It was Monday Night, and Domestic Partner had commandeered the TV away from eight year old Dybbuk, as she sometimes did, to watch an important news story.
But this night was different from all other nights. She was taking no chances about anyone spoiling this story for her.
Instead of MSNBC, we were watching CNN.
Dybbuk was already displeased, but he then threw us for loop.
“He was a bad guy, but no one should be killed. I am not happy when anyone is killed.”
For once, Dybbuk had absorbed the lessons of his Reform Hebrew School; to DP’s distress, he had absorbed them all too well.
It was not always thus, as befits the grandchild of someone who spent much of her childhood hiding in an attic like Anne Frank, but more successfully (except in the way of royalties), Dybbuk was greeted every Friday Night even before he could talk with a wine, challah, candles and blessings.
At about his 25 month, we celebrated a Sabbath during Passover, with egg matzohs replacing the bread.
Dybbuk expressed alarm, “Where’s The Challah!”
The next month he stunned us by, sua sponte, reciting all three prayers from memory.
His twin cousin turned this into a delightful parlor game wherein they would call out his name, say “Baruch” then laugh as he recited the balance of all three prayers.
But the fervor of childhood had given way to the apathy of eight.
These days, Dybbuk cannot recite one prayer from memory, or more likely, refuses to admit that he can.
I started to explain why joy at the passing of others was sometimes OK, when he interrupted with a sentence beginning, “But, at the Seder you said…”
I looked at him , prouder than I could ever imagine being, and said “You are right, it is wrong for me to be happy about him dying. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to be happy about it.”
That night, a fan, a college student attending my alma matter, also decided to charm me with his naiveté.
Sam Hudis: I too was thinking about what to think of this in light of opposition to the death penalty. So it was (at least in some small way) relieving to learn that in fact, the plan was to take him alive, and it was only after he resisted and fired at the soldiers that they returned fire and shot him.
GATE: If you believe that.
I believe he shot, but I also believe he was not going to be brought back alive in any event.
Sam Hudis: I drove back down to DC from home today, so I heard the same story on 1010 WINS and then KYW 1060 in Philly. As they reported it, the SEALs expected him to fight back, and in that case, planned for the eventuality of killing him on the spot…. However in the event he did not resist, they planned to capture him alive. And considering the value he would have had to us alive, I believe they would have much rather captured him.
GATE (today): I believe i won this bet.
I will say I would have preferred a discrete Colin Powell-like interlude of no comment to the waterfall of chaotic misinformation we first received, but that casts no aspersion on any other aspect of the handling of this masterful operation.
Anyway, clever but naïve children come in all ages, which brings us to Rock’s latest column.
Rock sent it out to his list in advance the other day, expecting great controversy to follow, but since it did not deal with Brooklyn politics or some personal vendetta, it did not draw that many more comments than usual, which for a non-Brooklyn Rock column these days generally means Larry Littlefield and the usual band of nuts intent on getting Rock’s goat.
However, because Rock’s words embody quite well some of stuff I’ve heard from some (but refreshingly, not all) of the usual left suspects (many of whom share my elation), I think it merits a serious answer.
There are two streams of left criticism here, though they sometimes get conflated.
The first stream of criticism is a tactical one. The operation may have been justified, but killing him was not. And, even if it was, we shouldn’t be celebrating.
The second half is just silly. It’s a free country. People are going to do what they want, and who can blame them for feeling some joy. The administration surely has an obligation to behave within the boundaries of good taste, but we can’t control what frat boys do anymore than we control cartoonists and crazy preachers. I’d prefer a bit more taste, but I am resigned to the fact that boys will be boys.
As to the killing, we will never really know the degree of resistance offered. It was an armed compound; they were shot at near the entrance; there were weapons everywhere; the master of the house had killed thousands who had never harmed him with no compunction whatsoever. How would one expect him to react to an armed invasion?
Could anyone have really expected the Seals not to shoot at even the slightest appearance of what may have looked like a provocation?
If one undertook such an operation, then killing OBL was virtually inevitable.
What difference does it make whether the orders were “Bring em back alive if you can,” or if they were “Take no prisoners.“
In the realities of such an operation, this was a distinction without a difference.
However much this operation was the result of good detective work, this was not the arrest of a criminal. This was a battle taking place against a combatant during wartime.
Different rules applied.
And, even if Osama was found in the shower with nothing in his hands but what Sonny feared Michael might come out of the restaurant men’s room holding, and perhaps a bottle of shampoo (but that could be dangerous, or they’d allow us to have it in our carry-on baggage), who’s to say the operation would have had a different result?
Was anyone ever going to second guess the Seal who shot off a gratuitous round?
And, who among us can really say he would have resisted such temptation?
But Rock raises different questions.
He brings up the matter of blowback; that we ourselves created Bin Laden. This is an assertion that is, at the very least, a matter of contention.
Osama expert Peter Bergen disagrees, but I'm not utterly convinced that because the CIA and Al Qaeda both maintain they had nothing to do with each other, the argument is settled conclusively.
In the alternative, this could instead prove that they both are well motivated to lie about any relationship which might have occurred, which surely, they both are.
But conceding Rock’s point, the fact we may have created the monster does not undermine our standing to correct our mistake. If anything, it further obligates us to clean up the mess we created.
More importantly, Rock raises the question of whether this operation should have taken place at all.
In doing so, I think he conflates three very different and only tangentially related concerns: 1) "the operation was not moral," 2) "the operation violated international law," and 3) "the operation was unwise."
The first concern is a matter of individual belief. If one is a pacifist, one can never endorse such an operation.
Otherwise it is always a question of whether these particular ends justify these particular means at this particular time and place.
However, there are many who, though not pacifists, will never support the use of force by America at any, in any place, for any reason; even in self defense, or to stop genocide.
For some, who are the products of colonialism, or whose country or region was victimized by a particularly unjustifiable American operation, it is hard to blame them too much for holding such an attitude.
It is too bad that no amount of Bosnias and Kosovos will ever in their minds create an alternative scenario whereby the use of American force may be the lesser evil to standing aside and doing nothing.
To compare this to what happened to Allende, Arbenz or Mossadegh is ludicrous. We were not at war with Chile, Guatemala or Iran.
We are at war with Al Qaeda; a war not of our choice; a war justified both morally and legally.
We were attacked for chrissakes (perhaps not the best chocie of words)!
The fact that America has, in the past, acted despicably, does not mean that any actions by us are automatically to be considered despicable.
The fact that many may think so regardless should not constrain us, if the action is justified.
The opinion of others is a prudential factor always to be given weight, but in this case, it is clear that only our reflexive enemies were going to raise such objections in anything but a pro forma manner.
The truth is most of the world thought this was either right, or convenient for them, or did not care.
Am I to be in shock that Hamas deplored the death of someone who engaged in the purposeful mass murder of innocent non-combatants?
So forgive me for believing this to be a moral action.
Other than pacifists, whose moral objections I understand, I would like to hear someone explain the moral basis for objection to this operation.
Actually, I would not like to hear it.
I could not give two fucks about your moral objections.
At the Seder, we learned G-d objected to our taking joy in the drowning of Pharaoh’s troops, but he presented no objection to the waterboarding he (or she) self administered to them.
More cogent is the objection on the basis of International Law.
But please don’t conflate International Law with morality.
International Law and morality sometimes end up on the same side of a question, but that is usually just a coincidence.
International Law is about the World Powers That Be setting up rules for their mutual benefit.
It is often about the elevation of sovereignty over morality.
Human rights? In the classic formulation of Henry Kissinger; “maybe a humanitarian concern.”
But surely not as important as respecting borders, sovereignty, and non-interference in the internal affairs of others.
I do not minimize the importance of International Law. It is important, but it is also often distasteful.
Al Sharpton says “No Justice, No Peace,” making clear which is his preference.
International Law prefers the other choice.
And there is no doubt, as Hyman Roth might argue, that peace is better for business than justice.
Which is why I swallow hard and advocate respect for international law.
At any rate, I think there is a quite colorable claim that this operation meets the norms of International Law.
This was an action taken within the context of war.
It is nearly universally recognized that OBL was a combatant. Under the internationally recognized rules governing the conduct of wars, a combatant of OBL’s standing is an appropriate target for a kill-or-capture operation by a nation so beleaguered, with the exception of Israel, which is required under those same rules to commit mass suicide for the sin of having sovereignty while Jewish.
As the White House noted: "We acted in the nation's self-defense. The operation was conducted in a way designed to minimize and avoid altogether, if possible, civilian casualties. And, if I might add, that was done at great risk to Americans. Furthermore, consistent with the laws of war."
I might quibble that this was not self defense as defined by the penal code, but it is an applicable definition, as applied in the rules governing nations rather than men.
Further, it is clear that almost none of the international community believes that any international norms were violated in this operation.
Or, if they do, they could not care less.
And if no one cares, it does not matter.
International Law is implemented in the manner of fairies.
If, in some instance, no one believes, nothing is going to fly.
In the manner in which such claims are adjudicated, there is no forum for a complaint without a complainant.
And who’s complaining, besides rogue states and terrorist organizations?
Here and there, an Islamic nation is making an uttering pro forma statement of disapproval, comprised mostly of ass-covering, but even those are mostly muted.
If they consumed alcohol, most of their leaders would be raising a toast in private. Doubtless, some have already done so.
And where is the outrage from the only country with the standing to complain?
If Pakistan has had its sovereignty violated, it is only nominally so. They will not be pressing charges.
And if they don’t care, who else matters?
Finally, there is the question of the wisdom of this operation.
Just because something is moral and legal does not mean that it is wise.
Rock worries that “chickens always come home to roost”.
Excuse me, but WTF is he talking about?
Thousands of innocents dead in an attack on our largest city and our nation’s capital without provocation or warning.
Evidence discovered of more attacks planned in the future, even before this operation took place.
Are we now to be worried that we have gotten these folks angry?
How much angrier could they get?
Evidence would seem to indicate that, if anything, we’ve probably made another attack a bit less likely. Certainly, the ones in the planning stages which we‘ve discovered will probably have to undergo some modification.
Further, security has surely been compromised and the order of things Al Qaeda rendered a bit more chaotic.
Many of these chickens won’t be coming home, because they’ve been fried.