Tripoli is now in the hands of the Rebels... not the Rebels we were told about by every major journalistic institution, but the Berbers who organized in the western mountains. Despite this confusing monkey wrench thrown into the media narrative, there's a lot of good feeling regarding the outcome of this military intervention.
The Telegraph has already jumped the gun waaaaay too fast with a headline like "We have proved in Libya that intervention can still work." A bit too soon to claim that, especially since so far, the course of NATO intervention seems to parallel the invasion of Afghanistan:
1. We've sent in special forces so that air support can be called in for...
2. A pre-existing mutli-ethnic rebel force (the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan)...
3. For which we pounded every government asset bigger than a Toyota pickup so they could move in and occupy territory...
4. While the leaders of both armies (Ahmad Shah Massoud & Abdel Fatah Younis), who were potentially unifying forces in the post-war scene, have been mysteriously assassinated.
But there's one more step along the road to "Afghanizing" Libya:
To fill the political void, in December 2001 the United Nations hosted the Bonn Conference in Germany. The meetings of various Afghan leaders here were organized by the United Nations Security Council. The Taliban were not included. Participants included representatives of four Afghan opposition groups. Observers included representatives of neighbouring and other involved major countries, including the United States.
The result was the Bonn Agreement which created the Afghan Interim Authority that would serve as the “repository of Afghan sovereignty” and outlined the so-called Petersberg Process, a political process towards a new constitution and choosing a new Afghan government.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378 of November 14, 2001, included "Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the export of terrorism by the Al-Qaeda network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime".[131]
To help provide security to support this Afghan Interim Authority, the United Nations authorized an international force—the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)—with a mandate to help the Afghans maintain security in Kabul and surrounding areas.
Before the U.S.-led invasion, there were fears that the invasion and resultant disruption of services would cause widespread starvation and refugees. The United Nations World Food Programme temporarily suspended activities within Afghanistan at the beginning of the bombing attacks but resumed them after the fall of the Taliban. Wikipedia
Now that it looks like the Libyan state is about to change hands, people are seriously debating whether or not we should put boots on the ground in Libya (this shouldn't even be considered, it's so damn ridiculous). Including the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, a man who should clearly know better. Things aren't shaping up very well so far, if one wanted to avoid comparisons with Afghanistan.
Requesting support from NATO was unavoidable for the Rebels. This is not a critique of their struggle, but a critique of our involvement in it. Because the image it presents will have a much wider impact in the Arab world.
Contrary to what the State Department says in their press releases, the Arab Spring is a major headache for the United States. We've spent the last ten years supporting autocrats and despots like Gaddafi, in order to make them allies in our "War on Terror." Which is primarily targeted against al-Qaeda. Yet now we're supporting al-Qaeda-in-Libya, as part of an effort to take down said ally in the War on Terror.
So why Gaddafi and not the others? Well we've had a long history of propagandizing against Gaddafi as a Mad Dog, beyond reason or engagement (even though we engaged with him for a decade). So of course this angle would be played up once his soldiers were making their way towards Benghazi. Gaddafi was a leader whose military primarily functioned as a police force, with no significant air defense. This makes an aerial campaign much more effective in Libya than stronger security states like Syria.
So what does this have to do with the Arab Spring?
Now, every autocrat and "ally" can point to the Libyan rebellion and say, "Look! Do you see!? The Western imperialists are behind this wave of 'democracy,' don't be fooled!" It's an effective propaganda tool, and not one that will be thought of critically with state media dominance (something that's not so absolute with al-Jazeera on the scene). Whether it works or not doesn't really matter, since we're not interested in deposing any more dictators, or seeing any more Arab revolts succeed. Even in the case of Iran, it's better strategically for them to nip the protests in the bud and remain antagonistic towards the West. Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs make easy foils when talking about the Middle East, and an Iran as an existential threat perpetually justifies US presence in the region.
None of this is to say that Libya will definitely turn out like Iraq or Afghanistan, just that it looks really really bad. Especially since we're presumably doing this intervention to keep Gaddafi from doing to his own people what we routinely do to others in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. France's involvement really stinks, too, since they haven't been shy about neocolonialism in their own African back yard. Or have we all forgotten how they just backed a strong man in the Ivory Coast who was ok with Christian machete massacres?
But enough of the poo poohing and doubt, it's time for some feelgood.
"He who seeks revenge should remember to dig two graves." - Chinese proverb
America's decade-long quest to find Osama bin Laden has ended, and its conclusion was as messy and violent as its journey. 24 Navy SEALS in two Black Hawk helicopters (with an apparent stealth capability) raided Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, killing Osama's courier in a firefight as well as killing four other unarmed people, including Osama. One chopper's rotor clipped the concrete walls of the compound, and had to be destroyed after it crashed. The raid was described as a "kill or capture" operation, but commandos were told that Osama should be considered to wear a bomb vest unless he was naked. This represents a weak cover up of what had been a targeted assassination from the beginning.
Official accounts on the raid have been contradictory and often false. Robert Booth at The Guardian has already gone over the changing stories in the first two days after the raid. Most notable were the reports that Osama was armed and engaged in a firefight with the SEALS, and that he used his wife as a human shield. The falseness of these claims were blamed on "the fog of war," but these kind of disinformation tactics have been used frequently during America's War on Terror.
Design docs from the upcoming Call of Duty
This is the graphic that appears on The Daily Mail's story for the raid, with Navy SEALS dodging bullets like Neo and facing down Osama as if he was the stage boss in a videogame. It's not surprising at all that the conservative British press would portray Osama's death in such terms of militaristic wish fulfillment, since it was the Times of London who initially portrayed the Tora Bora base as a hollowed out Bond villain lair back in 2001.
No Mr. Bush, I expect you to die!
Portraying Osama and Al-Qaeda in such larger than life terms gives the false impression of an immense threat to the United States and the world. It's difficult to justify overwhelming military force against a small band of fighters, so giving Al-Qaeda the capability of a small military retroactively vindicated the military invasion of Afghanistan. Most Americans tend to consume a low amount of information, and likely won't follow the stories about "Operation Neptune's Spear" beyond the first day or so. Disinformation coming from the White House and the Right Wing Press are designed to sate the need for vengeance and retroactively justify the occupation of Afghanistan over an organization that's been effectively dead for years. Claims that Al-Qaeda are responsible for several terrorist attacks since 9/11 are dubious at best. These attacks are often carried out by Al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists in local countries, but their reporting gives the impression that they were carried out under Osama's leadership.
"There is no umbrella organization. We like to create a mythical entity called al-Qaeda in our minds, but that is not the reality we are dealing with." - Marc Sageman, CIA
Osama's death represents the loss of a wealth of potential information, most of which was likely deemed to be buried by the Obama administration. What kind of questions could Osama have shed light on?
Allegations of CIA involvement with Al-Qaeda have been ubiquitous since 9/11. Generally they claim Al-Qaeda represents blowback from the CIA's support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Yet Arab mujahideen were largely funded themselves or from other Arab nations, and did not require CIA support. Even though it's not likely that the CIA supported Bin Laden's organization in particular, the success of the mujahideen in Afghanistan served as a boon for anti-Western jihad. People forget that resistance to communism in Afghanistan was not based on any kind of liberal notions of freedom or self-determination, but because the communists attempted to modernize Afghanistan and achieve gender equality. Communism was the western influence which the mujahideen struggled against, and shedding light on this issue has uncomfortable implications for the CIA's involvements elsewhere.
The Taliban has been supported by the Inter-Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) since its inception in 1994. Taliban leadership were initially trained at refugee camps in Pakistan, and recently declassified CIA documents reveal that thousands of Pakistani regulars were fighting as Taliban during the 1990s. This was an effort to quell warlordism following the collapse of the Communist regime and to keep Afghanistan on a short leash, but the Taliban proved noncompliant. The practice likely still continues in an effort to push the Taliban out of Waziristan and back into Afghanistan. Osama's affiliation with the Taliban likely meant that he received real support from the ISI, something that they would absolutely want to keep under wraps. The ISI has likely given up information leading to Osama's assassination in order to give the United States a pretext to withdraw from Afghanistan and end Obama's destructive drone war in Waziristan.
Perhaps of most significant concern to the United States is the involvement of several Saudi royal family members in supporting and financing Al-Qaeda. This kind of information calls into question the efficacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as fronts in the War on Terror, when wealthy financiers and US allies like the Sauds continue to surreptitiously support global jihad. This is an uncomfortable reminder for terror warriors that non-state actors like Osama are often the tools of deep cover state agendas.
Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.
The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action.Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material. (emphasis mine)
The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity. - The New York Times (June 3, 2009)
Capturing Osama also presents a number of problems for the United States. General anti-Muslim sentiment in the military has already reached a fever pitch, so it's almost certain that Osama would be tortured by his captors at some point. Any such event would call into question the moral certitude of America's war. Furthermore the questions of jurisdiction would go unanswered. Should Osama be tried in a criminal, military, or international court? What rights of his would be guaranteed if at all? Bush administration stooges like John Yoo would insist that Osama has no rights, and any fair treatment by the Obama administration would serve as terrorist coddling. In the end, it's much more convenient for the United States to simply murder Osama bin Laden.
The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.
So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done. - Barack Obama's address to the nation (May 2, 2011)
This assassination does not represent justice, but the fulfillment of a decade of American vendetta against Osama bin Laden and all who could (allegedly) support him.
My most distinct memory of 9/11 is standing in front of my class while waiting for my friend to show up. When he did his face was flushed and seething with rage, "Who did this? How could they do this to us?" I remember because I was feeling the same thing: vengeance. The collective bloodlust that drove the US to invade Afghanistan was then later used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a second front in the War on Terror. Americans do not understand the costs of war, because if they did as Obama claims, they would feel shame for the evils we've unleashed upon the world.
As of August 10, 2010, US military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan number 5,554, with suicide becoming an epidemic. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan number 8,813, while civilian deaths in Iraq could be between 100,000 and 900,000 depending on who you ask, with millions of people displaced in both countries. All of this death and suffering was inflicted as a reaction to the deaths of 3,000 Americans in the WTC and Pentagon, in wars that have little to no relevancy to general counter terrorism methods. This is not to play a numbers game and say that we are worse than Osama bin Laden, but that the US-led Coalition and Al-Qaeda are morally equivalent.
But rather than feel ashamed people felt vindicated. Why? Because America has a long history which supports the culture of vendetta.
Revenge is a common theme in media. It's the primary motivation behind many of the best westerns, and vengeance for wrongs justify the death of untold scores of people. Films which contradict this culture of vendetta like Kick-Ass are few and far between. There's also a significant problem when these portrayals are digested by society as a whole: they portray acts of individual retribution for personal wrongs.
The vast majority of Americans weren't wronged by 9/11, only in a general sense of cultural tribalism were we all "attacked." Conservative and Christian ideologues have even gone so far as to conflate this sense of tribalism to a conflict between the West and Islam in general. Those who actually did experience personal loss on 9/11 have expressed mixed reactions to Osama's killing. Killing Osama will not bring their loved ones back.
A Del City, Oklahoma man was recently pinned down, had the word "RAPEST" tattooed on his forehead, and was beaten unconscious with baseball bats. One of the accused claims he tried to have sex with her, and the particulars of the case have all the signs of a public shaming ritual more commonly known as scapegoating. Colonial Americans practiced public humiliation all the time, with entire communities engaging in bizarrely choreographed rituals designed to shame or exile an individual, regardless of their guilt or innocence. The practice died out in the North, but continued in the Old South as rural lifestyles gave primary importance to the social implications of honor society. Duels and blood feuds continued unabated, with sometimes entire clans being wiped out in acts of mutual retribution. This is why when considering our modern wars it does not matter who killed who, because acts of vengeance are taken out constantly by multiple sectarian parties.
Because vendettas and blood feuds created inescapable cycles of retribution, most of the world's governments ended the practice and claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Once the US government claimed that monopoly, it also became the arbiter of social vengeance. Victim's justice holds sway in the American judicial system, which often means that brutal punishment is meted out to those who commit heinous acts like murder or rape. From 1968 to 1976 there were no death sentences carried out in the United States, but when capital punishment was reinstated by Gregg v. Georgia the use of the death penalty became even more popular. The death penalty as it is practiced is very convenient for those seeking vengeance. Because the state fulfills deadly retribution, there is no one to take vengeance upon. Those who seek the death penalty like victim's advocates and prosecutors are protected by incorporating themselves into an odious machine which confers responsibility to no individual group or person. With vengeance being popularized in this manner, most people have forgotten that ancient Chinese adage.
The retribution for Osama's murder would be inevitable, and on May 13 it has already happened:
ISLAMABAD – A double Taliban suicide attack Friday that killed 66 paramilitary police recruits represented the deadliest terrorist strike in Pakistan since the killing of Osama bin Laden. It sent a strong signal that militants mean to fight on and to try to avenge the al-Qaida leader...
In claiming responsibility for Friday's attack in northwest Pakistan, which also wounded about 120 people, the Taliban said it was avenging the May 2 death of bin Laden. It cited anger at Pakistan's military for failing to stop the unilateral U.S. raid on bin Laden's hideaway.
"The Pakistani army has failed to protect its land," Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, told The Associated Press in a phone call. - AP (May 13, 2011)
Americans must train this culture of vendetta out of our society, and re-think our notions of justice. We could all take a hard lesson from Mohammed Kinani, a man denied the simple retribution of an apology from Blackwater (Xe) for the murder of his son Allawi in the Nisoor Square Massacre.
When it comes to the question of Osama and justice, I'm inclined to agree with Tim Kreider.
Suggested Reading:
Honor and Violence in the Old South by Bertram Wyatt-Brown
The Culture of Vengeance and the Fate of American Justice by Terry K. Aladjem
