Is Obama Wise to Make getting Usamah bin Laden so Central to his Public Policies?
My column at Salon.com is out:
"Should Obama chase Osama?
On Sunday the president-elect told "60 Minutes" he wants to capture or kill bin Laden. Is he setting himself up for failure?"
I argue that while actually stepping up pressure on al-Qaeda and quietly going after Bin Laden more vigorously would be all to the good, speaking so publicly and frequently about this goal is unwise.
If Bin Laden cannot be found, Obama will be blamed for not living up to his own rhetoric.
And, trying to get at Bin Laden may backfire if US air strikes and incursions further dismay the Pakistani public, the support of which is important to the US fight against extremists. (Pakistanis largely voted for the center-left, secular-leaning Pakistan People's Party in February's election).
So this is an instance in which 'speak of it seldom and wield a big stick behind the scenes' is the better policy.
Read the whole thing.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/18/2008 12:42:00 AM
|
Facebook
10 Comments:
On Sunday the president-elect told "60 Minutes" he wants to capture or kill bin Laden. Is he setting himself up for failure?"
I'm uncomfortable with that kind of tough talk in the mouth of Obama since before the elections. Then, I supposed that it was merely campaign posturing, that in order to get elected a US president has to talk toughly. Now, that he is elected is it wise to continue on the same line ? It doesn't seem to bode well for Obama's foreign policy. On the other hand it could also be viewed as a tactical statement : Obama is talking toughly on Ben Laden and Al'Quaeda, because this suits him with regards to his plans of withdrawing US troops from Iraq; affirming at the same time that things are going better in Iraq and that troops are needed elsewhere makes a withdrawal from Iraq easier to swallow for the US public. Mmmm... but as you point, what is smart regarding Iraq may backflash at a later time.
My hope that Obama's "scare" mongering during the campaign was just a way to get votes and it would STOP after his election. So far, he has continued the scare mongering propaganda of the Bush administration. VERY DISAPPOINTING
Do we honesty think that the Saudis would ever permit one of their princes to be captured, stripped naked, blindfolded and humiliated? No, we don't.
Dear Juan,
I concur with you, with one proviso. Our Presidents and Prime Ministers must use the language of the civilian populations of their respective countries and banish the word "killing" from their vocabularies. In democracies, the right to pronounce judgement and to decide over matters related to life, death and restriction of personal liberties (e.g. sentencing individuals to prison terms) are prerogatives of courts, and not of Presidents and Prime Ministers.
I sincerely believe that President-elect Obama must resist the temptation of using the language that is not befitting his status. I have watched the interview and was deeply saddened when I heard the word "killing" coming out of Mr Obama's mouth; my first thought was: here is a man, a husband and a father of two young children; what are his children to think about their beloved father seeing him talking on the national television about "killing" some individual, no matter what crimes that individual is accused or guilty of. Our Presidents and Prime Ministers must reflect the humanity that is within us and not the violence that we share with the rest of the animal kingdom.
BF.
ref : “Should Obama chase Osama?”
Since the greatest mistake that Mr. Bush made post- 9/11 was to give Mr. bin Laden the "Global War" narrative that Osama so clearly wanted, fwiw my answer to the Professor's rhetorical question would be: "Chase the bandit? Why, of course! But with an entire Army, Navy and Air Force? How absurd!"
Really, imho a better post-election question for us to ponder is not, "How can -or- should Mr. Obama re-deploy or 'withdraw' our assault troops?" from pointless / un-productive, dumbed-down occupation duties, but: "How can -or- should Mr. Obama unwind the Bush/Cheney legacy WAR ECONOMY?"
Mr Simon Jenkins (more precisely, Sir Simon Jenkins) has the following insightful Comment which I warmly recommend:
The errors of Iraq are being repeated - and magnified: The awful prospect is of Obama and Brown, no fans of the 2003 invasion, blundering on in a more perilous war: Afghanistan
The Guardian, Wednesday, November 19, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/19/iraq-aghanistan-withdrawal-brown-obama
BF.
Perhaps Obama would like to know that Osama is dead, according to the
New York Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405EFDE1230F932A25754C0A9649C8B63
and the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism
and CNN/Pakistan:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/18/gen.musharraf.binladen/
and Afghanistan:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/karzai.binladen/
and the FBI/BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2135473.stm
The Germans didn't get anything right until they renounced Deutschland Uber Alles. And the Americans won't get it right until they renounce America Over All. Everyone who exalts himself in that haughty fashion bring forth the same bitter fruit. In truth, American terrorism is in every way more barbaric, slaughters more people, and inflicts more devastation on the earth than that of anyone else involved. Osama bin Laden hasn't murdered hundreds of thousands of people, filled Iraq and Afghanistan with depleted uranium dust, and trashed cultural treasures to a degree that makes Hulegu look moderate.
Some few, like the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev and to a lesser degree the British empire, get of the empire business voluntarily. I hope the US takes that path, but with its national identity defined in terms of being superior to others, which is to say that others are lesser breeds, and with genocide and slavery at the foundation of its national character, such repentance is a hard order for the United States of America.
The rest of the world will have to require such repentance or perish, because the US can only keep expanding, as a shark must keep swimming, until it devours the whole earth or sets it on fire through climate change, if not with nuclear bombs.
For 400 years the solution to problems has been to export them to the frontier and resolve all difficulties on the backs and blood of other people. However, it is a finite world. The infinite cheap energy of Star Trek is a hallucination. It's not true that endless avarice can be satiated by just continuing to feed the beast.
Obama wasn't about to get elected by being truthful with the American people about all this, and I'm sure he's not about to change his mind. It's most unlikely that he's about to face reality himself, much less bring such home truths to his people. Therefore it is likely that the best thing that can happen to the world is an American debacle before the empire further devastates the world.
The sooner and more completely the American people can confront reality, the less painful that shock will need to be, so nothing makes sense to me that does not move in that direction. Obama is far too busy preaching and practicing American messianism to do anything but harm so far and for the foreseeable future. Let's not delude ourselves by expecting him to do anything else.
The fear of the head on a stick can be helpful for pacifying and gaining cooperation.
The anxiety of the head on a stick can create a chronic loathsome, cumbersome open wound. Yielding a net gain of enemies where none need exist.
Anxiety almost always trumps fear, as it is the likely response to the vague and the ambiguity inherent in a 'war on terror' mantra with no center and no core mission; arbitrary and capricious in its violence and scope. The blow-back from anxiety is usually fear and loathing.
President Obama can capture alive or death Mr Bin Ladden, if he really wants to do this. If he wants to carry on the old game of Mr Bush to deceive American and the worldwide, of course he will not get rid of Laden.
In my opinion, there are some ways to capture or kill Bin Ladden:
1. Mr Obama must press Pakistanis and finish their double game;
2. Fight with Taliban the main supporters of Alqaeda in the region. In other words fight with Taliban but not deal or compromise with them;
3. He must end the secret supports of Saudis and some gulf states to Taliban and Ladden;
4. Mr. Obama must persuade his NATO allies especially British Politicians to participate in war against terrorism. As far as we know some of US allies such as the London follows Pakistanis agenda regarding terrorism issues and they prefer to deal with Taliban and not fight. They would like to hand over Afghanistan to Taliban and Pakistanis and escape from Afghanistan.
Best wishes
Dr. Haroon Amirzada from London
Post a Comment
<< Home