.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Observations

David Brooks understands mainstream American psychology in a way that whoever made the "Bin Laden" tape aired yesterday does not. In this column in the NY Times he sums up what many of us see:
"But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."

"But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.

"This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself? "

Kerry is first and foremost a politician, and that is what his career has been about - politics. Being a career politican requires the cornering ability of a Sedgeway, but that is not what most Americans are looking for in a president, not in this election. Furthermore, Kerry's appallingly bare record in the Senate speaks for itself.

I don't watch terror tapes, and I have been ignoring them almost entirely since 9/11, so I'm not qualified to write much that is meaningful about yesterday's. I have read the reports in the media about each one and what was said, and I have seen clips of the various videos on the news. To my eyes, there have been at least two different "Bin Ladens" in these tapes. I don't think the man I saw yesterday is the same man as the one shown in videos of him in Afghanistan. I could certainly be wrong about that. The Afghanistan Bin Laden had striking, large eyes and high eyebrows, and an extremely distinctive nose and nostrils, and the pictures I've seen of yesterday's character don't. Maybe it's puffiness, but the rest of the face doesn't seem to bear that out. Our intelligence agencies haven't had much time to analyze the tape, so I'm suspicious of it.

There seems to be a contradiction between the "Bin Laden" tape aired yesterday and the ABC tape of a few days ago. In the Bin Laden tape we're told to get our butts totally out of the middle east to be safe, and the other talks about blood on the streets and such a massive loss of life that we will "mourn in silence". Bin Laden's tape starts and ends with what is essentially an offer of a truce. The other is strikingly militant, unless there is something else on it that wasn't disclosed. So regardless of who made each tape, there seems to be a contradiction present.

This contradiction doesn't surprise me, because terrorism is by its nature a diffused movement. It's no surprise that there should be disagreements and perhaps battles for leadership inside these groups. I have read comments on the internet fearing that this "Bin Laden" tape is a signal for a new attack; my guess is that if it is any kind of a signal it is a signal not to act now. I read reports that there was a warning broadcast earlier this year to the Europeans giving them six months to pull out of any entanglements in the middle east. That warning seems to be in line with the strategy and message of yesterday's tape.

Finally, whoever created yesterday's tape of "Bin Laden" is obviously either trying to influence our election OR gambling on the chance that Kerry is elected in order to gain prestige from the claim that he did influence our election. This, it seems to me, is a confession of weakness. Someone wants to gain the appearance of power and influence. That's good news. To their credit, the European governments did not respond to the six month deadline given to them. We should likewise ignore this tape and ABC's tape.

Finally, let me say that a Bin Laden reduced to parroting Michael Moore's stupidities is more a figure of fun to me than a threat. I've read several different translations of excerpts from yesterday's tapes, and the bit about George Bush Sr passing the Patriot Act down to his sons and installing them in governorships is flat-out hilarious. What next? The Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck theory of American politics? Yesterday I was angry at such a blatant attempt to swing the election to Kerry by using threats. I felt infuriated that the jerk would believe it could work. Today I suppose I'm still angry, but I woke up with the phrase "What a dingbat" rolling around my mind.

Finally, we should all remind ourselves that 9/11 was just as much an economic attack as anything else. Various "Bin Laden" tapes have boasted about the economic damage the attack inflicted on the US. If you, like me, are an American citizen, and you, like me, want to help our country out in this struggle, and you, like me, are unfortunately physically unqualified to be in the Armed Forces, take comfort in this.

By working hard and not being intimidated by these tapes you are helping to defeat this ideology. Every time you put in a hard and productive day's work you are undercutting their strategy. Every time you invest in our economy or contribute to it you are supporting and strengthening our country. Their plan is to fight a war of attrition against our nation. Our plan must be to engage in preemptive but strategic actions to deprive them of their bases and their support, and to engage in absolutely determined efforts not to let ourselves be worn down psychologically or economically.


Comments:
That's right, he did say that. I think the administration is focused on reducing active threats. After all, it wasn't Bin Laden himself who crashed those planes - it was his acolytes. I feel like it's fine if it takes twenty years to get him, as long as we're sure we've taken away his money and have disrupted his circle of death.

I understand that others might be focused on revenge.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?