Last updated on 2011.05.08
Madville Times readers aren't buying the line that America's successful killing of Osama bin Laden will increase the danger of terrorist attacks. The latest Madville Times poll asked, "Is the world safer now that Osama bin Laden is dead?" 120 of you responded thus:
- No, no difference: 45% (54 Votes)
- Yes: 38% (46)
- No, more dangerous: 13% (16)
- Trick question! Bin Laden lives! 4% (4)
- Safer: 54%
- Less safe: 28%
- No difference: 12%(volunteered, not offered as option in original question)
- No opinion: 6%
I will respect voter privacy in all MT polls, but I will note that the folks marking "bin Laden lives!" are not al-Qaida operatives chiming in from their overseas compounds. We've either got four local jokers or yokels drinking deep the lies of Orly Taitz (By the way, want a textbook example of megalomania? Birther Taitz thinks the U.S. killed bin Laden much earlier and kept the news secret to roll out it out as a diversion from her latest court hearing.)
A strong majority of readers believe bin Laden's death at least does increase danger. Readers Stan, Mike, and Rod all see at least see value in this death for its symbolism and message: Good beats evil, bad guys can't hide forever. Beyond the practical benefits of wiping out a key leader and terrorist resource, I can see the usefulness of the symbolic side of the victory for our own people. On the Charlie Rose program last night, writer Adam Gopnik said that bin Laden's death may lessen the fear stamped on America by the bearded boogeyman. If we are less afraid, we may be less inclined to take irrational and unhealthy actions like trillion-dollar off-budget wars and airport security kubuki.
Bin Laden wanted to bankrupt America; removing his potent image from the game may help us think straight and re-establish some fiscal security (if it's not too late already).
In total, over the long-run, much safer.
In the short-run, more dangerous. The reason is it would not surprise me if news of his death was a trigger for his cells to do their thing. Not that there will be more attacks or more dangerous attacks. Just they will move up their timeframe.
Make no mistake. This is not a criticism of what the President did. Just a statement of what I think is reality. As a nation via President Bush promised to hunt OBL down no matter where he was. And President Obama did that. Kudos to them both.
No criticism inferred. America as a nation got one important job done.
I wonder, Troy: if a terror cell accelerates an attack timeframe, does that affect the chances of success? Does less time mean less chance for CIA/Interpol to catch the bad guys? Or might the sudden increase in activity register on the "radar" of the intel folks? Do terrorists work better under pressure? Does haste increase chances of error?
Why did it take so long to find Bin Laden? It does feel safer with more thoughtful, less reckless leadership, but how do we define this specific action? In a nation of laws and due process is it right to take people out across borders of a sovereign country? Tactics of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield made us less safe. It's possible this will have a similar affect. The latest Huffington Post article makes the argument torture techniques slowed the hunt for Bin Laden and became an effective recruiting tool which in turn got more Americans killed. The worst does seem to be behind us, but let's not pound our chests.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/torture-may-have-slowed-h_n_858642.html?page=1
I'm with you on chest-pounding, John. Our action, unpleasant as it was, speaks for itself. President Obama's cool, clinical description of the operation is all that's necessary ("We don't need to spike the ball"), and we go on doing the hard, unpleasant work of national security.