28 thoughts on ““Geronimo! E KIA”

  1. Newt says:

    I thought our 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient did a masterful job of dispatching the hit on Bin Laden. Kudos.

    1. Jim Leinfelder says:

      Since you raise what, for you, apparently, “Newt,” is a contradiction, an excerpt from Obama’s acceptance speech at Nobel Peace Prize ceremony:

      But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation…I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

      I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

      Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions not just treaties and declarations that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

      So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms.

  2. Erik Peterson says:

    Dipper: not down with spy novels

    Me neither BL. It’s the jingoism obviously. In the 80’s I was aware of an alternative genre spy novel that had an eastern bloc protagonist secret agent. You might dig that, I’ll see if I can’t rack my brain and recall those.

    My OBL sentiments are probably similar to yours as well. Yes, its quite an achievement for the administration. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this nation’s militarism over the past ten years has served only two purposes: its a subsidy that lines the pockets of the defense sector and a make work program for red state teabagger kids not smart enough for college (of which there is no shortage).

    Add to that… you ever had to be around these military guys? The hyper masculinity, the camo… they’re obviously compensating for more than their lack of intellect.

  3. Newt says:

    Wow. So people like Erik really do exist.

    I get his dig about hyper-masculine jarheads, but equally repulsive are effeminate pseudo intellectuals.

    1. Erik Peterson says:

      Newt, the days of being a liberal man and being sissy shamed are over. We’re quite comfortable with our delicate hands, studious eyeglasses, and turltlenecks. Quite comfortable with our neatly trimmed pony tails, quite comfortable not being the bread winner. I do reject your premise. With our testosterone mitigated we have escaped the false consciousness that traps teabagger men, causing them to overcompensate with hunting and football spectatorship.

      1. Erik Peterson says:

        Jim, BL can corroborate this…. It’s just really hard not to make obvious clinical observations of the teabaggers in the face of their mental deficiencies. They’re tards.

        That might be labeling…but there’s not a moral equivalence there. Liberals can’t be vulgar bigots. We’re egalitarians.

  4. A Son of Mississippi says:

    I was a bit disappointed to learn bin Laden was in Pakistan these past few years. I was certain he was living somewhere in the San Fernando Valley.

    1. Jim Leinfelder says:

      With all the brown-lawned foreclosures out there, he’d have likely gone just as unnoticed and JSOC could’ve used black mini-vans.

  5. Erik Peterson says:

    BTW, It’s never called the USS Vinson. It’s the USS Carl Vinson.

    Not as pedantic as you might think. In the future you’ll have an otherwise cordial conversation with a navy guy that won’t be soured by you spending 20 minutes telling him he’s the one that’s wrong about the ship name.

    1. Jim Leinfelder says:

      TSRC’s very own William Souder is a retired Navy man and I cannot imagine him being so small and petty as to make an issue of this in an otherwise cordial conversation. Maybe to get rid of an annoying pedant…

    2. Erik Peterson says:

      Heh, fair enough. I‘ll break character, here’s a legit question.

      Insofar as there are conspiracies, the only one is the OBL death myth the WH chooses to disseminate. This is the myth where there resistance in the compound.

      Understand, the seals arrived and killed adult men as they encountered them. Technically there may have been resistance but it was not effective. In the climax there was probably a final locked door. It was kicked open, a room inventory was made, this took about a second. OBL was pulled from women and children and shot dead.

      Yet this is explained as something else. Why? Who does it have to be explained differently to?

      It’s either:
      The peacenik / legal left, for which a certain amount of naiveté needs to be cultivated and maintained.
      The irascible right, whose Guantanamo / Bush efficacy /Obama hypocrisy argument is undermined or made opaque if OBL is described as a combat death.

      It’s the left, and it should be silly, but that’s the way it is. If the right has a hypocrisy argument, the answer is ‘so what?’

      1. Newt says:

        OBL was a Stage IV tumor that needed to be excised. I am unmoved either way.

        My hope is that they took jumper cables to his testicles and extracted some intel before snuffing him out.

      2. Erik Peterson says:

        Yes. I count you among the irascible, where that tends to be an overriding sentiment.

      3. Jim Leinfelder says:

        Well, the narrative shifts as the debriefs roll out, an unwise course of disseminating the story, one could rightly argue. But, then, these sorts of wet ops are not usually limned in detail for a reading public.

        It’s my impression that this was never intended to be anything more than a “hit.” If this were a bust at a meth lab, there’d be a number of cops on mandatory suspension while internal affairs looked at why so many unarmed people were shot.

        But then, hey, the same results could’ve been accomplished with hellfire missiles with everyone in the compound quite dead and nobody would’ve wanted to know who was armed and not armed. It was a gutsy call on the President’s part to go with a raid. It could have gone wrong so many ways. Hell, the crashed one of two choppers.

        This is war of a neither-fish-nor-fowl nature. SEALS are not cops. They’re unabashed and accomplished killers. When you’re a hammer, every problem’s a nail. As is said, “they did their jobs.”

        Personally, I’d have been happier to have taken OBL alive. That’s how Caesar would’ve handled it. That’s why I’m not quite as over the moon over the JSOC operation. It wasn’t exactly The Raid On Entebbe. With overwhelming numbers they faced virtually no armed resistance and summarily killed their subject and one or two others and hauled away the corpse and his office equipment. Bravo.

        I’d wager the lads in JSOC have faced many tougher scenarios. Seems to me they had an opportunity to take the man, which is all he is, just a man, prisoner. I’d prefer to have seen him stripped of his carefully-manufactured mythology and put on trial before the world as the narcissistic poseur he was. Yes (sigh), it’s more hassle.

        But we’re a super power, not a ragged band of cave/mansion dwellings terrorists looking at the world through the atavistic goggles of fundamentalist Islam. But, hey, spilt milk. Let’s move on.

      4. Newt says:

        Jim wanted OBL taken alive. Can we assume that he also wanted to extend OBL Constitutional protections such as a Miranda warning, a court-appointed attorney and comfy cell and a mint on his pillow? (The Eric Holder approach to counter-terrorism)

  6. john sherman says:

    Brian, you might be entertained by Alex Pareene’s mordant piece in today’s salon, “When George W. Bush killed bin Lade: An alternate history” considering how much differently Bush and the media would have handled the story.

    I’m waiting for some Pakistani bigwig to explain that when they saw that huge, expensive highly secure house, they just assumed it was another high end heroin dealer.

    The question I haven’t discussed is what is likely to be on the computers and data storage stuff the Seals took off with, and is it likely to do a lot of harm to the bastards.

    Is it too late to start a rumor that OBL was ratted out by somebody on the inside for the reward?

  7. Mike Kennedy says:

    Kudos to the Obamians who did what the Bushies couldn’t get done. I’m cool with half of OBL’s head being blown off (or all of it, for that matter).

    Great decision on Mr. Obama’s part to do this the way he did; so the last thing this douche bag saw before he died was the U.S. military and a gun aimed at his face.

    Bombing the compound would have left too many questions about whether we really got him etc.

    I’m also cool with not releasing the photos. I don’t care one way or another and unlike the loonie lefties and all their Bush conspiracy theories, I actually am willing to take the administration at its word that it has confirmed it was Bin Laden.

    1. Jim Leinfelder says:

      Mike, from looking at Facebook, I don’t think conspiracy theories re: Bin Laden’s late status are exclusive to the “loonie lefties,” as you put it.

      I am less comforted by the nanosecond Bin Laden had to contemplate his imminent demise at the hands of the SEALS. I would’ve preferred to see him taken prisoner, stripped of his mystique, facing western jurisprudence, as he witnesses the Arab spring through prison bars, and, hopefully, no fundamentalist theocracy rising to replace the autocratic regimes as he envisioned, but rather his utter irrelevancy to the younger generation doing the hard work of achieving political transformation of the Arab world.

      But that argument is, well, dead.

  8. Mike Kennedy says:

    Jim: I understand what you’re saying, and yours is a valid argument. I’m not saying I would have been upset if that sack of shit rotted in jail, either.

    My only fear with that is that OBL was, among other things, what I like to call an “attention whore.”

    By capturing him, putting him on trial etc, etc. it would have given him more attention and another platform to spout his demented shit. A well placed bullet to the noggin takes care of that.

    1. john sherman says:

      The claim that we should not try some unsavory asshole in an open court because it would give him “another platform to spout his demented shit” is a common one particularly concerning Islamic radicals, but I don’t don’t think there is any evidence for it considering the radicals who have been tried without making their case to the world, nor do I think it likely it would happen. The judge sets the rules for who gets into the court room, who speaks and what gets out, and it would take a pretty slow-witted judge not to keep someone like bin Laden under wraps.

      That said, I think Obama was right in giving the Seals the kill option, and they were right in taking it. Still, it would have been interesting to see whether the media would have stuck with the convention of sticking “alleged” in front of the charges and referred to him as an “alleged mass murder and terrorist.” His is a case where a lot of the standard defense kabuki, like arguing for a change of venue, would just seem grotesque and ridiculous.

Comments are closed.