The news of the execution, long over due, of bin Laden comes under all of those headings. 'Good News' because his money and influence were a continuing threat to us in the west. Even more 'Good News' because of the certainty that whilst over-running his HQ establishment the US forces will have taken every document and mobile 'phone they found which is likely to prove a treasure chest of intelligence data.
The 'Bad News' is that very soon some innocent people, somewhere, are going to die as a direct result of this operation when the Islamists in their fury strike back. It will not be on the grand scale of the twin towers attack; like Pearl Harbour, you only get one chance for a surprise attack like that. However, more 'Bad News' will be found in Obama's poll ratings which will hurtle upwards as the American public give him the benefit. Happily, this will not last because as the months go on and they will find their grocery bills growing and growing and nothing hurts like a hurting wallet.
I refuse to climb on some sort of moral plaform to declaim on the monstrosity of bin Laden's attack. He, back then and up until yesterday, considered himself to be at war with the West and when you are at war you use the weapons you have to hand. It ill-behooves westerners to pile execrations on his head when we, ourselves, deliver death and destruction from the skys in pursuance of what we consider to be our national interests. He did what he thought he had to do, and we returned the compliment!
I don't believe that he was "executed" or, indeed, "assassinated"; I loath it when people say he was "taken out" or "targeted". I'd say he was killed. Insofar as I believe the whole business: dear God I'm getting cynical in my old age.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 02 May 2011 at 17:33
I did hesitate for a nano second or three before I used that word but try as I might I cannot think of a single reason why any American, politician or general, who would want a living bin Laden who would be nothing but a severe embarrassment. However, a further thought occurs to me: was it wise to order the attack at all? As I say above, it will lead to further deaths and injuries and the experts assure us it will add even more recruits (I doubt that one), to say nothing of the fact that there can be no way out now from an open rift with Pakistan. Also, watching the place covertly might have produced some good intelligence. I suspect that the jump in the president's poll ratings over-ruled any other possibilities!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 02 May 2011 at 17:47
I saw a cynical suggestion that it was timed to dissuade any potential challenge for the Democratic nomination.
The question, though, is what "it" was. Some faction in Pakistan wanted rid of Obama and helped set up a nice bit of Hollywood for the Yanks to appear to take great risks to kill him? Search me. I did guffaw, though, at the claim that a burial at sea was effected to accord with Islamic something-or-other.
Once it occurs to you that Obama may have the same moral stature as Slick Willie - or Dick Cheney - what are you to believe? Anyway, credit where credit is due; it's a bloody sight more fascinating than firing a cruise missile at an aspirin factory. And if it leads to an end of the bloody silly occupation of Afghanistan, that would be a "result", as the footballers say. I suppose that bringing the troops home would be Obama's way of dishing the Republicans. Couldn't complain about that, I must say.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 02 May 2011 at 18:42
The penny drops! President Osama did it to distract the nation from the all-important AV referendum!
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 02 May 2011 at 19:36
Eh? Wadja say? Wot's an "AV referendum"? Never 'eard of it!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 02 May 2011 at 20:02
David
Technically it would be hard to call it an assination.
By name targeting of Military personal in war is legitmate, for example the attempt on General Rommel and the successful shoot down of Admiral Yamamoto.
AQ say it is at war with the US. OBL styled himself as AQ's commader. He has posed on many occasions in military clothing and with weapons. As a reasonable assumption he should be considered a military combatenet.
This is a helpful step but not the end. I'm sure anything AQ does in the near future will be called retaiation, but most likly it was in planning anyway.
Posted by: Hank | Tuesday, 03 May 2011 at 00:53
David, I'm interested to know why you believe any other person could do a better job than Mr Obama, or your prime minister or any head of state.
I am of the opinion that politics is now so controlled by congress, senates, upper houses, greenies, assorted committees and just absolute loonies that not much can actually be achieved by anybody.
I think we're all pretty much going around in circles and ending up with compromises most of the time.
Posted by: Sassyandra | Tuesday, 03 May 2011 at 02:58
XX I am of the opinion that politics is now so controlled by congress, senates, upper houses, greenies, assorted committees and just absolute loonies that not much can actually be achieved by anybody.
I think we're all pretty much going around in circles and ending up with compromises most of the time.
Posted by: Sassyandra | Tuesday, 03 May 2011 at 02:58 XX
The secret of "good Government" is to keep the idiot voters THINKING that putting a cross on a bit of Izal every five years makes the slightest bit of a difference.
Posted by: Furor Teutonicus | Tuesday, 03 May 2011 at 09:27
"..or your prime minister or any head of state." Our PM is head of government.
Posted by: dearieme | Tuesday, 03 May 2011 at 09:44
Hank, I used the word 'execution' rather than 'assassination' although I grant you that difference is rather fine in these unusual circumstances. Either word applies, I suppose, because I discount any of the BS about the SEALs offering bin Laden a chance to surrender.
Andra and FT, I intend to post on that topic later today.
And Andra, pay no attention to DM, he's an academic from the 'Stinks, Nuts & Bolts' department and therefore has a tendency towards pedantry!
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 03 May 2011 at 13:09
Well, there you go.
And I had thought Dearieme was some sweet old virgin lady.
Hmmm!!
Posted by: Sassyandra | Wednesday, 04 May 2011 at 01:09
Heh, heh, heh! "Dearieme was some sweet old virgin lady"! Heh, heh, heh!
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 04 May 2011 at 09:15
Well fuck me.
Posted by: dearieme | Wednesday, 04 May 2011 at 23:26
But then you wouldn't be a virgin any more, DM!
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 05 May 2011 at 08:54