But beyond the emotional fulfillment that comes from vengeance and retributive justice, there are two points worth considering. The first is the question of what, if anything, is going to change as a result of the two bullets in Osama bin Laden’s head? Are we going to fight fewer wars or end the ones we’ve started? Are we going to see a restoration of some of the civil liberties which have been eroded at the alter of this scary Villain Mastermind? Is the War on Terror over? Are we Safer now?
Those are rhetorical questions. None of those things will happen. If anything, I can much more easily envision the reverse. Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed. Futile decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may temporarily dampen the nationalistic enthusiasm for war, but two shots to the head of Osama bin Laden — and the We are Great and Good proclamations it engenders — can easily rejuvenate that war love. One can already detect the stench of that in how Pakistan is being talked about: did they harbor bin Laden as it seems and, if so, what price should they pay? We’re feeling good and strong about ourselves again — and righteous — and that’s often the fertile ground for more, not less, aggression.
In sum, a murderous religious extremist was killed. The U.S. has erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force. Other than that, the repercussions are likely to be far greater in terms of domestic politics — it’s going to be a huge boost to Obama’s re-election prospects and will be exploited for that end — than anything else.
Glenn Greenwald on the Death of Bin Laden
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.
Here are some suggestions for your first post.
- You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
- Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting page you read on the web.
- Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can alway preview any post or edit you before you share it to the world.
<>
Ron Paul vs. Sean Hannity
Ron Paul on Monday night dismissed Sean Hannity’s fear that Sharia law is coming to the United States.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53693.html#ixzz1KdvzdQAu
<>
Federal Reserve is a Counterfeiter
Ron Paul said on the Cobert Report that “the biggest counterfeiters in the world are the Federal Reserve.” Will he enter the 2012 race?
What Causes Poverty?
There is very little either complicated or interesting about poverty. Poverty has been man’s condition throughout his history. The causes of poverty are quite simple and straightforward. Generally, individual people or entire nations are poor for one or more of the following reasons: (1) they cannot produce many things highly valued by others; (2) they can produce things valued by others but they are prevented from doing so; or (3) they volunteer to be poor.
<>
Bernanke in Trouble
The recent decision by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to begin holding press conferences may be one more indication of the increased influence of Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Federal Reserve has long ignored the public and conducted its proceedings in cloister, but the Wall Street Journal reported April 21 that Bernanke will hold the Fed’s first scheduled press conference ever after Wednesday April 27 Open Market Committee meeting.
<>
Is the Obama Birth Certificate Worth the Fight?
Mike Lawson writes:
I’m not saying it’s good or giving him a pass on the natural born thing, but honestly, in light of everything else going on, is pursuing this really likely to do anything but cause fights?
<>
Are We Allied to a Corpse?
Of our Libyan intervention, one thing may be safely said, and another safely predicted.
When he launched his strikes on the Libyan army and regime, Barack Obama did not think it through. And this nation is now likely to be drawn even deeper into that war.
For Moammar Gadhafi’s forces not only survived the U.S. air and missile strikes, after which we turned the air war over to NATO, his forces have since shown themselves superior to the rebels. Without NATO, the rebels would have been routed a month ago.
And, today, NATO itself stands a chance of being humiliated.
“NATO’s Bomb Supply Is Running Short,” ran Saturday’s headline in The Washington Post over a story that began thus:
“Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in maintaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time. …
“The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts … about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi hangs on to power.”
Only six NATO nations have planes running strikes on the Libyan army, and the French and British, who are doing most of the bombing, are running out of laser-guided munitions. And their planes are not equipped to handle U.S. smart bombs.
NATO air attacks are thus becoming less precise and lethal, as Gadhafi is pounding Misrata, the last rebel-held city in the west, and his army is again contesting Ajdabiya, the gateway to Benghazi.
In short, the war is not going well. Where does this leave us?
If the United States does not get back on the field, the Libyan army will likely crush resistance in Misrata and push the rebels back to Benghazi and Tobruk.
As the rebels lack the soldiering experience or organization to conduct an offensive, and their NATO air arm is weakening, the best they can probably hope for in the near term is to hold on to what they have in the east. Which means a stalemate — a no-win war.
Can Obama accept such an outcome to a war he started, at the outset of which he declared Gadhafi must go? Can he go into 2012 with Republicans mocking him for picking a fight with Gadhafi, then losing it for the United States? Can Obama leave Gadhafi in Tripoli knowing he is plotting terror attacks against America in reprisal?
If Gadhafi survives, does Obama survive?
Can he tell the beleaguered British and French we are not going to double down on our folly of having started this war?
In an op-ed last week in The New York Times, Obama, along with Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, wrote:
“Our duty and our mandate is … not to remove Gadhafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadhafi in power. … It is unthinkable that someone who tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.”
But if it is “unthinkable” and “impossible” for Gadhafi to remain in power, who is going to remove him?
Absent celestial intervention, it is Uncle Sam, or no one.
If regime change is now the unstated NATO mission, who but the United States can ensure the mission is accomplished?
The Post story about Britain and France, the leading military powers of NATO Europe, depleting their smart-bomb supply in a one-month clash with an African nation of 6 million, and begging the Yanks to come back and win the war for them, raises a major question.
Is the most successful alliance in history, which kept the Red Army of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev from smashing through the Fulda Gap and reaching the Channel, a hollow shell?
Is NATO, without America, a paper tiger?
On the eve of World War I, the German foreign minister, after visiting the aged Emperor Franz Josef in Austria, reported back to the Kaiser, “Sire, we are allied to a corpse.”
Are we?
In the 1990s, we had to pull the British and French chestnuts out of the Bosnian fire. When Serbs fought for their cradle province of Kosovo, America had to break Belgrade with 78 days of bombing.
NATO Europe couldn’t handle a fight in its own backyard.
Though we are still in Iraq, NATO is gone. There are NATO units in Afghanistan, but some have pulled out and others won’t fight.
What benefit does America receive from membership in NATO to justify the cost of maintaining tens of thousands of troops, air and naval bases, ships and planes defending a rich and populous continent that chronically refuses to provide the arms and men to defend itself?
Why are Americans still defending Europe 66 years after World War II ended and a generation after the Soviet Union disappeared?
Isn’t it time we kicked them out of the nest?
<>
