We are now one month into our war against terrorism and everything is – for now – pretty quiet. This war has been predicted to run for decades, so I suppose we can’t expect an embassy bombing or a cruise missile attack every week.
The embassy bombings, in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam on August 7th, were claimed by the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, but within days the newspapers were carrying stories about Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire and Islamic fundamentalist. The Clinton administration couldn’t have found a more suitable bad guy if they’d called Hollywood and ordered one; a shadowy militant who looks like a younger version of the Ayatollah Khomeini. And like villains Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, we had a hand in creating bin Laden in the 70s and 80s when he fought the Soviet Union as a mujahedin in Afghanistan.
It’s likely Osama bin Laden is involved in anti-American terrorism, but that terrorism neither begins nor ends with him. Naming Mr. bin Laden as public enemy number one merely puts a convenient – and oversimplified – face on a very large and complex problem. But the U.S. media was happy to have a bogeyman to bash and by the time the U.S. launched cruise missile attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan, Newsweek was referring to Mr. bin Laden as a “twisted impresario to the world’s Islamic terror groups.”
When I heard about the missile strikes, the first thing I thought of was John Wayne on horseback, charging across a meadow with the reins in his teeth, a Winchester in each hand, cocking and firing as he rode. You’re not going to hit what you’re aiming for like that, but it looks good at the box office. And so it was with the missile attack. The Pentagon claimed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan sustained moderate to severe damage. I don’t doubt it, since the camps were built by the CIA, we know exactly where they are.
The factory outside Khartoum is a different story. At first the Pentagon said the factory produced the nerve gas VX, then it said the plant produced a precursor to VX. Last week’s issue of Newsweek quotes western diplomats in Africa as saying the U.S. may have hit the wrong plant.
A few days after the missile attack, I heard a commentator on National Public Radio saying the government was convinced Osama bin Laden had a financial stake in the Sudanese chemical plant. Even though there was no evidence to support such a link, the commentator quickly pointed out that a master financial manipulator such as Mr. bin Laden could easily hide his connection. Two weeks earlier, the commentator had probably never heard of Mr. bin Laden, and now he’s calmly stating on the airwaves that bin Laden is tainted by the very lack of evidence against him.
Last week the Associated Press reported that members of the U.S. Senate are asking FBI Director Louis Freeh for a memorandum on the legality of assassinating Osama bin Laden. Am I the only one who thinks we are losing our minds?
Random bombing and state-sanctioned assassination are not a sensible response to terrorist attacks, I don’t care how grim the provocation may be. Our cruise missile attack, I’m sure, only validated feelings of paranoia and persecution among Islamic militants. If we did assassinate Osama bin Laden, he would be elevated to martyr status and be more influential in death than he is in life.
It’s worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is dedicated to peace and justice and is no more represented by Osama bin Laden than the average American is represented by Tim McVeigh.
It’s also worth noting that while all this has taken place, the two men thought responsible for the 1988 Pan Am Lockerbie bombing are being brought to trial by Scotland. Bill Clinton need look no further than Lockerbie for his model.
The embassy bombings in Africa were a crime against humanity and the proper response to crime is justice, not vengence.
A War We Can’t Win Against an Enemy We Can’t See
We are now one month into our war against terrorism and everything is – for now – pretty quiet. This war has been predicted to run for decades, so I suppose we can’t expect an embassy bombing or a cruise missile attack every week.
The embassy bombings, in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam on August 7th, were claimed by the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, but within days the newspapers were carrying stories about Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire and Islamic fundamentalist. The Clinton administration couldn’t have found a more suitable bad guy if they’d called Hollywood and ordered one; a shadowy militant who looks like a younger version of the Ayatollah Khomeini. And like villains Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, we had a hand in creating bin Laden in the 70s and 80s when he fought the Soviet Union as a mujahedin in Afghanistan.
It’s likely Osama bin Laden is involved in anti-American terrorism, but that terrorism neither begins nor ends with him. Naming Mr. bin Laden as public enemy number one merely puts a convenient – and oversimplified – face on a very large and complex problem. But the U.S. media was happy to have a bogeyman to bash and by the time the U.S. launched cruise missile attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan, Newsweek was referring to Mr. bin Laden as a “twisted impresario to the world’s Islamic terror groups.”
When I heard about the missile strikes, the first thing I thought of was John Wayne on horseback, charging across a meadow with the reins in his teeth, a Winchester in each hand, cocking and firing as he rode. You’re not going to hit what you’re aiming for like that, but it looks good at the box office. And so it was with the missile attack. The Pentagon claimed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan sustained moderate to severe damage. I don’t doubt it, since the camps were built by the CIA, we know exactly where they are.
The factory outside Khartoum is a different story. At first the Pentagon said the factory produced the nerve gas VX, then it said the plant produced a precursor to VX. Last week’s issue of Newsweek quotes western diplomats in Africa as saying the U.S. may have hit the wrong plant.
A few days after the missile attack, I heard a commentator on National Public Radio saying the government was convinced Osama bin Laden had a financial stake in the Sudanese chemical plant. Even though there was no evidence to support such a link, the commentator quickly pointed out that a master financial manipulator such as Mr. bin Laden could easily hide his connection. Two weeks earlier, the commentator had probably never heard of Mr. bin Laden, and now he’s calmly stating on the airwaves that bin Laden is tainted by the very lack of evidence against him.
Last week the Associated Press reported that members of the U.S. Senate are asking FBI Director Louis Freeh for a memorandum on the legality of assassinating Osama bin Laden. Am I the only one who thinks we are losing our minds?
Random bombing and state-sanctioned assassination are not a sensible response to terrorist attacks, I don’t care how grim the provocation may be. Our cruise missile attack, I’m sure, only validated feelings of paranoia and persecution among Islamic militants. If we did assassinate Osama bin Laden, he would be elevated to martyr status and be more influential in death than he is in life.
It’s worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is dedicated to peace and justice and is no more represented by Osama bin Laden than the average American is represented by Tim McVeigh.
It’s also worth noting that while all this has taken place, the two men thought responsible for the 1988 Pan Am Lockerbie bombing are being brought to trial by Scotland. Bill Clinton need look no further than Lockerbie for his model.
The embassy bombings in Africa were a crime against humanity and the proper response to crime is justice, not vengence.