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.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs