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 20^th 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 found it pretty disconcerting to watch the jubilation over Osama bin Laden’s death last week. In the first place, it just seemed all wrong—more like the reaction you’d expect to a football victory than a serious world event, especially one that began in horror and whose human and financial costs have since reached yet more unfathomable heights. One does not dance on graves, certainly not in a majority Christian country, in which “Love your enemy” is common enough a line that even a liberal and godless Jew like myself know it.

In the second place, I was uncomfortable because once again I felt like a complete alien, missing what was so obvious to everyone else, unable to give even a small yelp in a culture that often expresses itself in wahoos! and babys! What a relief, then, to see, over the course of the week that followed, that for once I wasn’t the only one. Numerous commentators, from across the spectrum, were disappointed as well. Not only those who question the legality of assassination found the tone all wrong. Many of those who had lost loved ones on 9/11 and in the wars since found little joy, even as they might have some “closure.” I was particularly moved by this one by Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband died in the towers.

Most interesting, though, is recognition that one of the major axes dividing celebrants from more sober observers is that of generation. To be sure, who else besides college students—and college students a few blocks from the White House—would assemble for a party at midnight on a Sunday (particularly given the desire for diversion during exam week!)? We also know from extensive research, particularly that of Howard Schuman and colleagues, that the age at which an event is experienced is a major determinant of collective memory. For Schuman, following in the tradition of Karl Mannheim, however, the critical age for definitive experiences is early adulthood. Mature enough to understand events, but not yet set in identities to withstand their disturbing effects as much as older people, young adulthood is the time when shared experiences constitute generations.

However, the celebrants were, in many ways, too young on 9/11. This is why some of the common themes younger commentators have drawn on to explain the reaction is particularly disturbing, especially to codgers-in-waiting like myself. For instance, in a Washington Post blog entry, Alexandra Petri explained: “Osama is our Voldemort. He’s our Emperor Palpatine. He is the Face of Evil, a mythical holdover from when we were too young to realize that evil has no face.”

To be sure, Charlie Chaplin mocked Hitler just as Superman was designed to vanquish him. Nevertheless, these were reactions to, rather than frames for, our understanding of evil. Petri may be right that some of the college students who hit the streets shouting USA! USA! were viewing events through the lens of Star Wars and Harry Potter. These were frames they acquired at about the same time they experienced 9/11. Those who are college students today were too young in 2001 to make a sharp distinction between the real and the fantastic; they were still equally, or even more, scared by the movies as by the news, with which they didn’t have much experience.

Nevertheless, it is concerning that, ten years later, many still do not seem to have learned the distinction. One could suppose it is a good thing that Voldemort and Palpatine, rather than Hitler and Pol Pot or Son of Sam, are the obvious frames for today’s college students—it means the losses and traumas were distant enough at the time to be childhood fantasies. For those of us who rushed to school to pick up these same creatures on that clear September morning and to hold them close all day while we slipped into the other room to view the horror, however, nothing about this will ever be a fantasy, and Osama will never be a comic book villain. So, I don’t feel the same urge to cheer as I did when I first saw Star Wars as a teenager, or again 30 years later with my kids. I guess we can hope that today’s college students—shaped as much by the Empire and Hogwarts as by televised war, never learn the difference the hard way. Then again, many in their cohort who aren’t in college today because they are in the military already have. Reasonable politics depends on their sobriety and realism.