Friday, May 06, 2011

Several Reasons why the Military and Obama Chose its date for the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

Conjecture Part 2: Several Reasons why the Military and Obama Chose its date for the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

By Kevin Stoda

Note: Part 1 of this diary story is at:

Paul Craig Roberts has written, “According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, "the mastermind." Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet.” Moreover, Roberts wondered, “For those who believe the government's story that "we got bin Laden," the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?”
Roberts discusses a few reasons why this particular time and date in 2011 might have been chosen for the assassinations of Bin Laden.
(A) “Many have noticed that Obama was facing re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama's poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported, ‘the glow of national pride’ rose ‘above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and Independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president's job performance, up from 46 percent.’”
(B) “Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar's rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually -- an easy way to have a major spending cut.”
Both Roberts and I believe, “If this [latter one or (B)] is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama's agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it.”
Roberts noted, “CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false-flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden's killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate "homegrown violent extremists" into making terrorist attacks. "Homegrown violent extremists" is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like ‘suspect,’ the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.”
What Roberts and the quasi-fascists who run the American military-industrial-government-corporate-welfare-lobbies fail to appreciate is:
(1) Most Americans don’t care how or why bin Laden was killed when and where he was.. 75% of Americans just want the wars to end and have the USA government redirect monies and spending to the betterment of USA welfare and the redevelopment of sustainable economies in North America.
(2) Even the majority of Republicans and Teapartiers want to bail out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. So, if President Obama plays his cards right he will be reelected in 2012 if (and as long as) the planned build-down for July will start—possibly in June already.
(3) Most people serving currently in the military and their military dependent family members—including some of us with members serving in Afghanistan—want a pull-out no matter what started pronto..
(4) Even military-industrial-complex regions of America, like most of California, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas agree with Eisenhower that every penny of money wasted on this war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is costing too much in the homeland.
In short, the military-industrial-government-corporate-welfare-lobbies are alreadyfacing a tough audience in the medium and short-term. Just as was the case 40 years 1971 America, 2011 Americans are absolutely worn out by these endless wars.
As I noted in yesterday’s diary (sometimes a bit tongue and cheek), historical timing appears to have been everything in the run-up to the decision to get rid of Osama Bin Laden as evil-world-enemy-number-one-on-planet-Earth. In a way, it has been the reverse of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Plan to take us into endless wars by allowing Osama Bin Laden to run free and unscathed around the Middle East—starting in 2002.
Yesterday, in part 1 of this article, I explored why the date of April 30 was so important historically for all of its symbolism to the USA Defense Department and NSA. I didn’t mention the fact, though, that both May 1 and May 2 also have a lot of historical symbolism riding on them.
Meanwhile, Toby Haggith of the British Imperial Museum explained some years ago why reenactments—especially on particular special historical occasions—are important for a society and its identity.
Haggith stated the following concerning reenactments and symbols of individuals and society during and following (imperialist) wars, “There’s [or there will always be] plenty of examples of people telling the story to try and redeem themselves, and atone for not their misdemeanours as such, but their regrets, where they fell short of the warrior that they felt that they should have been.”
Veterans and those involved in any historical event or perceive any personal sense of identity with a historical event “link . . . the idea of historical re-enactment as an act of memorialisation. And also of trying to come to terms with a particular historical episode you’ve [they’ve] been in.” stated Haggath in an interview.
In short, I say, “So what, American military industrial complex(!!!), if there was only an assassination of Bin Laden--and there was no Rambo-like real firefight in Pakistan-- the symbolism was there and it is likely to be sufficient for most every American at this junction in history!!!”
On the one hand, in many ways, for the Navy Seals and the rest of the USA military this past weekend, the journey of a few American soldiers traveling to Pakistan and shooting Bin Laden was the emotional equivalent of reenacting the most cathartic of war drama’s for many veterans and their family’s around the globe. It was also cathartic for many in post-911 America, especially direct victims of the attacks on 9-11.
On the other hand, Haggith notes, “One of the … [reasons] historians, and scholars in general [today], feel uncomfortable [ in this century] about re-enactment is the level of emotion, the amount of emotion that infuses the whole act of historical re-enactment. A lot of historical re-enactor’s talk about things like feeling how cold it was, feeling the pain, feeling the way the shirt felt on you, feeling how heavy it was to carry something, feeling the fear: these are all about emotion. So it’s interpreting the past through emotions. Now for most historians or most scholars [today] , this is actually a very antiquated or pre-modern way of interpreting the past. Many historians come out of a tradition today in which they were referred to as ‘social scientists’, where the study of the past was part of the social sciences and in which there were attempts to introduce empiricism and other techniques that were allied to science, in order to understand the past. Of course those techniques have been extremely valuable, but there has also been a sort-of denial about what the original historical pursuit is really about for most historians.”
Furthermore, Haggith challenged, “Most historians are drawn to history by feelings, by excitement, by the thrill of engaging with the past. I would challenge any historian who hasn’t gone to an archive, opened a file of papers, pulled out a document which was written in the period he or she is interested in, and not been desperately exited: it is exciting. The smell of the documents is exciting in itself, the turning over of pages which have been handled by someone else: these are thrilling moments!”
I agree with Haggith. Any veteran of war or related victim to a tragedy of war who sits at home and looks at any of the remaining war memorabilia or photos can certainly reach out and emotionally touch what has always inspired historians and generals alike—i.e. thos who have always been retracing the battles of others (battles of their forefathers in some cases).
Any veteran who travels half-way around the country or around the globe to look at a war memorial does a bit of the same. In undertaking such journeys we are vicariously retracing the memories that continue to bother us—and others of our own or similar backgrounds. (Naturally, any similarities in emotions and thoughts depend on ones schooling, family background, one’s life journey, and possibly one’s own mental wiring or genetic code.)
Haggith has challenged all modern historians in stating, “I defy any historian not to say that the engagement with the physicality of the past doesn’t still give them a thrill, even an acute understanding by being in that emotional state. The other great irony of this is that historians are constantly telling us that when we write historical narratives we should give it colour, we should give it imagination, we should make it lively, we must engage the reader.” This is what we call spin in the world of propaganda and media.
Likewise, I challenge any CIA chief or military-industrial-complex-dependent-junkees to ignore the emotional experience of the taking of Osama’s life. Both Muslims and non-Muslim’s (as well as military and non-ex-military peoples) celebrated the moments this past weekend--even if Dick Cheney (ex-CIA chiefs) and Leon Panetta (current CIA Chief) don’t get it.
In other words, from this point on, Obama can either keep his popularity after this event or he can continue to do what he has done since 2008—fail to live up to his promises. It is up to Obama to lose his now-gained political capital (The Republican administration of Bush-Cheney for 8 full years had failed to end the War in Afghanistan and failed to capture or kill Bin Laden. So, the Republicans now once-again start the race to the White House in 2012 with their feet in the bucket.) If Obama draws down USA and NATO troops this summer and extricates America from that war and long-term occupation, hoopla will only follow.
Why might May 1 (USA time) have been chosen as the date to kill Osama Bin Laden?
For well over 2000 years the first of May has been celebrated as a time of new beginning and spring by Druids, the Romans, the British, the French, the Germans, and other peoples throughout Europe. 9It is only due to the Puritans that it never caught on so much in the USA. However, as a child, our schools made May Baskets and we handed them out to neighbors.) In all cases it was a celebration that Spring was fully here. A symbolic renewal in spring marked a new half-year which began on May 1 and would run through many great times of planting and harvesting.
May 1 historically also has had the pagan dancing ritual, which has taken place around a May Pole in many small towns and cities in Europe—even to this day.
When the French Revolution occurred, the pagan May Pole was renamed, of course. It became the Liberty Pole—a term that Americans could even dance too—long before the end of May became the date to celebrate the soldiers killed in war. In any case, May 1 for Obama and his generals surely is an appropriate time to call for a renewal in our ways of thinking about the Afghan War.
There are other reasons to celebrate on May 1 and most countries in the world take the day off, i.e. as an international “Labor Day” or day of workers. As you know, the USA scorns May 1 as workers-day because it was chosen by labor groups, anarchists, and communists long ago to commemorate the Chicago anti-labor massacre of the 1880s—also known as the “Hay Market Riots”. This May 1 holiday and tragedy began when 300,000 Americans walked off their jobs on May 1, 1986 with the demand to work an 8-hour day. (Chicago was the epicenter of the national organizing.) Could the signal to America labor to lead the march out of Afghanistan be reflected in the choice of May 1 in the USA to assassinate Bin Laden. What am appropriation of memory or coup!?—i.e. just as many labor unions are as disappointed as ever in Barack Obama’s lack of support.
Likewise, during the Cold War, TV stations from around the world turned to Red Square in Moscow on May 1 to observe the military power of the once-great Soviet Union and its defense industry march forth on International Workers Day. What better way—ii.e. than by appropriating May 1 from our decaying Soviet memories—might Obama and his DOD buddies have thought out in order to sideline the dependent labor force of the USA’s massive military industrial complex?
Meanwhile, another event took place on May 1, 2003. This particular date forever placed George W. Bush in the third-tier of presidential leadership. That was the day when the former unelected-president landed on an aircraft carrier near an Diego and declared the End of Hostilities in Iraq. It was an outrageously bad statement of facts on the ground. The war had only begun in Iraq for the tens of thousand more American soldiers who would die--or be permanently injured there.
Again,--exactly 8 years after W. Bush’s bungled his prediction to the USA military forces in iraq--what more an appropriate date for Barack Obama could there be to announce the end of “the mission to catch Bin Laden than May 1, 2011”?
Such an accurate announcement might finally vindicate the USA military and regain some integrity for the presidential office.
Naturally, any military historian could also tell you that on May 1, 1960 the U-2 spy plane flown by Gary Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union. In addition, the USA Military officers on April 28-29 lobbyin in front of Barack Obama might have wanted to push the president to help them to whitewash the events of those past May Firsts that have demonstrated ignoble USA military endeavors over the years. This date, May 1, includes the growing standoff that led to the burning down of the ROTC buildings on several USA campuses with many anti-war protests starting on May 1, 1970, i.e. after the USA had officially expanded the war in Vietnam to both Laos and Cambodia under Richard Nixon. (This would all culminate on Kent State with shootings of protestors on May 4.)
Finally, if one wishes to see Osama bin Laden as one of the greatest manipulator of media and the mass media in his day, one cannot neglect the fact that on May 1, 1945, Joseph Goebbels had committed suicide in the bunker next to where Adolf Hitler had killed himself the day before. Why not link Bin Laden to that great puppeteer and propagandist of the Nazis and the Holocaust by having him(Bin Laden) submit to a bullet shot to the head on May 1?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home