I do not want closure. There is no closure after tragedy.
I want memory, justice and revenge.
When you’re dealing with a mass murderer who bragged about incinerating thousands of Americans and planned to kill countless more, that seems like the only civilized and morally sound response.
We briefly celebrated one of the few clear-cut military victories we’ve had in a long time, a win that made us feel like Americans again — smart and strong and capable of finding our enemies and striking back at them without getting trapped in multitrillion-dollar Groundhog Day occupations.
However, within days, Naval SEAL-gazing shifted to navel-gazing.
There was the bad comedy of solipsistic Republicans with wounded egos trying to make it about how right they were and whining that former US president George W. Bush was due more credit. Their attempt to renew the debate about torture is itself torture.
Bush preferred to sulk in his Dallas tent rather than join US President Barack Obama at Ground Zero in a duet that would have certainly united the country.
Whereas the intelligence work that led to the destruction of Osama bin Laden was begun in the Bush administration, the cache of schemes taken from bin Laden’s Pakistan house debunked the fanciful narrative that the Bush crew pushed: that bin Laden was stuck in a cave unable to communicate, increasingly irrelevant and a mere symbol, rather than operational. Bin Laden, in fact, was at the helm, spending his days whipping up bloody schemes to kill more Americans.
In another inane debate last week, many voices suggested that decapitating the head of a deadly terrorist network was some sort of injustice.
Taking offense after Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said he was “much relieved” at the news of bin Laden’s death, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, posted the Twitter message: “Ban Ki-moon wrong on Osama bin Laden: It’s not justice for him to be killed even if justified; no trial, conviction.”
I leave it to subtler minds to parse the distinction between what is just and what is justified.
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was “glad” bin Laden had been killed, a colleague called such talk “medieval.”
Christophe Barbier, editor of the centrist French weekly L’Express, warned: “To cry one’s joy in the streets of our cities is to ape the turbaned barbarians who danced the night of Sept. 11.”
Those who celebrated on Sept. 11 were applauding the slaughter of US innocents. When college kids spontaneously streamed out to the White House, Ground Zero and elsewhere, they were the opposite of bloodthirsty: They were happy that one of the most certifiably evil figures of our time was no more.
The confused image of bin Laden as a victim was exacerbated by John Brennan, the Obama national security aide who intemperately presented an inaccurate portrait of what had happened on the third floor in Abbottabad.
Unlike the president and the Navy SEALs, who performed with steely finesse, Brennan was overwrought, exaggerating the narrative to demonize the demon.
The White House had to backtrack from Brennan’s contentions that bin Laden was “hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield” and that he died after resisting in a firefight.
It may be that some administration officials have taken former US vice president Dick Cheney’s belittling so much to heart that they are still reluctant to display effortless macho. Liberal guilt may have its uses, but it should not be wasted on this kill-mission.
The really insane assumption behind some of the second-guessing is that killing bin Laden somehow makes us like bin Laden, as if all killing is the same.
Only fools or knaves would argue that we could fight al-Qaeda’s violence non-violently.
Obama was prepared to take a life not only to avenge US lives already taken, but to deter the same killer from taking any more. Aside from bin Laden’s plotting, his survival and his legend were inspirations for more murder.
If stealth bombers had dropped dozens of bombs and wiped out everyone, no one would have been debating whether bin Laden was armed. The president chose the riskiest option presented to him, but one that spared nearly all the women and children at the compound, and anyone in the vicinity.
Unlike bin Laden, the Navy SEALs took great care not to harm civilians — they shot bin Laden’s youngest wife in the leg and carried two young girls out of harm’s way before killing bin Laden.
Morally and operationally, this was counterterrorism at its finest.
We have nothing to apologize for.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations