Why Obama could not be euphoric about killing Bin Laden
The
news of Osama bin Laden being killed naturally saw an avalanche of
internet comments; after all, US forces have been searching for the man
for almost a decade now. As I searched for Barack Obama’s
‘I-killed-Osama’ speech online, I was surprised to find a comment that
seemed unusually down-in-the mouth. David Brody, Chief Political
Correspondent, CBN News, had apparently wanted to see a chest-thumping
President Barack Obama. Obama was not euphoric enough, according to
Brody.
It is reported that wild celebrations had swept across the United
States of America. They celebrated and demonstrated such triumphalism
that the less informed might have thought the US had wiped Al Qaeda off
the face of the earth. Obama, like his predecessor had set a modest
target (capturing and killing a single individual). He had in the
process killed hundreds of thousands more, and turned more than half a
million people into IDPs. These could not have been the main reasons for
Obama’s somber response.
NATO warplane
Brody himself has offered an apology of sorts. He says he should have
read Proverbs 24:17 in the Bible before posting his comment (‘Do not
gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart
rejoice.’), and believes that in word and tone Obama had embodied the
quote. Had he read more of the Bible he might have found the real reason
for Obama’s low-tone response.
|
Osama Bin
Laden |
|
Barack
Obama |
I am pretty sure that Barack Obama was appropriately humbled by
Matthew 5: 38-48 (Judging others), Matthew 7: 1-5 (Love for enemies),
and Matthew 7: 12 (‘So in everything, do to others what you would have
them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets’). Barack,
Brody should have known, has more intelligence than Dubya Bush, and he
knew who cast the first stone. He knew whose friend Osama was before he
was tagged ‘Enemy No. 1’.
Barack’s low-tone, one might think, had to do with a decision to
write his own speech (given the importance of the moment), and having
his speech-writer blue-pencil huge chunks of this draft. Barack can
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the following paragraphs
would have been deleted.
‘On April 30, a missile fired by a NATO warplane, with our full
blessings, hit a house in Tripoli. This house belonged to the son of
Muammar Gaddhafi, Saif al-Arab. The missile killed Saif al-Arab. It also
killed his three little children, all under 12 years of age. I regret to
say that this was not anticipated when we moved to establish a No-Fly
Zone. Wars are not the surgical affairs we make them out to be. This is
why we turned ‘collateral’ into a military term.
‘I am happy to inform you that in just two days, we’ve demonstrated a
marked improvement in precision. We went from killing babies to killing
the world’s most ruthless terrorist, Osama Bin Laden.
‘As I wrote those words, something occurred to me that sobered me no
end. Bin Laden was not the world’s most ruthless terrorist until two
years ago. He earned that dubious title courtesy the Sri Lankan security
forces. And if I sound less euphoric than you expected me to be, it is
because, whereas our forces took out a terrorist leader who was more
figurehead and less strategist, their Sri Lankan counterparts
politically, ideologically and militarily not just outmaneuvered all
efforts to scuttle the military offensive launched against terrorism,
but took out both leaders, Velupillai Prabhakaran and the entire
terrorist leadership of the dreaded LTTE. Let me add, that my chagrin
also derives from full knowledge that my representative in Sri Lanka,
contrary to our declared policy of zero-tolerance, did his utmost to
bail out the terrorists right up to the last moment.
‘I am sobered, therefore, even as I report, and we celebrate the fact
of Bin Laden being killed; even as we reiterate that he was a terrorist
responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and
children, we must acknowledge that in the process of finding and killing
this man, our forces killed thousands of innocent men, women and
children. Ladies and gentlemen, 2,752 innocent people were killed in the
9/11 attacks. Ladies and gentlemen, I am ashamed to say that we’ve put
to shame the notion of eye-for-an-eye.’
US military action
Barack Obama’s grimace would have got worse when he realized that his
speechwriter had deftly cut-pasted a perspective-giving paragraph,
making it out that what he had said about the impact of US military
action was in fact about the victims of 9/11:
‘And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to
the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced
to grow up without their mother or father. Parents who would never know
the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from
us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.’
The last sentence had read, ‘Over one hundred thousand people given
the collateral tag; easy for the tag-giver, but leaving nothing but a
gaping hole in the hearts of those whose loved ones were killed in the
name of our National Security.’
Here’s another crossed-off section.
‘Ladies and gentlemen, there were no civilian casualties in this
attack. I was proud of the team that carried out this operation. On the
other hand, I remembered once again how Sri Lanka tackled terrorists. I
asked myself a few questions: ‘If Bin Laden surrounded himself with a
human shield of 300,000 people, including children, pregnant women, the
elderly and the sick, would I have risked the lives of my troops to save
them? Would I have entertained any suggestion by anyone to negotiate a
surrender, or worse to facilitate Bin Laden’s escape? Had our troops
eliminated the Al Qaeda leadership and rescued those innocent civilians,
would we have treated them any better than we have treated the half a
million refugees that the execution of this operation to capture a
single man has produced?’
‘The answer to all these questions, ladies and gentlemen, is ‘no’.
Sadly.
‘We stated that we were not at war with Islam, but the harsh truth is
that it is those who belonged to this faith that we slaughtered in their
thousands, almost as though non-Christians were by the very fact ‘fair
game.’
Barack, I am sure, frowned as he read the following lines:
‘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.’
If consternation on Barack’s face turned a shade darker at this
point, Brody might have wondered why. Perhaps it’s because it is a
copy-paste of something Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of Sri Lanka said
after defeating the world’s truly most ruthless terrorist outfit, the
LTTE.
[email protected]
|