What a way to wake up
I've never felt giddy after a presidential election. As a matter of fact, I've never listened to an inaugural speech before; not even when "my candidate" won the first presidential election I had the opportunity to vote in. And after eight years of Clinton, I was so thoroughly disappointed in so many things he'd done while in office (NAFTA?! You fucking moron!!!), I never really got all that happy about a candidate again.
So today I woke up at 6am, to NPR's coverage of the inaguration, I groaned at the time and rolled over to go back to sleep … probably dozed off around 7, and woke up again at 8:05 … just at the beginning of Obama's inaugural address…
…and frankly, I am still feeling a little giddy. A little "wow, it's really real!" A little Twilight Zone. Sorry, can't muster up a rant today, folks. ;-)
My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.
The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.
Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died in places Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America… for everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.
We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
All this we can do. All this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
And those of us who manage the public's knowledge will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched. But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan.
With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.
And yet, at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break; the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new, the instruments with which we meet them may be new, but those values upon which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.
What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence: the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall. And why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled.
In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by nine campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it."
America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words; with hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come; let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thank you. God bless you.
And God bless the United States of America.
I stayed up until 4am to watch it live >.>
So worth it.
20th January 2009 at 6:47 pm | permalink |Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
But I couldn't help but chuckle at the thought of George loading up the pick-up truck and heading for Texas while all eyes were on President Obama…
21st January 2009 at 2:59 am | permalink |For me, it's a bit like George Steinbrenner standing at the podium at The Waldorf in February telling me what a great team the Yankees are going to be. Put on the uniform, get to work and let us judge the successes of this "great one" at the END of the season or, on January 20, 2013 in this case. I find it fascinating that one man has been given so much pre-credit for a job he just embarked on 11 or so hours ago. Incredible. Show me the success. Don't tell me of great things to come.
21st January 2009 at 7:47 am | permalink |@grimbles: That would have been easier for me than waking up at 8am. lol
@D.Watson: Actually, I think the mood towards his inauguration is a critical part of getting things moving. Without motivation and a good dose of optimism, the current situation in the US could easily be viewed as too big to even deal with. Especially after the last 8 years of the population being deliberately ground-down mentally by BushCo's propaganda and policies.
Also, what someone chooses to say at a moment like that says something. Sure, he could have been blowing hot air, but the fact that he's talking realistically about the problems with the economy, and about restoring civil liberties, and everything BushCo chose to either ignore or deliberately undermine is a good sign.
Sure, we don't know if he can pull it off yet, but don't get down on everyone for being thrilled that someone in a position of power is talking seriously about trying to fix his predecessor's fuckups.
In short, yes, please, tell me of great things to come. Because I'm depressed about where we are now, and I'm increasingly bitter and cynical after years of people intentionally leading this country down the wrong path. Please give us all a pep talk … because we need one, for fuck's sake. But after you're done with all that, you'd fucking well better follow through, or we're throwing you to the dogs in four years' time.
21st January 2009 at 2:29 pm | permalink |@HeavyHaulGirl: Form what I hear, apparently everyone watched his helicopter leaving the area with rapt attention. Almost like they were making sure he didn't pull a u-turn and try to come back. lol
21st January 2009 at 2:30 pm | permalink |All that said … I could have done without all the "God", and the bit about being "at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." But all in all, that's only two things that bugged me … whereas with any BushCo speech, I would be hard-pressed to find two things that didn't but me.
21st January 2009 at 4:42 pm | permalink |In contrast to the invokation by whoever that fat guy with bad oratory skills was, Obama's God stuff was pretty benign. Actually, I think even objectively it was pretty benign. Yeah, "God Bless America" is a bit of a wank, but when Obama makes mention of God it doesn't seem anywhere near the kind of blunt instrument to beat you into submission that it is when escaping the lips of George or Sarah.
"Nonbelievers" was a bit awkward too. It seemed a bit archaic. In hindsight though, 'unbelievers' would have been worse, and 'atheists/agnostics/humanists/existentialists/prosperity-gospelists' is a bit longwinded.
21st January 2009 at 5:48 pm | permalink |@grimbles: Awkward it may have been, I was greatly heartened that he included it at all. :-)
Like I said, two nitpicks isn't much for a politician's speech … and the God shit is pretty much required in US politics these days, so it was pretty mellow. But the fat guy was a pastor (or whatever), so it's to be expected from him. heh
21st January 2009 at 6:23 pm | permalink |Whew! Yeah, man, thank Hank there wasn't any real conviction and reverence in his voice when he uttered the word, God. We'd really be up 'ol Styx creek without a paddle! You "nonbelievers" kill me but you have a fun bog anyway.
21st January 2009 at 8:41 pm | permalink |I mean, "Blog"…
21st January 2009 at 8:42 pm | permalink |Um, funny thing is Dave … there's this principle in the US called "religious freedom". So, he can say "God" if he wants, and I don't have to like it. I can say "There is no God" if I want, and he doesn't have to like it. But neither of us have the right to force our beliefs on the other.
Not to mention, the fact that he even acknowledged the non-religious crowd's existence and right to exist is actually pretty phenomenal, given the circumstances.
"Religious freedom" … pretty neat concept, really. You ought to give it a try sometime! Respect another person's belief system, so long as they're not trying to force you to live by it. It's almost like that whole "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" idea, when you think about it…
21st January 2009 at 9:49 pm | permalink |Remember that all the time you have a party political system you will only ever be voting for the lesser of two evils.
22nd January 2009 at 12:34 am | permalink |@ab: yeah, the fatty was a pastor, but afaik so was the old guy who gave the benediction. And he talked about God, but wasn't a dick about it.
22nd January 2009 at 5:29 am | permalink |Every time Obama gives a speech, I am amazed at his eloquence and effective use of the language. What a treat, given the 8 long years of having a treasonous village idiot in that position! So far, Obama is moving quickly to right the wrongs of BushCo. I just love the way those two fucking cunts (Dick & Bush) were squeeming in their shorts during all the mention of the mess they've made ("…we are ready to lead once more…do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government… But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed…The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.", etc.,)
I just love the way he verbally pimp slapped those two most wretched lickers of other peoples bottoms. And yes, Faux News followed their beloved Fuhrer and Darth Cheney with great longing. Though most of us DID want to make sure the helicopter was not coming back for another dose of nightmare.
23rd January 2009 at 2:38 pm | permalink |@ian: OK, little rain cloud. ;-) I gotta say though, he's off to a pretty decent start. Nothing too surprising, but he got moving right away.
Y'know, it's possible that every so often a good egg might slip through the cracks. ;-) Or at least a not-totally-rotten one.
@grimbles: True enough.
@Dr. Atomix: Yeah, the look on Bush's face reminded me of Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner. hehehe. Just glowering for all his petty little soul can muster. Poor bitchslapped little baby. :-D
And dear god yes, it's SUCH a relief to have someone in office who doesn't make you cringe every time he opens his mouth. lol
23rd January 2009 at 4:59 pm | permalink |Yeah, whoever was controlling the camera during the speech was obviously not a Bush fan.
24th January 2009 at 12:41 am | permalink |"I gotta say though, he's off to a pretty decent start. "
"Obama is moving quickly to right the wrongs of BushCo."
Yessir, he's already killed his first 22 Muslims in Pakistan! "Obama is making the war in Afghanistan and the intertwined al-Qaida fight in Pakistan an immediate foreign policy priority." Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss…Don't say I didn't tell you so.
24th January 2009 at 7:06 am | permalink |But I am curious of just how the left will defend the missle strikes. Please, some Bush hater tell me just how this act was totally justified when Obama orders the attack. I can't wait…
24th January 2009 at 7:15 am | permalink |"Y'know, it's possible that every so often a good egg might slip through the cracks. ;-) Or at least a not-totally-rotten one."
Possible – in this case I think your political system actually worked quite well. It got rid of the worst possible evils in the primaries – with Huckabee and Hilary being eliminated (yes I know she's a woman but her track record wasn't that of someone you'd really want to see as president.) For a republican McCain wasn't actually that bad a candicdate, although his party did shoot him in the foot when they chose Palin as his running mate in a cynical attemp to grab some female voters.
Then in the final bout the best man for the job won.
I agree that he has made a good start, he is obviously very intelligent and has put together a really strong team around him, I hope he keeps a lot of his campaign team and gets them into the government rather than bowing to party pressures for some of their 'he deserves a slot in government' timeservers to be put in top positions.
The two things he has done so far that have made the news are the closing of Guantanamo and 'the president goes on strike' if he doesn't get his email :)
24th January 2009 at 8:54 am | permalink |@ D. Watson: Are you really that fucking stupid?
Obama campaigned on the fact that he would re-focus our military from Iraq (where they DIDN'T belong) to Afghanistan (where to DO belong). And the argument from a vast majority of people opposed to the war in Iraq has been that it took our military's focus of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
I've never really had an argument against Afghanistan.
So if you're looking for someone here to be wringing their hands in distress over how to respond to your über tricky question, you just may want to try somewhere else.
24th January 2009 at 2:30 pm | permalink |Oh, good plan, continue fighting in Afghanistan – the country that's kicked everyone's ass since Alexander The Great. I thought this was the "smart" president. At this juncture, OBL is irrelevant and a symbolic kill at best.
Well, at least you didn't say we're there only because of George Bush…directly. I'll give you points for that.
24th January 2009 at 3:51 pm | permalink |@D. Watson: Yup, I'm with Becca on this one. Afghanistan was going pretty well before Bush decided he needed to finish his Daddy's grudge match against Saddam. Afghanistan/Pakistan is a situation that does need to be dealt with IMO, and Bush fucked the whole thing hard when he diverted the funding and resources we needed there over to Iraq.
And yeah, maybe you didn't turn your TV on, or read any newspapers during the election? Because Obama has been very clear on the fact that he intends to get out of Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan (like we should have been doing all along).
It would be idiotic to pull out of Afghanistan now, and just sit back and let the Taliban take back over.
24th January 2009 at 4:11 pm | permalink |@D.Watson: Honestly, I don't think it was totally justified. That's not to say I have any issue with troops being in Afghanistan, but that it's questionable whether unilateral incursions into what is still – at least officially – sovereign Pakistani territory are worth it. Yes, there are a few less insurgents on the ground now, but that kind of unilateral action has historically been used to portray the US as arrogant, and abusing its power, which is a *great* way for the taliban to get new recruits.
Whether or not you believe bin Laden's capture would only be a symbolic victory, symbolic victories are incredibly powerful, domestically and militarily. Being unable to catch him has made the US look incredibly weak, and likely spurred people who would otherwise stay at home to take up arms. It would be a major morale hit for taliban/A'Q, and in asymmetric warfare morale is incredibly important – arguably moreso than in traditional warfare.
24th January 2009 at 4:46 pm | permalink |@grimbles – I suppose you're right about an OBL capture in that it would at least make Obama look incredibly adept at accomplishing a job that the previous admin failed to carry out. I'm just not sure what kind of clout, real or perceived, OBL has with even his Muslim brethren. I guess they are the ones responsible for posting his alleged musings though.
I understand and remember what Obama said he'd do. I think I even said here that a lot of folks were going to be disappointed with his hawkish leanings. But people like Richard Gere and Sean Penn (not to mention the sobbing throngs of worshipers paraded before the cameras this week) seemed to think a worldwide love fest was imminent.
I suppose I had them in mind when asking the above questions. It'll be an interesting ride one way or another, these next 4 (+?) years.
24th January 2009 at 5:48 pm | permalink |@D. Watson: Well, he wasn't the slightest bit subtle about announcing his intentions to stabilize Afghanistan, so anyone who's surprised or disappointed in him about it is even more oblivious than Sarah Palin. Sucks to be them, I guess. hehe
24th January 2009 at 6:45 pm | permalink |@ D.Watson: "Oh, good plan, continue fighting in Afghanistan – the country that's kicked everyone's ass since Alexander The Great."
Oh really? While the advice to "never get involved in a land war in Asia" is a humorous rhetorical device, it does not necessarily bear out to be true with regards to Afghanistan.
A basic fact check of the history of Afghanistan suggests you may want to repeat your freshman world history class. Afghanistan hasn't kicked conquerors out so much as conquerors have been subsequently conquered by a new invader.
The modern Afghan state traces its history back to British rule which ended at the beginning of the 20th century. The only invader "kicked out" by Afghanistan is the Soviets. However, Soviets were only kicked out by the Afghanis … with the covert assistance of the U.S. (stinger missiles and other military aid).
"I thought this was the "smart" president. At this juncture, OBL is irrelevant and a symbolic kill at best."
OBL is irrelevant? Here, you have tipped your hand that you have absolutely no idea about terrorism and counter-terrorism.
Terrorism uses violence to achieve a psychological objective in furtherance of a political end. OBL's political goal is to drive Western influence out of the Middle East. Middle Eastern countries are largely impotent against the U.S. in conventional military terms. Thus, strikes such as bombings, ambushes, and insurgency are particularly effective. The former two inflict great damage in a very swift manner. The latter shows the U.S. military to be ineffective. Both approaches have great psychological effect in emboldening new would-be terrorists.
Taking out OBL would be a huge psychological blow against Islamic extremists. It wouldn't put an end to terrorist activity, but it would seriously impact it. Look what happened in Iraq when Abu Musab al Zarqawi—much of the activity attributed to him and his group all but ceased, in spite of the fact that many of his followers undoubtedly live on.
Taking out OBL would be a huge step towards defeating the Taliban. Even better if we can take out Mullah Omar. It would also help Pakistan become a bit less recalcitrant in assisting U.S. efforts to stamp out Islamic extremism. Why? Because someone like OBL or Mullah Omar wield significant power to incite their followers … that reside in northwest Pakistan and can overthrow the Pakistani government. They certainly aren't the only ones, but they are the most significant ones at this time. Meanwhile, we can keep taking out #2 people in Al Qaeda and executing surgical strikes against their interests.
But of course, for you, OBL is "irrelevant."
25th January 2009 at 4:15 am | permalink |Look at it this way: Hitler wasn't a particularly proficient strategist. His assassination during World War 2 would not have had a massive, direct impact on the war effort – Goebels, Himmler or Goring would have quite easily taken over. Yet the western Allies, the Soviets, the german resitance movements, and even individuals saw it as something worth putting a copious amount of effort into. Goring could tell generals what to do, Himmler could keep people under control. Nazi Germany wouldn't have ceased to exist without Hitler – just as A'Q and the Taliban won't cease to exist without bin Laden – but Der Fuhrer would be dead, and at the very least some energy would be wasted on power struggles and consolidation. Due to the mythology that had been cultivated around Hitler, it would have been a massive morale blow.
With bin Laden, its more difficult, given the level and timbre of martyrdom rhetoric is fundamentalist circles (deliberately religion-ambiguos, can't resist). Kill him by dropping a bomb down his tunnel, you make things worse. Drag him out of a hole, ragged and unkempt… well, that gives a boost to American (and more generally, western) morale. And such an ignominious and shameful end for such a 'great' man – who has his own self-cultivated mythology -: sure to piss of the diehards; but also just as sure to make the rank and file waver.
25th January 2009 at 5:48 am | permalink |@Becca If you weren't always so busy patting yourself on the back for your superior intellect and Googling skills, you might see through your forest of pompous grandiosity.
People like Gordon Johndroe, when viewing OBL's latest tapes, say things like, "It appears this tape demonstrates his isolation and continued attempts to remain relevant at a time when al Qaeda's ideology, mission, and agenda are being questioned and challenged throughout the world." This would suggest that he is largely IRrelevant.
Obama himself said, (when questioned about the necessity to kill OBL) "'But if we have so tightened his noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."
I think everyone with a soul in America would like to see him dead but after 7 years most are worried more about their jobs. To hold OBL up the symbolic recruitment tool for jihadists everywhere is simply attributing to him the type of self importance generally reserved for yourself.
Under Bush, it seemed EVERY move he made, militarily, was viewed as fodder for terrorist recruitment. That Iraq itself was THE reason for new freedom fighters from the four corners entering the fray. As long as the U.S. acknowledges itself as a combatant in any war on terror it will suffice to serve as a terrorist recruitment tool.
Yes, I maintain OBL is a secondary target at best.
25th January 2009 at 5:52 am | permalink |@D.Watson
The first part of that quote from Obama that you conveniently left out was "My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him." Your part of the quote is, for the most part, about containment being the minimum he finds acceptable. But I don't think there'd be many people who'd say containment is the preferable outcome.
Gordon Johndroe is a Bush lackey, and that comment came at the height of Bush trying to salvage his reputation and make it look like he wasn't such a fuckup. Given the message was basically a 'fuck you, you didn't catch me you incompetent cowboy' – among other things – attempting to downplay bin Laden's significance is a pretty obvious response.
"everyone with a soul in America would like to see him dead"
Which is an incredibly disturbing thing for a nation where most people are at least ostensibly Christian – a religion that preaches forgiveness, not vengeance. By no means am I suggesting sympathy for the fucker (some people are just so monstrous they give up any right to life) but to associate the very Christian concept – at least in a western context – of a soul with bloodlust and vengefulness is disingenuous, at best.
"To hold OBL up the symbolic recruitment tool for jihadists"
I don't think he was being held up as *the* tool, rather *a* tool.
"OBL is irrelevant and a symbolic kill at best"
25th January 2009 at 6:53 pm | permalink |"I maintain OBL is a secondary target at best"
Not that you've ammended your position or anything.
@grrimbles "By no means am I suggesting sympathy for the fucker (some people are just so monstrous they give up any right to life) but to associate the very Christian concept – at least in a western context – of a soul with bloodlust and vengefulness is disingenuous, at best."
Hmmm – thinking about it. I definitely feel some sympathy for him. All he has done is carry on a war against western ideology, by those means that are at his disposal and effective. Okay I disagree with his beliefs and with his methods, but I feel sympathy that for the fact that he believes he needed to go to such lengths in support of his ideals.
And when it comes down to it the west has killed many more muslim civilians than the western civilians killed by Osama Bin Laden.
26th January 2009 at 9:08 am | permalink |@ian: Anyone who thinks they can effectively fight, much less win, a war against an ideology is an idiot. As such, an idiot who pursues his idiotic aims via violent methods is not someone I see as deserving sympathy.
I don't see the architects and proponents of the "war on drugs" as deserving sympathy either, should something unfortunate befall them, for much the same reason.
26th January 2009 at 12:21 pm | permalink |c.f. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/uk_three_decades_after_birmingham0s_pub_bombings/html/6.stm
Those who may well have been behind this atrocity are now respected politicians!
Read the first fucking paragraph of the text that goes with the picture. That was where I grew up.
"Anyone who thinks they can effectively fight, much less win, a war against an ideology is an idiot. As such, an idiot who pursues his idiotic aims via violent methods is not someone I see as deserving sympathy."
A perfect description of George W Bush or the current Israeli government or Barrack Obama if he pursues a war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
(Apologies if that was a bit brutal – you touched a nerve there!)
26th January 2009 at 4:20 pm | permalink |Your original link wasn't working, so I found the BBC news slide show feature from it…
And I assure you, I won't have the least sympathy for George Bush or the current architects of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians… Now, last I heard, Barack's plan was to get us out of Iraq while taking precautions that the whole place doesn't implode in our wake (let's hope it works), and concentrate our efforts in Afghanistan. Personally, I think making some effort to ensure the Taliban doesn't take back over and go straight back to beating women within an inch of their lives when they accidentally show their ankles in public, however, is a little more concrete a goal than fighting "western ideology". Was that our primary reason for going in there? No. Is it our primary reason for staying? Not really. Because if there's one thing the US has proven via our international policies in my lifetime, it's that human rights have fuckall to do with any of it.
But, if a side effect of our being in Afghanistan is that a stable and sane enough government is installed that girls can once again go to school without having acid thrown in their faces? Great. Because my understanding is that a great many of the people we're currently trying to get rid of over there are the same people who would very much like to keep their women illiterate and covered with glorified gunny sacks.
26th January 2009 at 7:05 pm | permalink |Yes, Alpha, I too see it where there are two of us human- type species here on this ball 'O confusion – male and female. To discount one or the other, the female ones in your case, would be to negate any theory about two heads being better than one. At this point (I actually typed, "at this pint" the first time – which may be kind of Freudian…) in our evolution, I want women to have an equal say. And I also want them to show more than ankles! Seriously, any civilization that shuns women is truly in the dark ages. So, fuck it, let's kill them who do!
Wow, did I say that? Guess I did…
26th January 2009 at 7:26 pm | permalink |Thanks for fixing the link :)
Having thought about this awhile – there is little difference between the OBL situation and the IRA in the seventies, effectively all the time they are hunted down at every opportunity it only succeeds in making the situation worse.
Once the IRA were given a way out, which could be construed as honourable and did not lead to their leadership being locked away forever, a cease fire could be negotiated and serious talking about resolving the issues between the sides could take place. At the moment we are not creating a situation where there can be an honourable way out for OBL and Al Qaeda, all we are doing is backing them into a corner from which they either fight and die or surrender and die. They have no logical option other than to continue the fight.
Now if you wanted to include the educational opportunities for women and their general treatment in certain countries as part of that bargaining process – it could work well for both sides. (just think the first great occasion in the rehabilitation of OBL could be the opening of the Osama bin Laden Ladies College in Kabul – okay maybe it'll take a few years of negotiation)
"Because my understanding is that a great many of the people we're currently trying to get rid of over there are the same people who would very much like to keep their women illiterate and covered with glorified gunny sacks."
There are also a great many people over there who do not subscribe to those views, moderates who wish their daughters to be educated and whose children are going over to the extremists because their families are the collateral damage in a war on terrorism, that only fuels the flames of hatred. (I am sure that there are many people in the Southern USA who would rather keep your new president as a slave on their plantations – they however are kept in check by a moderate majority, we need to find a way for the societies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to keep their extremists in check in the same way.)
27th January 2009 at 4:38 pm | permalink |@ Ian: The difference between OBL and the IRA is that the British government put pressure on the IRA for decades, and the fight was largely contained to the islands. OBL on the other had, has only been under pressure for a decade or so, and he's had relatively free roam of all Asia Minor.
Until there is a globally concerted effort to put the likes of OBL, Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad out of business, they won't have any incentive to look at an option out that offers "honour."
2nd February 2009 at 2:14 pm | permalink |@ Becca What if the rest of the globe isn't interested? Do we call W out of retirement?
2nd February 2009 at 6:52 pm | permalink |@ D.Watson: No. We find another way to accomplish the task.
This is one thing that infuriates me. Single-mindedness of approach is intellectual suicide. Ask the French how the Maginot line worked after the Germans took a detour through Belgium. Ask Hitler how well the subjugation of Britain or Stalingrad went using the same tactic over and over and over.
Just because a tactic worked in one place doesn't mean that it will work in another place or another time. The fight against asymmetric warfare requires flexibility and creativity in tactics and strategy. Simplistic thinking accomplishes nothing but the creation of simplistic ideas. It's like a special ed class … with guns.
2nd February 2009 at 11:41 pm | permalink |@becca – agree the IRA was fairly localised compared with Al Qaeda et al.
However there are some interesting things that came out of the IRA situation, the major one being, that while pressure was being put on the IRA leadership, channels of communication were opened via more moderate (less violent segments of the movement) that allowed further political pressure to be be brought on the hardline IRA leadership, but while doing it they managed to create a situation that offered the hardline leadership a way out of the hole that they were in, and back into the mainstream of politics within Northern Ireland. To resolve the bin Laden situation, politicians need to find a way that this can be achieved with Al Qaeda. Appealing to peoples self preservation instinct is just a different way of resolving conflict.
And I agree that constant plugging of one tactic rarely achieves its goal – the opposition usually works it out pretty quickly and takes advantage.
5th February 2009 at 11:52 am | permalink |