It's hard, even today, to really remember the carnage of 9/11, the sense of piercing fear in what had been a placid lake of prosperity. At that moment, anything great and anything terrible was possible. People remember him with a bullhorn on top of rubble, but President George W. Bush also prevented innumerable hate crimes by simply saying that Islam is a religion of peace. That sentiment represented the best of America. But then, he gave yet another clarion call, which was more important than his call for tolerance -- go shopping.
That was his moment, and that was his prescription for America. Go shopping. Now Obama has his moment, a moment richly earned by his security strategy. What will he use it for? It isn't clear. The forces of the status quo are powerful. This past weekend, Seth Meyers presided over a popularity contest between a birther-hugging cynic, Donald Trump, and the President, Barack Obama. It was DC's version of a Royal Wedding.
But then, on Sunday night, President Obama announced that Navy SEALS had delivered two bullets to Osama Bin Laden. Flag-waving throngs gathered outside the White House and in New York City to celebrate, clambering up trees and expressing joyful patriotism and exuberance. Others were more somber, remembering that death, even for one's enemies, is not to be welcomed lightly.
But I listened to our president, the one who only the day before had been throwing around amiable jokes about the political establishment. He said something that stuck with me, and should stick with all of us.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to.
If this is true, and I believe it is, then we have much to do. If we can do whatever we set our minds to, then we should not be held back in our attempt to ending the banking oligarchy strangling our economy. If it is true that our struggle is one for "equality for all our citizens," as the president said, then we should end our poisonous petro-political path. As Glenn Hurowitz said, "now that we've killed Osama, let's kill oil." If it is the case that we up for our values abroad, then let's leave Afghanistan and end our highly destructive war on drugs.
This is now a moment. George W. Bush used his moment on behalf of the forces of the status quo. He told us, to go shopping.
Is the era of shopping over?
By Syed Ali Mujtaba
As made out to be, OBL was a virtual prisoner and it is not possible to lead such a life that too in a populated area without the connivance of those who were sheltering him. It is common wisdom that no one can hide for such a long time without the consent of those who were protecting him.
Now the question is who was protecting OBL? Was it Pakistan or the US? One cannot accuse Pakistan that has come out with a statement that it was sharing the information with the US about the compound since 2009, so that means from 2009 to 2011, there was a complexity on the part of both the countries to hide the most wanted mortal living on our planet.
One may also question the veracity of the fact that OBL was living in that compound for a long time. How can a fugitive like OBL hole in for a considerable period who is suppose to have been changing places as one changes its cloths. The theory is unpalatable and do not pass the test of reasons.
Even for argument sake if we accept that the fact that OBL was living there for long, then where were his bodyguards, with whom he was suppose to be moving in the Afghan mountains.
Imagine “Operation Blue Star” on the Golden Temple in 1984 where Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was holed up. What kind of resistance wall he had built to protect himself. It needed tanks to crack that cordon and this did come with heavy causalities.
If OBL was living in that compound for long, why he did not had any defense mechanism laid for him. OBL knew the kind of threat he faced, he could have laid a mine in the compound and may have other layers of his defense? Why that was not so? Can the story that US commandos walked in shot him and took him away is believable?
The US operation exposes Pakistan's defense preparedness. If the US commandos can enter the Pakistani territory and leave it unchallenged, so can any other country. The “blind spots” that Pakistani establishment say were the reasons for US helicopters being undetected is for all its enemies to make use of not for the US alone. If a government and its army cannot protect its territory, then there is every reason to pull down such a government. Such glaring lapses cannot be permitted. The lesson is better security arrangement should be in place to deter such future adventurisms.
Any way we have to believe the story that the US wants to us tell and we cannot question its veracity as they are the lord of the universe. Will they remain so forever?
Abroad, and possibly at home as well, the killing of Osama bin Laden offers President Obama the rarest of political gifts: the opportunity for a fresh start.
This week’s stunning raid doesn’t guarantee Obama reelection; judgments about his impact on the economy will have more influence there. Nor does the mission end the threat of Islamic radicalism.
But in both domestic and foreign arenas, the triumph could offer Obama chances to turn the page. Those options begin in Pakistan. The discovery that bin Laden was living so close to the heart of the military establishment there immediately makes it more difficult for Islamabad to sustain its double game of extending one hand to the U.S. while offering the other to radicals.
With many in Congress already clamoring to cut off aid, Pakistan’s troubled leadership faces the same sort of “with us or against us” choice that President Bush offered to then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf after the September 11 attacks. After the Abbottabad raid, Congress is less likely to sustain Pakistan’s $3 billion annual assistance budget unless its leaders move more unequivocally against the terrorist networks operating within its borders. “It is a question of whether Pakistan sees this as an opportunity—that this really creates an opportunity to strike a decisive blow” against the terrorists, said one senior administration official who asked for anonymity while discussing internal deliberations.
In Afghanistan, the links between the Taliban and al-Qaida have been among the most important barriers to negotiating an end to the ongoing insurgency. The Taliban movement appears at least somewhat divided between those committed to jihad and those more open to negotiating a truce with Hamid Karzai’s government that would reintegrate them into society. A senior national-security official said that bin Laden’s death should strengthen “those within that insurgency who believe there is a way to reconcile with the central government” and are willing to sever ties to al-Qaida—a prerequisite to any serious talks. Other significant hurdles remain, but new openings for a political solution are possible if that occurs.
In a broader sense, the raid underscores American tenacity and capability in a way that could reverberate through virtually all of our international relationships. “There is a currency and a strength in doing what you say you are going to do that the world notices,” the senior national-security official said. At the same time, bin Laden’s death could offer Obama a second try at reconciling with the Muslim world, following on the overture of his June 2009 Cairo speech. That effort has lost momentum, but bin Laden’s death could revive it. The Qaida chief’s fall underscores how thoroughly his vision of renewal-by-reversion (to a fundamentalist caliphate) has been eclipsed by the Arab Spring’s forward-looking vision of progress.
That approach is still colored by intense (and, in some cases, radicalized) religious devotion, but it also embraces notions of democracy, modernity, and personal expression anathema to al-Qaida’s conception of Muslim revival. The raid presents Obama with an opportunity to make a case to the Muslim world that bin Laden’s vision—a clash of civilizations—has perished with him.
Arab governments that more closely reflect the will of their people won’t agree with the United States on all questions. As the Egyptian deal that unifies Hamas with the Palestinian Authority demonstrates, such governments may even collide more often with America on specific issues. But after Obama’s conflicted and at times uncertain response to the Arab uprisings, bin Laden’s death offers him an ideal platform to argue to democratizing Middle Eastern nations that they are more likely to succeed by joining the global community than by withdrawing from it—let alone by waging war against it, as bin Laden preached.
The successful mission could also provide Obama political cover at home for such renewed outreach. Conservatives have argued that his attempts at reconciliation represent either a “tour of apology” (as Mitt Romney put it) or a refusal to recognize that the United States is “at war” with terrorists (Dick Cheney’s accusation). In fact, the killing of bin Laden underscores what should always have been obvious: There is no contradiction between vigorously pursuing terrorists and simultaneously rebooting relationships in the Muslim world.
All of these openings are fragile and fleeting. Some experts on the Middle East, such as the Woodrow Wilson Center’s shrewd Aaron David Miller, worry that, even with bin Laden gone, the democratizing trends in Arab countries will elevate “Islamist elements that don’t share our point of view.” Any broad outreach effort may fail without progress on an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, which now appears implausible. The Taliban may continue trying to wait out the withdrawal of American troops. Pakistan may continue to hedge its bets. A retaliatory terrorist attack could expose Obama to new charges of weakness on defense.
But risk always shadows the life of a president. Even with all those caveats, the bin Laden mission’s success has provided Obama with a much more elusive commodity: opportunity.
The rejoicing that was seen in the US matched the glee that the Palestinian showed who they came out on streets on the fateful day of 9/11. The two images are still fresh in mind, one of gloom and despair in the US, the other of awe and glee in Palestine. It is not to condone the perpetrators of 9/11 but God alone knows, who was on the right side of the justice.
I agree with the view that no country has the right to violate the territorial sovereignty of another country; else, the rule of jungle will dominate, the strong will prevail over the weak and such unethical conduct may become the order of the day.
In case of the operation against the OBL, it was imperative that US government may have taken the Pakistan government into confidence and both jointly could have finished the job.
The other objectionable point is the clod-blooded murder of the OBL. As the story is he, the target was unarmed and offered little resistance, why he was not arrested? According to civilized norms, OBL should have been taken into custody by the Pakistani government, and then handed over to the US. A fair tail on his crimes could have decided his fate. However, not all this happened and what happed was beyond all civilized norms.
The other disgusting fact was the way OBL’s body was handled is something nauseating. Again as the story is fed, OBL’s body was literally thrown into the deep sea; because the US did not want his mortal remain to be left behind as that may make him a martyr and may become a rallying point. Its pity a civilized country can think such a way on such issues.
Once a person is dead all the animosity ceases to exist, the person is no more an enemy but reduced the status of a mere corpse. In the world of civilized people such corpse should have been disposed according to the deceased religious tents. But what was done was frightening, was it meant that way? Who was intimidate and with this will this cycle of intimidation may come to an end?
I suspect that OBL was he was mastermind behind the operation 9/11. A man who drinks water in a tin pot and looks more like a cleric and do not seem to posses any modern scientific knowledge, can be a mastermind of such a high profile operation like 9/11. Its myth that was created to satisfy the hurt feelings and in the process a Frankenstein monster was created.There is no doubt, that OBL was an American baiter who poured his anger in words against the highhanded policies of the US against the Arab world. What he was saying not untrue as there remains seething anger that was aspiring to be canalized? OBL was a symbol of resistance against American hegemonic designs. There was nothing beyond it. His end does not solve the problem rather it aggravates them.
Is it a crime to oppose American policies and for doing so one may become an enemy of US. There is no dearth of US baiters in this world and will they all meet the OBL fate? Oh boy, where are we heading for?
To cut the long story short, the US created OBL and used him for the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets. In the process, it gave him the taste of its code of conduct. The man who held the US flag aloft on battlefield of the Great Game, and drove away the communists from Afghanistan was a disgruntled man at the end of the war.
The realization that the US policy of use individuals for its vested interests and dump them when the purpose is served made OBL a diehard US baiter. He started an organization that’s committed to armed resistance against the US and it’s this organization that represents a movement that maybe hard to contain.
It took long for the US to bottle up the Frankenstein monster that it had created. The cost of it is yet to be tabulated but suffice would be to say that a huge amount of men, material and firepower was lost in the process. To cap it all, it leaves behind a legacy that now flourishes in the minds of those who are opposed to the handed policies of the US in the world.
The big question is whether the US has bought peace by physically eliminating OBL. I have a feeling that the momentary rejoicing may be a recipe for sleepless nights in future. Such lessons of history are not forgotten and soon it may come to haunt the nation whose policy makers are basking in the glory of being the supreme power.
I feel OBL was a stupid guy. He may have shifted his base to US and lived there happily while his hunters may have been searching him elsewhere. He had enough resources to bribe through to the US mainland and get a new name identity. As clean-shaven, short hair man, wearing jeans and jacket and American cap, he could have started new life.
Was all this was possible? Well all this is flying the kite too far. Each of us is destined with over lives. How and when the end our life may come remains a mystery. Perhaps the end of OBL was destined that way and one has to be contended with that. As far as I am concerned OBL was not a hero, but then was he a villain, and if so, for whom and why?
[Syed Ali Mujtaba is a Journalist based in Chennai.
No comments:
Post a Comment