Blue Crab Boulevard

Bin Laden Wins

Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post, informs us today that Osama bin Laden has won - big - in his attacks on America.

From bin Laden's standpoint, this has been a glorious victory, made possible, it has to be said, by the totally unforeseen incompetence of the Bush administration. It was so intent on going to war in Iraq that it would not finish the job in Afghanistan. So, to bin Laden's absolute amazement — I am guessing here — the United States took on his enemy, the secular and ungodly Saddam Hussein, whom bin Laden himself would gladly have murdered. It has to be a wonderful thing when your enemy vanquishes your enemy.

On "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Dick Cheney said that if he had it to do all over again, he would still go to war in Iraq — "we'd do exactly the same thing," he said. Why? Is the man incapable of learning from experience? We now know from umpteen reports that there was no link between bin Laden and Hussein. We now know, the Weekly Standard notwithstanding, that Mohamed Atta did not meet in Prague with someone from Iraqi intelligence. We now know that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraq war — which has cost America more than 2,500 lives, 20,000 casualties, the respect of the world and billions of dollars — is for naught. Talleyrand said of the Bourbons that they forgot nothing and learned nothing. It will be said of Cheney that he forgot everything and learned nothing.

How did bin Laden get so lucky? How did he get so fortunate in his choice of enemies? The Bush administration not only validated his wildest dreams — dreams that even some of his aides thought were unrealistic — but went even further. By using torture, by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, by employing "extraordinary renditions" of suspects to countries where they could be tortured, by insisting on going it almost alone in Iraq, by telling the international community to shove it, by declaring a war for an idée fixe – this fierce obsession with Hussein goes back a long way — the United States has made itself reviled in much of the world.

The Islamists have demonstrated - repeatedly - that they read the Western press to see how they are doing. They engage in a fierce propaganda war on a daily basis against the West in general and America in particular. They literally repeat back leftist and defeatist rhetoric they see in the media, hoping for a positive feedback effect, where the amplitude of the feedback keeps driving the system into total failure. Go look at what that sort of failure does by searching the web for what happened to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (I won't link it, you'll have to work a bit for this one).

So in a way, Cohen is right. When bin Laden reads the defeatist, irresponsible, foolish and myopic statements of someone like Cohen, he will believe he has won. He's already beaten Cohen. That didn't take a lot, one suspects.

Uncategorized | Gaius Monday, 11 September , 2006

By syn, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 5:18 am

This is a war against militant Islamists not Bin Laden.

We do know Saddam had the capacity to re-energize his nuke program, had numerous associations with militant Islamists and that he violated umpteen UN resolutions.

More importantly, since 9/11/2001 we do know what happens when we ignore those who declare war upon us all for the sake of perserving a populist image.

Cohen has forgotten everything and learned nothing. He is feeding militant Islamists the anti-American propaganda they need. And, he has a very narrow vision of real world actions; this war will be fought long after Bush/Cheney leave the White House.
By Roland Hesz, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 7:48 am

Also, when the terrorists read, that the western governments and people are scared witless, giving up everything in their fear they can smile - terror has been planted, they can keep up the good work.

No matter what you write in the media - defeatest lefties, fear spreading righties -, as long as you write about them, they can feel that they have achieved something.

Just a note, not solution, nothing.
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 12:01 pm

The Islamists have demonstrated - repeatedly - that they read the Western press to see how they are doing. They engage in a fierce propaganda war on a daily basis against the West in general and America in particular.

I’m troubled by the implication of this statement. If things are going poorly and we make mistakes, are you saying we should STFU, out of fear of our enemies reading that we made mistakes?

Besides, Cohen had a point: knowing what we know now, WHY would this Administration want to STILL invade Iraq?

syn says:
This is a war against militant Islamists not Bin Laden.

I partially disagree. While terrorism must be stopped by addressing militant jihadism, that doesn’t mean we should forget about Bin Laden. I want him captured or killed, and I’m frustrated that the Bush Administration doesn’t care.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 12:11 pm

I posted a while ago about the difficulties of trying to catch one man in a particularly remote area. How long was the Unibomber running around loose? There is a limit to what can be accomplished.

Just as there is a way to ctiticize without going over into vitriolic hate. Apparently that doesn’t trouble you, however.
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 2:32 pm

Finding and capturing Bin Laden would be difficult, but not impossible, gaius. It’s a matter of political will.

I don’t know what “vitriolic hate” you’re referring to- I’m frustrated that the Bush Administration doesn’t care enough about finding Bin Laden. When I say the Bush Administration doesn’t care, I mean this (”CIA Closes Unit Focused on Capture of Bin Laden”), this (Bush: “I just don’t spend that much time on [Bin Laden]” and “I truly am not that concerned about [Bin Laden]“), or this (”US commandos whose job it is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years”). If you’re closing intelligence units dedicated to his capture and publicly saying you don’t care about him, then of course you’re going to have trouble finding him. Because apparently he just doesn’t matter to you.

But this is another issue that I disagree with the Bush Administration and Republicans. Capturing Osama Bin Laden, regardless of his effectiveness as a terrorist today, matters to me, and I dare say his capture matters to a lot of Americans. He masterminded the worst terrorist attack against the United States, and I’m not willing to shrug my shoulders, say “there is a limit to what can be accomplished,” and then forget about him.

I want our enemies to know that America never forgets and never forgives those who attack us. If Osama Bin Laden is allowed to run free, I believe that emboldens other terrorists- after all, if we’re not willing to go after the guy behind the worst terrorist attack, why should anyone think we’d be willing to go after anyone else?

But President Bush and Republicans don’t think it’s important to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, and that frustrates me.
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 2:39 pm

gaius said:
The Islamists have demonstrated - repeatedly - that they read the Western press to see how they are doing. They engage in a fierce propaganda war on a daily basis against the West in general and America in particular.

I’m wondering if you would like to clarify this, gaius. Are you saying that when things go wrong for the US, we shouldn’t talk about it? I’ve always believed the US was strong enough to endure open, public scrutiny of its behavior. But it sounds like you think open, public scrutiny of our actions inherently weakens us. Do you really believe that?

If you don’t believe that, then you already realize that Cohen had a point: knowing what we know now, WHY would this Administration STILL want to invade Iraq?
By Gaius, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 2:46 pm

You know what? If you honestly want the President of the United States micromanaging to the level of hunting a single person, you have shown yourself to be a fool or a propagandist.

A CIA unit that has been a complete failure should continue to be funded why?

A President of the US should spend the bulk of his time hunting one man?

If the military has not had a lead in two years that is Bush’s fault HOW?

You really are something. Take you pollution elsewhere. I really hate regurgitated talking points.
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 3:12 pm

gaius said:
A President of the US should spend the bulk of his time hunting one man? If the military has not had a lead in two years that is Bushâ€™s fault HOW?

Well, if President “Dead or Alive” isn’t held accountable, then who should be? Really, I’m open to holding someone else accountable, so tell me- who is in charge of finding and capturing Bin Laden? Who do I turn to for answers? The answer is, as far as I can tell, no one.

gaius said:
A CIA unit that has been a complete failure should continue to be funded why?

Quite simply, because the hunt’s not over yet. You don’t want to continue funding the CIA unit responsible for getting Bin Laden. I do, because Bin Laden still roams freely. Just to clarify, did you mean that the hunt for Bin Laden itself was a complete failure, or just the CIA shop? Given your opinion, who would you hold accountable for the complete failure?

We have an obvious and clear disagreement here. I want to keep looking for the man behind the worst terrorist attack in our history. You want to give up and let him go.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 12 September , 2006 @ 3:22 pm

You just put words in my mouth for the last time.