Perhaps I am exaggerating, but as I deliberately consider the celebratory response of Americans around the country to the killing of Osama bin Laden, I am coming to the judgment that the kids got it right. They revealed the wisdom of youth. While I am not sure that the chants: “USA! USA! USA!” and “We killed Osama, let’s party” were in good taste, I am coming to understand the outburst better than I initially did, thanks to a number of DC contributions and some reflection.
As I indicated in my first post, I immediately thought of the operation in terms of ongoing wars, about the mission. I thought the question was: How does the elimination of an important enemy leader affect our ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq? While I thought about ongoing military operations, the celebrants seemed to have understood that it meant the war was over. It was time to celebrate, not calculate. And perhaps, in a way, they were right.
I know from abroad, especially from the point of view of those from countries which have in the not too distant past experienced military dictatorship, such as Argentina, that there are serious legal problems. In his reply to my initial post, Emmanuel Guerisoli raised important issues, reminding me of the sorts of observations and judgments of his compatriot, Martin Plot. The US invaded a sovereign country and killed an unarmed man, apparently deciding it was better to get him dead than alive. The president acted more like a dictator than a democratic leader, adhering to the norms of international law. This continued the apparent illegality of much of American foreign policy, especially since 9/11. And the public cheered. This is indeed jarring.
I share the concerns and critical observations of others who joined the discussion here. I worry with Vince Carducci that Obama’s use of the word justice for killing is disturbing. I suspect with Rafael Narvaez, Tim and Radhika Nanda that there is a hyper-reality to the way Americans responded. I am aware with Sarah and Elzbieta Matynia that the way we have used force against bin Laden and in general in “the war on terrorism” threatens democratic institutions and norms.
Dechen lost a family member. I lost a dear friend, and I agree with her that, “Killing bin Laden does not resolve anything for me,” but I am not so sure about her judgment when she notes, “I don’t think it will do much to end ‘war on terror’.”
We have had an extended series of reflections on the killing this week. In addition to the aforementioned responses to my initial post, there were many others, responding to the forum of DC contributors reflecting on the significance of the killing and the response. As the host of this site, I appreciate the variety of the perspectives expressed, though I want it to develop more dialogically, a technical – social problem we will work on. I am pleased with the diversity of the opinion and of the variety of insightful theoretical insights.
I found myself most challenged by Daniel Dayan’s post. He illuminates many problems with the way this important political event developed. Indeed, the four invisibilities he highlights potentially compromise the political significance of bin Laden’s death. The world has changed because of the assassination, or at least that is what the American (bi-partisan) political elite and a broad swath of the American population want to believe, however problematic that may be. But how can something so momentous be invisible, four times, as Dayan puts it? The iconic photo capturing the momentous act is not of the act itself but of the political – military leadership, perhaps, looking at the act. Because we don’t see it, the account of the event is particularly unstable. As DC contributor Robin Wagner Pacifici would put it, it is a radically “restless event,” because it is not pictured. Because the response to the event has been muted, by tactical concerns about inflaming the passions of bin Laden sympathizers, the practical impact of the killing as an expression of a mission accomplished is frustrated. Alas, few are declaring: Osama has been killed! Long live Obama!
I actually think not showing the corpse was a good idea. I was more moved by the silent dignity of the president’s visit to lower Manhattan than I would have been by a grand speech, which of course he is quite capable of giving. I am pretty sure that official celebration would have served little purpose. And the vehemence of Sarah Palin’s criticism of Obama for not showing the dead terrorist convinces me that that decision was wise one. Yet, I also know that Dayan is right. Monumental change has to be marked.
And thus, the kids were right. It might be that what they were thinking was not particularly insightful, perhaps it even was deeply problematic, as suggested by Jeffrey Olick. His point was very forcefully underscored in responses to his post that I shared on my Facebook page. Yet, a major event needed to be underscored, even though for good reasons Laura Pacifici and many others found it to be a generational embarrassment.
The kids were right because it is time to declare victory and bring the troops home. One of the greatest principles of sociology coined by the early 20th century sociologist, W. I. Thomas, concerns “the definition of the situation.” “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences,” Thomas stated. It is not as easy as it sounds. Men and, of course, women, can’t just define any situation real in any way they want. But they work to define and re-define their situation. Bin Laden’s killing, and the kids’ response to it, began the changed definition of the war on terror. More thoughtful people are contributing, even Republicans such as Senator Richard Lugar. It’s over.
I take seriously the criticism of the killing of bin Laden. I don’t find myself comfortable in a happy country that is so pleased with the result that it doesn’t consider how it came about. Not only the killing but the illegitimate wars need to be critically appraised. But there is a time and a place for everything. Now is the time to end the war, and the kids response may have contributed to this definition of timing.
Other important topics fell by the wayside in the past couple of weeks at DC. There was an interesting post and discussion about Brooklyn and urban authenticity by Vince Carducci, and reflections on the role of empathetic leadership in post earthquake politics by Bin Xu, and Cecilia Rubino’s beautiful May Day reflections on her theater piece. There was Benoit Challand’s very interesting criticism of the media, of The New York Times, and lightly this blog, when it comes to the Palestinian Israeli conflict, and Gary Alan Fine’s broad criticism of liberal interventionist foreign policy. Other issues need to be addressed, and they will be in what perhaps is our emerging post war era.
I think we are overlooking some very important realities about images when we talk about showing or not showing Bin Laden’s dead body and when we talk about what we did see– the image released of various heads of office watching the assassination of Bin Laden. First, of all images never speak for themselves. They are mediated through the media and/or our own personal narratives. The way people receive images cannot be controlled. For example, I made a conscious decision not to look at any of the pictures of the hanging of Hussein in Iraq. It made me sick to my stomach that Bush et. al. invaded Iraq and killed Hussein and his sons (or had them killed) in the very public way they did. And I was not gleeful to see Hussein, bedraggled in a jail cell, deprived of human dignity and exposed, really, for all to see. So, when I was on the internet and I was searching something an image of Hussein being hanged came on— and I only saw maybe 10 seconds of the clip— here is what I felt before Hussein before I could catch myself reacting: respect. He did not break down, shit in his pants, nothing. He went to his death like the mafia he admired. What did I feel when I saw him in that hospital light on the media— empathy. These are not two things I would have felt for Hussein had I never saw those images. He as a pig— but the point is this: putting images out there of Osama being killed, or his dead body would not stabilize public reaction. I think it would further destabilize it and set in motion a media circus that opens up a whole host of reactions to the images and a kind of salacious lingering on photos of the dead man. And people may even feel, against their better judgment, what I felt for Hussein: empathy and/or respect.
Back to the one image, no doubt strategically released, of the players in the situation room—- here is what I thought when I saw it. Every single person looks dead serious. Their faces fit the scene. I took solace in this and here is why— because if it were the previous administration, I think there would have been smiles and glee. And it would have disgusted me.
Speaking of the previous administration and Jeff’s notion that the war on terror can now end—- it does not have to be endless if we killed its’ captain— the elimination of OBL by Obama in 18 months really makes me sad in a way– said is not the right word, but I have not found the word yet that really gets it—- here is what I feel/think: this could have been done within 18 months of September 11 if Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice/Bremmer wanted it to happen. And then we would have had no justification for the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan and we would have been spared 8 years of the tyranny of fear and all that that fear and the playing on it allowed the previous administration to do. The killing of Osama Bin Laden reinforces my most cynical convictions that Bush and Cheney wanted him alive so they could scare their population into doing whatever they wanted to do under the guise of a war on terror. And what they did with that fear is plunge Iraq further into the abyss, lose many lives in Afghanistan (not just American) and pretty much bankrupt the country by backing the financial industries playing with people’s lives with the trading of such obtuse financial instruments that many with an MBA cannot quite make sense of the endless deferred payments. I guess there is sadness and political rage and the overwhelming sense of the futility of the lives and wealth lost in only 8 short years.
Rev Billy’s meditation on the mediation of Osama Bin Laden.
In 1984, George Orwell notes that the primary benefit to the government of Oceania of the endless state of war alternately with Eurasia and Eastasia is to promote a continual state of emergency and use of fear over the domestic population. From the beginning, I believed that was part of the Cheney-Bush agenda in the wake of 9/11. Also, while I agree with Jeff’s observation that the spontaneous street celebrations chip away at the ideological hegemony of the war on terror, I feel more affinity with those who see in the methods used by the US to whack Bin Laden a continuation not a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine and American exceptionalism.