, the terrorist is dead. Let there be a joyous celebration!
But we exacted our vengeance on Saddam Hussein and are still embroiled in Iraq. There is no reason to believe that this death will expedite our extrication from Afghanistan. And what of Libya? Perhaps we can host a tailgater when Gaddafi goes the way of the other miscreants, but what else will we gain?
The terrorists despise us more for killing their leaders. The military is spread just as thin, fighting what is now an even more ambiguous war. We’ve satisfied our blood lust and expiated a bit of unresolved national sorrow and rage. What of the greatness that we aspire to? How have we demonstrated that?
A quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr. has permeated the Internet since Sunday:
Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
It is often paired (frequently without attribution) with an introduction supposedly tweeted by Jessica Dovey:
I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.
These are aspirations. These are noble sentiments. Death, especially violent death, is not a cause for celebration. A truly noble people may thirst for vengeance, but collectively, with the wisdom of history and combined conscience, they will seek instead,
the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action; conformity to this principle or ideal – Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
JUSTICE
P.S. – For an excellent overview of the killing, our national reaction, and the misleading media narrative, I recommend Glenn Greenwald’s excellent pieces at Salon.com. As always, he asks hard questions and only provides answers of which he can be certain.
If we had captured him alive than there would have been mass protest, killings and possibly riots. Muslims across the world would decry his imprisonment and would demand his release to face trial under sharia law. If we would have tried and executed him in America, hatred for the US would skyrocket more so than now and if we would have buried him here or god forbid shipped his corpse back to his country of origin, there would be a shrine to him as a martyr. He resisted capture, he was killed. It won’t end the war but it will bring some manner of peace to the families of those who died on 9/11 and vindication to the men and women who served with the express purpose of bringing him to justice. His death was well deserved. And as for his burial at sea, well we shoulda wrapped him in bacon. That last part’s just my opinion. I think that really would piss some people off though.
While your comments don’t surprise me, they do sadden me. I must confess that I am offended that you feel so free to speak on behalf of all Muslims–a very white and uniquely American perspective. I suspect you have no Muslim friends. I would ask you to think about the role the U.S. played in putting him in power in the first place and leave you with words from Dr. Martin Luther King jr.
“Are we seeking power for power’s sake? Or are we seeking to make the world and our nation better places to live. If we seek the latter, violence can never provide the answer. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
Podunk, I think you miss a couple of key points. You may be right about the possible consequences of capture and trial, but we will never know. You then go on to say he resisted capture; there are mixed reports about exactly what happened (see the Greenwald articles I mention in my postscript). In any case, you can’t have it both ways.
I don’t dispute that his death may bring closure to some people, perhaps even to a large segment of the nation. Was that closure worth a battlefield death or an assasination? I’m not so sure. I am sure, however, that jubilant celebration at his death is not the kind of behavior that we should accept as a culture. It resonates with the very behaviors we say we despise in the terrorists.
Finally, was his death “well deserved” (your words)? We will never know for certain, since there was no trial or hearing. Even setting aside your grotesquely anti-Muslim burial suggestion, it is this good-riddance mentality that I argue we need to take a good, hard look at if we want to think of ourselves as a just nation.
This is what I am hoping many people will take away from this article of yours, Lex: ” that jubilant celebration at his death is not the kind of behavior that we should accept as a culture. It resonates with the very behaviors we say we despise in the terrorists.”
Prior to Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing I was opposed to the death penalty. Since then I’ve had to make a caveat–I’m opposed to the death penalty in almost all cases. The exception I would cite for the past decade would be Osama bin Laden–his prominent role in 9/11 was nothing less than a war crime worthy of the ultimate penalty.
Bin Laden’s death is probably the closest equivalent to V-J day that we’ll ever see in regards to the 9/11 attacks. It is a form of closure that was badly needed, and thus I’m sympathetic to the jubilant response it provoked. It was telling that the celebrants were mostly young people–college-aged kids have been living under bin Laden’s shadow for virtually their entire lives. Just as my generation grew up in the shadow of the cold war and experienced the surreal joy of the Berlin Wall falling, so this generation has the surreal joy of the death of their life-long boogeyman.
So give the kids chanting “USA, USA, USA” a break–they weren’t celebrating the death of a man as much as they were celebrating an emotional catharsis. Terrorism has not, and will never be, eradicated, but this is as close to the the deck of the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay as we are likely to get.
I’m afraid I really have to disagree with you, Jay. I’m not convinced this mob of people ” chanting “USA, USA, USA” have a sense of history or the role the US played in creating the “boogeyman” Osama bin Laden. While in no way do I defend bin Laden and feel that in some small way, justice has been served, I worry that his demise won’t even start to touch the philosophy of terrorism and the notion that might is right.
Apparently we will have to agree to disagree. To clarify:
I wasn’t trying to convince anyone regarding “the sense of history” of the crowds, I was trying to explain the emotions underlying their behavior. My historical references were analogies, not intended as literally in the minds of the cheering crowds.
America did not ‘create’ bin Laden–CIA assistance to the mujahideen in the 80′s is pretty thin stuff compared to the importance of, say, Wahhabi/Salafist Islam. Or his introduction to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Or his romantic desire for a new Caliphate that would humiliate the west as profoundly as he felt the west had humiliated the Islamic world.
I’m not sure what the ‘philosophy of terrorism’ is–do you mean the Bush administration’s ‘war on terror’? As to ‘might is right’, President Obama did not campaign as a pacifist. The President fulfilled an important campaign promise in eliminating bin Laden, and I believe significantly enhanced his reelection prospects. Like many others, I give the man great credit for authorizing this operation and succeeding where two prior administrations had failed.
Jay, please forgive the long delay in this reply. I was trying to live in the agree-to-disagree space and I have had numerous external distractions that have kept me from being very active on TSM. Nevertheless, I keep coming back to what I feel is a significant disconnect between your comments and the point of my post.
Your points about the President’s campaign promise and the importance of removing bin Laden as a viable threat are quite sound. I’ll even buy your context-setting of a group (half-a-generation removed from me) who have always lived under the spectre of bin Laden. None of this context, however, dissuades me from my thesis.
Your historical analogies are faulty. In every case, you refer to the end or the destruction of a regime, an emblem, or an object. In this case, we are responding to the death of a human being. However well-deserved his end may be, he died under somewhat cloudy circumstances without the rule of law or apparent military need. The fact that we chose to celebrate that demise is what concerns me. A quiet sigh of relief that he’s gone might make sense; streetwide jubilation is grotesque.
Your casual reference to “kids chanting” — apparently excusing their enthusiasm with their age — begs a significant question for me. What level of patriotism becomes dangerous, moving into jingoism? To use my own, admittedly hyperbolic, historical analogy, there were thousands of patriotic kids chanting in Germany seventy-odd years ago…
Michael and webwordwarrior, at this point I think we can all agree my views do not remotely coincide with yours. However, I do love a good argument so here goes. I concede the point of it now it appears he may not of resisted capture. I’m actually a little appalled that there may have not have been shots fired from OBL crew. The US barging in and killing the entire entourage without a firefight seems a tad overeager as it were. However, I’m still relatively thrilled he is dead, just uneasy that it may have not been necessary at the time. No, obviously I have no muslim friends, I don’t care if I ever have any but I’m somewhat sure I’d be just fine with them providing they were just yer average joe blow in following their religion. The koran is mind-numbing, the hadiths are disturbing and the remote concept of sharia law is absolutely horrifying. And yes, I feel just fine in saying that as I have slogged through their history and religious bunk and at least I’m not condemning islam without having a clue what it is. I think that wraps up my reply, I look forward to hearing back from you guys.
Dear Podunk, I’m not convinced that Sharia law is any different than many of the right wing christian religions here in the United States currently. Furthermore, many Muslims hold different views of Sharia. The significant number of friends I have that identify as Muslim/Islam are all very enlightened and peaceful people that work very hard to create a peaceful world. I would direct you to the writings of Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri and the most recent Fatwa he issued.
The only religious right Christian religion I can remotely think of that may have a governing body of laws remotely similar to sharia is Mormonism. Other than that, please enlighten me.
I do agree that muslims have a plethora of opinions concerning sharia but I still protest mightily in regards to it being applied in any arena of actual life.
However, the writings of the Dr. that you recommend are indeed interesting. Pointless in swaying my opinion but still interesting.