03 May 2011

Not to be a downer about Osama...

...but Balko is sort of right about this. We just ended the match (or the round, really) but we didn't necessarily win it.
The Agitator | Radley Balko | He Won:

In The Looming Tower, the Pulitzer-winning history of al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11, author Lawrence Wright lays out how Osama bin Laden’s motivation for the attacks that he planned in the 1990s, and then the September 11 attacks, was to draw the U.S. and the West into a prolonged war—an actual war in Afghanistan, and a broader global war with Islam.

Osama got both. And we gave him a prolonged war in Iraq to boot. By the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll probably top 6,000 dead U.S. troops in those two wars, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. The cost for both wars is also now well over $1 trillion.

We have also fundamentally altered who we are. A partial, off-the-top-of-my-head list of how we’ve changed since September 11 [...]
In contrast, SonicCharmer takes the opposite view. Worth reading, though I think he is a little too literal in interpreting what Osama "wanted." Some good points though. I would disregard whatever Osama bothered to put in his little manifestos though when considering his desires. I think, at the end of the day, he wanted to be important, and the shake things up. And he got that.  (But how do you beat someone who's goal is to get you to fight him? (I'm not sure, but I think you could write some good Batman comics around that theme.))

All in all my interpretation is that just because Osama died, or "lost," doesn't mean we necessarily "win."

PS This Sonic Charmer post is only partially related, but a very good point.

No comments:

Post a Comment