I find myself puzzled by the response to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Listening to President Obama’s speech, I immediately wondered how this would affect the war in Afghanistan and our relationship with Pakistan. Since it seems to me clear that the terrorist threat has less to do with a specific network called Al Qaeda, more to do with fanatics around the world, I wondered about their response.
I then turned on CNN and was bewildered. Why were all these young people in New York and Washington, and at the Mets – Phillies game celebrating? And why the wild chants of USA, USA! What were they thinking? What were they feeling? Why were they so enthusiastic?
Bin Laden was not a nice guy. He was a master of destruction. He inspired his supporters and his enemies to wage war, torture, attack human rights and civil liberties and the like. He was a global anti-democratic force. Without him, globalized terrorism and anti-terrorism are less likely. But the Arab Spring is much more consequential in this regard, I believe, as it points to promising alternatives for people around the world. Democracy is “in,” fanaticism is “out.” The heroes of Tahrir Square are the real answer to the “Clash of Civilizations.” This confirms for me ideas I had soon after 9/11, leading to the writing of The Politics of Small Things: The Power of the Powerless in Dark Times.
Yet, no doubt, I am underestimating and not understanding the response of people here in the U.S. and around the world to the elimination of a force and symbol of mass destruction. Understanding how they see and feel it is important, because these feelings and perceptions are important political realities. An interesting overview of reactions today were posted on Al Jazeera.
I found particularly interesting the contrasting takes of the key leaders in Israel – Palestine:
Ismail Haniyeh – head of Hamas in the Gaza strip
“We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.
We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”
Ghassan Khatib – Palestine Authority spokesperson
“Getting rid of Bin Laden is good for the cause of peace worldwide but what counts is to overcome the discourse and the methods – the violent methods – that were created and encouraged by bin Laden and others in the world.”
Benjamin Netanyahu – Israeli prime minister
“This is a resounding triumph for justice, freedom and the values shared by all democratic nations fighting shoulder to shoulder in determination against terrorism.
The state of Israel joins together in the joy of the American people after the liquidation of bin Laden.”
As far as perspective from the point of view of the U.S., I thought Juan Cole’s reflections were particularly telling.
But as I said at the outset, I am mostly confused by the reactions of my fellow citizens, and wonder how the readers of Deliberately Considered see it.
While the images of people rejoicing and celebrating together in front of the White House do give me some – purely symbolic – feeling of relief and closure, they also make me a bit uneasy. In some strange twist of irony, they almost remind me of the images of large groups of people celebrating in the streets of other places in the world in reaction to the attacks on 9/11.
It’s clear that people will celebrate in the U.S. and elsewhere today, we have good reason to, but I believe we (not only the media but individuals as well) should take care not to do so too boastfully. We don’t know what unforeseeable effects of Bin Laden’s death there might be, but it would be a shame to have to face the consequences of reacting too triumphantly and gloatingly. It’s a relatively rare occasion that one person’s death arouses so much elation, and thankfully so, I guess…but let’s not turn this into a party.
I was also quite surprised, not only by the response in the streets last night when the news broke, but also by the celebratory air on this morning’s talk shows (Morning Joe especially). On Friday it was Kate Middleton who was the answer to the country and world’s malaise, but today the made-for-Hollywood killing of bin Laden — shot through the left eye and buried at sea — is just the shot of morale that the American people apparently need, according to the talking heads.
I know that my wish for a trial was something of a pipe dream (and would have in fact been a nightmare, I am sure), but in no way would I have expected this sort of celebration. I don’t quite know what to make of it…
I guess many of us are caught in the midst of the quandary you’ve pointed out to. Many of us felt a sense of relief, yet the jubilation on Times Square last night caught us unprepared, as it suggested the end of the war, the end of tyranny, a new beginning… yet it was a very different kind of rejoicing from the one we remember from Tahrir Square several weeks ago.
Most of us would agree with Hannah Arendt when in her well-known work on violence she says: “Under certain circumstances violence ¬ acting without argument or speech and without counting the consequences ¬ is the only way to set the scales of justice right again”. Yet we do feel uneasy as we also know from her that “violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power’s disappearance. …. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it.”
This kind of jubilation demonstrates the irrationality of the public response to major ‘mediated’ world events and their inability to take a critical stance. It is representative of Durkheim’s insights on ‘collective sentiments’ after he witnessed the French response to the Dreyfuss affair in 1894. The public realm provides a space to vent rage and displace the reality of war, espionage and injustice. I would like to find out what kind of deal was struck with the Pakistani government, military and intelligence, for them to sanction the US military operation in the military cantonment near Islamabad. Alas, we will never know. Nothing is what meets the eye, except perhaps Lady Gaga!
My first reaction to Obama’s message was not a reaction to the reaction. I don’t understand the jubilation really— I get it is a kind of collective high but it is like Batman finally killed the Joker, and the Joker was the only force of evil in the world. What I was struck by was something else altogether: Obama’s politics — his simple political PR move at the perfect moment. I was shocked that they did not find and kill OBL right after 9/11 and I remained deeply cynical about his never being caught by the Bush administration— here was a cowboy mentality with a Wanted: Dead or Alive. He played on American Macho and a certain seek and destroy without reflection or thought American military action. I think Obama did the job in under two years— he found him and he killed him simply to show the world it could be done. To refashion his image as a no nonsense political actor. I expected him to look into the camera & say “Cheney, this is how it is done.” What I like about what Obama did is that is shows that he is starting to deeply understand that he has to start doing certain things to win the next election—- his speech on the deficit was the start, his being heard “off-mike” was another and now this. I know he knows better. Now he needs to tap into his enormous rhetorical capacity and frame and explain the Arab Spring to people. I dunno, call me cynical, I think it was good politics— and I have also been less generous with the American public than Jeff. I think they are simple minded and they eat up this kind of stuff, especially the people that follow the Palins and Bachmanns and Trumps and Cantors and Boehners. This kind of “Batman killed the Joker) is sure to thrill them, they will eat it up and maybe Obama will get some of their attention back. But again, now he needs to appeal to the brighter strata and explain what this means in terms of Afghanistan (let’s get out, we are just sending people to die because we will never win anything there; and maybe we can now say out loud that Pakistan was never fully our ally, if at all. There was an American journalist beheaded there and President Musharaff either did not want to or could not find him before it happened (so who controls Pakistan and which parts like us? Probably next to none) and Iraq— well, the Americans would have been happy (content, sated, felt like we got even) if this was done within a year of 9/11 and maybe it would have been harder to justify Iraq. So, I say, Obama did this for a very basic (and base) reason and now he needs to use his rich mind and enormous rhetorical capacity to explain the Middle East and the new challenges it presents.
Having lost a family member on 9/11, I would have expected to feel some sense of relief or joy at finally capturing and “liquidating” bin Laden. Instead, I feel mostly emptiness and much confusion at the joyful outcry it seems to have caused amongst Americans and in some other parts of the world. If anything, it seems like this should be a private time for families to grieve and finally try to close that chapter in their lives.
I share Amy’s frustration noted above at the lack of opportunity for a trial or at least the possibility to question or interrogate bin Laden. However, it is interesting to reflect on the capture of Saddam Hussein in this regard and whether anything was learned in that process. Killing bin Laden does not resolve anything for me and I don’t think it will do much to end “war on terror.” Perhaps the only thing to be gained from this is some political capital for Obama as he seeks reelection. Unfortunately, I think that means we will be hearing a lot more about this in the next year and a half.
All thoughtful responses. I have only a few things to add. First, I heard a young Canadian reflecting on the loss of her father this morning on the radio (he was on a business trip on 9/11 and in the World Trade Center) and was struck by her reply. She was completely non-plussed by bin Laden’s death, and said that by her own life she had already answered his violence. She said, bluntly, “I refuse to be terrorized.” This is a state of mind that we should all aim for–as long as people accept the “terror” part of terrorism, it will be effective, and we will have to continue to debate how to best address the threat, regardless of its actual physical impact. Second, I think the fact that bin Laden was found/killed so close to Islamabad leads to deep and troubling questions about Pakistan as an ally, and the very fractured nature of governance and state capacity in that country. I jest here, but it reminds me of a famous scene from the film Casablanca, in which Louis confronts Rick while closing down his cafe (just after resistance leader Victor Laszlo leads the band in a stirring rendition of La Marseillaise), stating rather archly, “I’m shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling going on in this establishment.” And then, of course, one of Rick’s lackeys hands him his winnings from that evening. In Casablance, this ended with the beginning of a beautiful friendship. With respect to Pakistan, one cannot help wonder: with friends like this, who needs enemies?
I have to side with the majority of the posts with regards to the celebratory fervor displayed by my fellow citizens following President Obama’s announcement about the killing of bin Laden. Thucydides’ words on empire came to mind as I was attempting to process and understand at a deeper level the motivations behind these spontaneous events. Thucydides wrote about imperialism as a disease that would eventually destroy the Athenian empire due to a combination of internal violence repressed by tyranny in conjunction with an aimless, what we would call today, nationalism. In viewing the “celebrations” and the mindless ever present chant of USA, displayed constantly in the mediated echo chamber, I find his words and his perceptions, along with Jeff’s about the political realities of the circumstances surround surrounding bin Laden’s killing, to be more than applicable as well as a warning of potential actions that have yet to transpire both domestically as well as internationally. Namely, that those participating in these events felt some sort of purpose or need for a constructive outlet but possessed neither a material nor psychological avenue to express whatever emotion they may have felt at the time.
The killing of bin Laden presented a unique opportunity to engage in introspective thought on a national level about the roles various institutions and nation states have played that culminated with his killing and also to determine whether all of the costs involved (the prosecution of two illegal wars of occupation, the over 7,000 service men and woman who have passed, the over 100,000 civilian casualties, the gradual divesting of our domestic civil liberties and rights, the multiple violations of international law and precedent, even the economic impact on our domestic budget) were justified. The costs mentioned are indicators of the recent war on terror and do not include operations that go back to our involvement with the Afghan/Soviet war or various other acts. I guess, essentially what I’m attempting to state is that this event, the killing of bin Laden, did not occur in a vacuum; it was not a solitary event or an end. The celebrations as such, displayed a propensity that those partaking in these celebrations have treated it as an end.
It is the young people who would go in the middle of a Sunday night to celebrate or protest. The adults are less prepared to be spontaneous. It is the young people who are taking in a momentous event. They want to be included in something bigger than just living day to day. It is young people who felt last night the stirrings of an emotion that the political correctness of the last few decades tries to eradicate: they felt proud to be Americans. It is not fashionable to boast of your superior country or civilization nowadays. But still the feelings are there. In the next few days and weeks the assassination of Bin Laden will be discussed and parsed by pundits and political hands with an eye to the elections and with partisan fervor. However, last night the crowds celebrated a job well done by the government through its military arm. We should be proud and celebrate what the Western civilization stands for. We have given our enemies and detractors too much ground by showing bashfulness whenever our preeminence is brought up. Apologizing for who we are and what we stand for does not make them respect or love us. The Bin Laden’s of the world have a different frame of reference, that is they celebrate violence and death, and they hate us for who we are not for what we do. When the West uses the language of peace and friendship in an apologetic way our enemies hear nothing but appeasement and despised us for it. The fundamentalists, of all stripes, consider our extended hand a gesture of defeat. I hope that the scenes of last night have been seen all over the world. It is good to show that our young people love their country and are proud of it as much as the vaunted young people in Tahir Square or Iran or Syria or Libya. The difference between the young Americans and the ones in the Middle East is that the former are living in a democratic, free, rich country and when they take the streets they are doing so to celebrate or improve an already successful society while the latter are trying to get at least a chance to try to build a modern society.
That the celebratory crowds were mainly young people that were preteenagers when the attacks unfolded should give pause to anyone who thinks that the sophisticated people of 4G and twitter generation do not know how to love their country. In front of the White House someone was waiving a cardboard on which was scribbled by hand “GW [George Washington U.] tuition: $42,000 dorm: $10,000 Bin Laden dead: priceless”. The sentiments encapsulated on that cardboard are what brought people on the streets. For those in the streets and those watching from home, for all those who love America, the killing of Bin Laden might not unburden us from the day to day worries but assures us that the country we love “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” And so, as it should be, the American power was used yesterday to give just final punishment to some who bore us ill will and, as it should be, people rejoiced when the country they love won “one for the Gipper.”
I think the death celebrations have been somewhat magnified by the mainstream media, although I do not deny that many people are unabashedly celebrating as shown last night. Certainly, the backlash in many circles against the celebrations is evidence that there is a sense of unease. I agree with Radhika’s statement that, “This kind of jubilation demonstrates the irrationality of the public response to major ‘mediated’ world events and their inability to take a critical stance.” Nevertheless, I would also add that this is also the result of the mainstream media actually mediating a public response. Images of people silently reflecting are not what make the news.
While I was not one of the revelers, I understand their motivation. I was completely out of the loop, till I checked the NY Times online before heading off to bed, and much to my surprise, I saw the headline. It was an OH MY moment. Something actually happened. Much has been said about emotions on this blog, and if ever there was reason to be emotional, it would be upon hearing the news of bin Laden’s death, a daring mission to boot, reminiscent of Jack Bauer, and that time in the future when things work out. You knew it was the future, because the President of the United States was black.(Hey, I stopped watching later seasons.)It has become easy to be cynical. It seemed likely that Osama would never be caught, if he hadn’t for all this time. I know it really doesn’t mean much, considering all the bad guys still out there, but the fact that it was Obama who did it puts icing on the cake after what the poor guy has gone through lately, with having to prove he’s an American and all. And it turns out he’s got quite a fortunate name. I can just imagine all those hip-hop artists out there composing the hit song, “Obama killed Osama.”
I am also somewhat perplexed by the media’s reaction to the killing of Bin Laden. And further I thought Obama’s word rang rather opportunistic and hollow. I was bored by the whole thing a few minutes into the coverage. Certainly, it is a significant event, however the significance being ascribed to it is unwarranted. Ten years and several trillions of dollars later he’s dead. What has actually changed? Gas is still at $4 a gallon, the economy is still sluggish, the national debt still grows, mortgage foreclosures are still high… However, within such a context, I’m not surprised that ordinary people are out in the streets and celebrating. It’s been a long time coming.
Scott, I’m stealing your quote for my Facebook status today, “Ten years and several trillions of dollars later he’s dead. What has actually changed? Gas is still at $4 a gallon, the economy is still sluggish, the national debt still grows, mortgage foreclosures are still high…” You are bang on!
After the first shock, I was quite amused by the celebration of the flash-mobs (calling them masses would exaggerate their importance) yesterday. Flags in times square, the anthem in front of the white house, college students in the library of Boston college – I could not help, but think of victory celebrations after sports events. In the end that is all it is, the flickering of a communal emotion in the darkness of individualized emptiness. These are not moments of transformational importance like the civil rights marches, the independence movement of India, the Monday Demonstrations in the GDR or the events in Egypt and Tunesia. Thankfully they are also not deeply tragic and scarring moments like the race riots in LA or the riots in Gujarat. The night of yesterday was empty, an event, a fleeting moment of a few people united for the moment in the imagined victory of us versus them. Tomorrow it will be forgotten, like the unifying affects of 9/11 were soon after. Just look at NYC, when I went to work this morning, there was not a trace of emotion, except on the cover of the Daily News and the drumming of the morning talk shows. Where Adorno and Arendt stared helpless and disgusted in the face of the barbarism of human rationality and the crimes it spawned, we stand irritated looking at the banality of the emotional outburst of people summing the ghosts of a collective lost in a society denying its own sociality in the face of its fragments. As Marx said: “History repeats itself: First as tragedy, second as farce.” The farce today is a recurring event, let’s move on.
In contrast to the big celebrations, I was stunned and saddened when my jubilant students (in central Florida) rushed into class today and asked me my view. Last week, I quoted classic Arendt when we discussed Hitler and Stalin: “If the essence of power is the effectiveness of command, then there is no greater power than that which grows out of the barrel of a gun.” They got it, and given their radiant expressions this morning, the get it. We are holding the gun again–this is something to celebrate. We think we have power, but more importantly, according the Arendt, the victor pays a price, especially “when the victor happens to enjoy domestically the blessings of constitutional government.” She then quotes Henry Steel Commager: “If we subvert world order and destroy world peace we must inevitably subvert and destroy our own political institutions first.”
Like Amy, I also don’t know what to make of this. But these demonstrations remind me of the death of Lady Di. Her death was of course real but, back to Baudrillard, the collective experience of her death, the death of this beautiful princess, was largely “hyperreal, he would say: many people wept not for the person but for the mediatic lady di. People seem to be experiencing the death of Bin Laden in similar terms. The death of L. Di at times seemed like a soap opera, the death of Bin Laden at times looks as though an American team had won a particularly important game. I don’t criticize those who cheer, but I’d prefer that people in general were more reflective about this. This is a good opportunity for discussion. I hope it doesn’t become just another media event
A lot has been said already, and I sympathize with most of the comments above.
As much as the jubilating crowds made me uneasy, I somehow want to believe that what happened was just a one-night therapeutic carnival of discharging from many more issues than actual Bin Laden’s death. A parallel might be very far, but I was thinking of the 2008 atmosphere that allowed the crowds to express their disappointment and frustration in the name of change that was to come – the revelation that things were not well had only been possible because there was hope that we could fix them.
Listening to the chant “U-S-A”, I actually heard the need to be together, to forget about the uncomfort of this (and other) war/s (or in general – this and other conflicts, home and abroad), the cathartic need for closure and victory.
Maybe it’s more my optimism than reality, but I can’t help it.
What concerned me much more was the speech of President Obama. Framing the war with terrorism as a chase for Osama Bin Laden; the use of the actual word ‘killing’ (three times); the “I” message, which couldn’t keep from thinking about the 2012 campaign; confrontational note that OSB’s death should be “welcomed to all who believe in peace and human dignity” (really???), the sad misuse of the term “justice” that “was done” – was it really done by killing?
Obama’s final thoughts of American unity, American “freedom and justice for all (sic!)” and “the story of our history” that proves “America can do whatever we set our mind to” made me keep thinking about a different duty to justice that has failed so far.
I can’t stop thinking about Guantanamo, Mr. President.
although it’s outside the main frame of our comments; the global responses have also been–interesting to say the least. from minimalist, to celebratory (hamas), to religiously revered:
to quote a friend:
“Peruvian president just attributed Bin Laden’s death to the beatification of John Paul II (apparently his first miracle!!!). *facepalm* and the thought that it’s really not only in Polish politics but everywhere where the church is involved that these sort of thing is bound to be said. Politically relevant? Of course. Ridiculous demonstration of populism associated to religion?”
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/peruvian-president-calls-bin-laden-killing-miracle-from-pope-john-paul-ii/
The death of the simbolic-media-historical person means the end of the epoch. Stalin’s death meant the end of the “bolshevik” soviet socialistic ideology based on the repressivness or gulag. Hitler’s death meant an end of the national-socialist or fascist ideology. Bin Laden’s death, it seems to me, means an end of the terrorism as ideology of weakness, – those who hadn’t power but were able to destroy USSR and then they tried to do the sameness with USA.
My guess is that a number of things were taking place as people reacted to the Bin Laden killing. As is the case with most complex matters, there are layer after layer of explanations.
My first reaction was that people were happy to have an event to release pent up frustrations, some related to Bin Laden, and others which were unrelated. Besides the death and destruction that took place on 9/11, 9/11 made us aware of new threats in our everyday lives, and many types of countermeasures to reduce threats. Anyone who has a taken a flight post 9/11 understands these frustrations, many of which don’t seem to make a lot of sense. Month after month, year after year people have been reminded to be aware of packages left untended; vehicles left where they shouldn’t be; powders in envelopes; people in public places behaving oddly; foreign substances in parcels and envelopes, etc. Surveillance of everyone has increased. We are being watched and we are watching. The killing of Bin Laden relieved some of the frustration.
On another layer, I suspect that many other frustrations are being repressed and also needed to be vented. There is little that any individual can do about the anemic economic recovery we are experiencing; the high unemployment rate; chronic under employment; worries about unsustainable deficits and debts; loss of purchasing power of the dollar with more to come; skyrocketing energy costs and a lack of a comprehensive energy plan; a healthcare system that is in the midst of tumultuous change; the inability to come to terms to unfunded liabilities that threatened to consume the entire federal budget; wars without end; etc. For just one moment, attention was diverted from these issues and focused on the outcome of a successfully executed Joint Special Operations Command mission — the killing of Bin Laden.
Just like in video games and movies, good triumphed over evil, and all was well with the world, or so it seemed for just a few short hours. Many people defaulted to the way they celebrate imaginative victories. Escapism is a powerful elixir. The timing of the announcement at night also contributed to the type of celebratory reactions that took place, some added by alcohol and a need to be with others. Many people defaulted to celebratory techniques borrowed from other events.
There is also another approach/avoidance conflict. Some people are uncomfortable with the use of military force; and yet, somehow they felt good about the use of military force. Some people are opposed to killing for any reason, yet they felt good about killing Bin Laden. Embracing the killing may have helped resolve the tensions.
On a deeper level, there are other taboo aspects of the mission which we are currently avoiding. Was the killing of Bin Laden moral, ethical and/or lawful? The answers aren’t clear because we don’t know exactly what transpired. If Bin Laden didn’t pose a threat to the attack team, then the laws of war require that enemy be taken into custody. If he was a threat, he could be killed. This probably works for both civilian and military law; moral and ethical principles are more complex. Rather than deal with these, the default reaction is to celebrate heroism. At a news conference today, the White House press secretary said that Bin Laden was not armed. My guess is that no one will pursue these issues, but it does raise the question of who can be killed and for what reasons, when, where and how by what authority.
Michael Corey gets to the deeper issues. Has “justice” been served in this case as the President claimed in his announcement? No doubt Bin Laden’s execution has symbolic value, as the contagion it has fostered demonstrates. It’s a true media event, though far less dramatic than the one he himself allegedly enacted nearly ten years ago. And yet retribution and justice are not synonymous. I can’t help but think of Orwell and the end of Animal Farm, in looking now from Obama to Bush, Bush to Obama, and back again, and being less and less able to tell the difference. He’s smoother no doubt, but the end result is similar — the US acting unilaterally without regard to the universal standards of human rights. What of the others who were killed? Are they simply “collateral damage”? These deeper questions I’m afraid won’t be pursued in the mainstream media. As has been said in posts above, Kate and William yesterday, OBL today, and some other thing tomorrow.
We might speculate for hours as to what was going through the minds of those who took to the streets to celebrate. From a sociological perspective we might look at these actions as the performance of scripts, again as Corey and others have noted, the lines dramatis personae are given as part of certain narrative trajectories, whether presented on the silver screen, the idiot box, or Wii. There does seem to be an element of bread and circuses here. (Well, perhaps just circuses as we are currently setting about reneging on the bread part.) The replaying of farce appears to be the postmodern condition. In America it seems, we don’t get out much.
It is certainly understandable that Americans would want to celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden. I was on the streets of Manhattan when the planes struck the World Trade Center, and to say it was surreal is understating it. America has not been seriously threatened by external powers on its own soil, and the events of 9/11 were scary and shocking for many people.
So I don’t feel any surprise at the celebration. However, I would go on further to say I definitely feel no relief and certainly no elation myself. Much the same way you would have to put down a rabid dog that has bitten people, so too did Osama bin Laden need to be dealt with. It was a necessary task, but it’s important to recognize the irony of attempting to forstall future violence with an act of violence.
That it has taken 10 years is a bit strange in and of itself in this era of satellites surveillance and near-instant communication. I think I would feel more relief if America put more effort into education, investment in our future, and finding smarter ways to get along with the rest of the world. I’ve traveled a little bit and while I would be the first one to say that people everywhere are largely the same, I’ve always felt a little bit of embarrassment that Americans have such an image of ignorance and arrogance in other countries. Embarrassment that such a stereotype has a real kernel of truth to it. I say this because it is this perception that leads other to take advantage of our reputation and turn America into an evil scapegoat. This was the false pretext used to convert rational human beings into suicide terrorists that would steer a plane into a building where other human beings were going about their daily business.
Celebrating the death of another human being unfortunately perpetuates this international perception. As a citizen and a patriot of this great nation, I sometime really wish we would all grow up.
I think the mainstream media has turned the killing of bin Laden into a kind of tragic/farce joke with likening it to the birth certificate— do we really know he is dead? Or by giving all the real credit to Bush. But, I am not disheartened because Fox will be Fox and the rest of the Media, social media on the internet and say Rachel Maddow, are really going for the jugular of the issues that Obama’s death raises in terms of our foreign policy and the Arab Spring. As has been duly noted, there is really no Osamaesque rhetoric in the Arab Spring and, if young people across the Middle East, manage to get better, more representative governments, then there will be less and less extremism. Osama was an exception —- and a leader— most extremism is born of despair, of having no other options, a really shitty life. And Osama never risked his own life; he just led a destructive cult. I hear a lot of really intelligent discussion opening on issues like the war in Afghanistan, our real relationship with Pakistan, and how maybe we can now turn our economic attentions to the issues that our own country faces—- the increase in military spending is one of the major reasons why the deficit is so high. If we get out of places we don’t belong because we are not wanted or needed there, maybe we can start to look at the realist of real issues: our economy. There seems to be no growth, no jobs created here in the US and so many people have lost their homes. When I think of how bad things really are for many/most Americans, I cannot begrudge them some cheering in the streets.
I also really want to see the O man start showing his teeth. Sure, this is political capital but he needs political capital and a more no nonsense approach to Republicans. If he is going to get anything done, he needs a second term. And he needs to do what he has just started to do— beating Republicans at their own game.
I don’t know if he will be transformational because I don’t know if there is any way out of the debt left by Bush/Cheney. 13 trillion dollars. I cannot see one, really— not unless we plan for the future economy the way the Chinese are. I would be happy— and this is a leap— if he transformed us into a “good enough country”— like many other places that are not superpowers, but just good places to live— a decent standard of living for most people, universal health care, $ spent to improve a broken education system. I don’t think this can happen for ideological reasons— Americans just cannot see themselves that way.
Last Sunday night a remarkable event happened: for the first time in history the President of the United States announced to the world that he had ordered the execution of an alleged criminal in the sovereign territory of another country. I was actually surprised to find out that people were more concerned about the cheerful reaction of hundreds of 20yos GW’s students in front of the White House than, worried about the despotic statement made on live tv by President Barak Obama. Why I think it was despotic? Because it has to be understood in the following way: the Head of State of a democracy, meaning chosen through free and fair elections by the majority of all citizens, instructed the security forces to violate the territory of another sovereign state, particularly one considered to be an ally, and to kill on sight a person suspected, and therefore wanted by the Judiciary, of organizing a series of terrorist attacks against the United States since 1998. The President, illegally, took control of the three branches, and their check and balances, which have characterized the United States’ democratic regime. He instructed the security forces, Executive branch/power; he ordered them to act on a foreign country and defined that action an act of war, the Legislative branch/power, and; he condemned Osama Bin Laden to the death penalty by finding him guilty of terrorist charges, the Judicial branch-power.
Of course it would be very naïve from my part to ignore that the President of the United States has been doing targeted assassinations since the Cold War and even before. The United States is not the only country to act this way. However, the fact that it has been happening, covertly, does not make it right. A state, more than a citizen, should abide by the law; especially if people’s lives are at stake. But, again, I am being naïve. States will continue to act this way because it is how they have been acting since their inception. Tilly was not that mistaken when he compared modern states to mafias.
The most important issue is not that the President recognized that he had ordered a target assassination, but that the action was completely legitimized by the American citizenship/public. Besides the cheers at Times Square, Lafayette Square or Ground Zero, no public denunciation has been done. Almost no one has dared question the President’s actions. By not doing it, targeted assassination of foreign or U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, away or not from any battlefield, with no post-Judiciary control has been deemed a legitimate power of the Presidency. The President has become a democratic despot. Additionally, by having admitted that the information that lead to Bin Laden’s location was acquired through torture –water boarding among many other techniques-, the necessity of torturing in some cases has been widely accepted, or worst legitimized, also. I think that the dangers of legitimating targeted assassination and torture are evident: if the President believes that any individual represents a lethal threat to the United States – its territory, its interests, its citizens etc…-, subsequently he is legally allowed to order the killing or torture of such individual –covertly or publically- and his decision could never be revised or questioned by the American Judiciary. The President does not even have to justify his killing instruction and he would never be set on trial because of it.
Most Americans would think that it is trivial because the President is well informed and because not any random American could be selected for target assassination. Only terrorists or terrorist wannabes could be. The experience of my country tells a different story. During the late 70s and early 80s the Argentine Junta made disappear, and later killed, around 30 thousands people based on their terrorist activities and that they were fighting a War against Terror. Even more people were tortured. You could imagine that a small fraction, maybe no more than 800 people, was directly or indirectly involved in subversive actions against the Argentinean state. However, no due process was done and even if it was true that all 30 thousands were involved in terrorist activities they had the same rights that any other ‘innocent’ citizen had. You could say to me that the parallel is unfair because Argentina was not a democracy at the time. That is true, but is a country a democracy when its Head of State has the power to ‘legally’ order the kidnapping, torture and killing of anybody in the world disregarding international law, due process and any kind of judicial revision? Even if that power has been legitimized by its citizens, how it has been since a week ago, we cannot speak of an American democracy. Arendt, and history, showed us the extreme dangers to democracy that legitimacy through the masses poses. If the case of Osama Bin Laden seems tricky or unpopular then think of Bradley Manning or Maher Arar.
Personally I think that this is most relevant consequence of Bin Laden’s death. It is not, by far, the only one. The still incorrect perception that war was brought to America on September 11th is still an issue tat will have to be address in the future. Particularly if the real roots of international fundamentalist terrorism want to be tackle. For now, May 1st 2011 may be the day when democracy officially and publically died in the United States and when its citizens answered with a huge round of applause.