Our military and intelligence services are to be congratulated for taking out yet another anti-American terrorist planner. In theory, no one is irreplaceable in war, but it is hard to see how al-Qaeda and its affiliates will be able to find someone quite as familiar with the West — its language, social media, and general culture — as the late Las Cruces native and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.
Awlaki represented a post-9/11 generation of Islamic terrorists focused on encouraging an eerie “al-Qaedism” among otherwise normal-acting native or naturalized Americans and Europeans. He saw, correctly, that in an era of new security measures and the attrition of al-Qaeda abroad, stealthy terrorism by otherwise nondescript Middle Easterners residing in the West was a more practicable way of harming the U.S. than massively planned, multi-person operations from abroad. His passing is reflective of the progress, often quiet and under the radar, that the U.S. military and CIA are making in systematically eliminating the surviving Islamist echelon. In this regard, the presence of Iraq savior and retired general David Petraeus at the CIA led to coordination of intelligence and military operations in a fashion we have not seen previously. One expects that Dr. Zawahiri is taking note.
Finally, the manner of the American citizen Awlaki’s death — which, according to very preliminary reports, was from the air by judge-jury-and-executioner drones or precision-guided bombs — once again frames the entire ongoing debate over the so-called Bush-Cheney security measures. Those on the left who made the argument — often quite vehemently and with plenty of personal invective (“war criminal”) — that water-boarding three known and quite proudly confessed foreign-national terrorists represented a “war crime” must now come forward and turn that vitriol on the Obama administration, which just executed an American citizen abroad on suspicions of terrorist activity. (Most nonpartisans might consider water-boarding three self-described terrorists less a “crime” than executing over 2,000 suspected terrorists — and any and all who, as collateral damage, happen to be in the general vicinity when the sentence is carried out.)
If we see anything less than commensurate protest against the present administration, then the entire hysteria of 2002–8 in retrospect becomes rank partisanship and hardly principled anguish. But as we have seen with the continuance of Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventive detention, and the Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, these once-acrimonious issues are simply not issues any more. I guess critics “moved on” around January 2009.
I think this is called "politics", you may have heard of it?
In the same way, you'll note that conservatives, though they grumbled about Bush's wildly irresponsible fiscal behavior, failed to generate the hysterical squealing and angry mobility scooter engine-revving about DUH DEBT!!!1 that we have seen in the Obama years. Should Perry or Romney or Mayor McCheese win the presidency in 2012, conservatives will once again turn the volume down about government spending and go back to complaining about witchcraft in school libraries or hippies burning the flag or whatever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you think that conservatives only grumbled regarding Bush's debt, you must have been unconscious for the whole Bush administration.
Regardless, does the fact that Obama's debt is 10 times as great as Bush's not give reason for a greater amount of complaining as well?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not so much politics as it is hypocrisy. Try comparing the deficits under Obama in 2.75 years compared to those by G.W. Bush in 8. Then take a look at the unhinged rhetoric and rage of those who screamed "constitution shredder" and check out what those same folks are doing today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans didn't just grumble about Bush's deficit. Some House and Senate members actually voted against the 2008 stimulus, and IIRC, there was significant talk in Conservative media against it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is my experience that many on the left ignore the 2006 election.
it is important to remember that one because the Democrats gained a majority. Why?
Mostly because we conservatives were very unhappy with the spending of the Republicans in congress. The "cross the aisle" deals that diluted conservatism made many of us angry enough to withdraw support.
Here in Ohio Mike Dewine's senate career was ended abruptly by this dynamic.
it wasn't that we did nothing, we did what we could. But it is also important to recognize that to an extent conservatives are in the same situation as liberals. We both have a party that gets close to representing us but often falls short of our ideal.
The 2006 election is one reason why there are so many contested senate seats in 2012, there was a huge swing that year and the dynamics then are dramatically different from the dynamics now.
Sherrod Brown, who gained the senate in '06 will face a tough re election campaign. His particular brand of dyed in the wool liberalism is not likely to sell well this time around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, yep, here's the Ron Paul (and, apparently, Kevin D. Williamson) point of view:
External Link
Surprise, surprise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I actually needed a reason to NOT support Ron Paul, this would be it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen professor. In fact the suspicions of terrorist activity consist of words that many would ordinarily defend as free speech. Wouldn't you love to hear the debates this is spurring at the War Colleges today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYamamoto was not a citizen. This traitor was. The difference matters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does it matter that this traitor, as you called him, was a citizen? He joined an organization that has been at war with the United States for over fifteen years. His killing is no more wrong than the killing of those german Americans who returned to the Fatherland prior to WWII and were in either the Wehrmacht or the Waffen SS.
Contrary to this hysterical blather spouted by too many, this is not an issue of hunting down any american citizen living abroad and killing him because we have the power to do so. This is the killing of an enemy officer who happens to be an american citizen. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThough it's not an exact parallel due to the fact that he was never an American citizen, VDH's comments about Awlaki's familiarity with the West, coupled with death from the air, reminds me of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.
Adm. Yamamoto was educated at Harvard from 1919 - 1921, so he knew America well.
On April 18, 1943, a flight of P-38 Lightning aircraft shot down his transport plane down over Bougainville, in the Solomon Islands. Yamamoto, who was traveling on an inspection tour to boost morale, was killed in the crash.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Senator who thought it was despicable for the Bush administration to "air raid villages and kill innocent citizens" is the President who uses drone missiles as his weapon of choice in the war on terror. Hypocrisy is always alive and well on the left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs always, Jenna hit the nail on the head. You need to work on the GOP nominee's speechwriting/ad team. Your talents are being wasted in the NRO comments section.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn addition, doesn't this Administration know that the act of killing this man will just lead to a new generation of jihadists (oops, I mean freedom-fighters) growing up with the goal of killing Americans for revenge?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike that wasn't going to happen anyway?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhenever the government seizes new powers for itself, the citizenry should assume those powers will someday be put to their absolute worst use.
This is no different.
Fifty years from now, people will wonder how it got to be so bad without anyone noticing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike that one time at Muslim-American internment camp...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me see if I have this right. We are in a war, undeclared by Congress, but nonetheless openly declared by our enemies over 20 years ago and finally declared by us 10 years ago.
In a foreign country, we have just killed a major architect of that war, a turncoat American citizen, while he was actively promoting and working towards the killing of our soldiers, our citizens, and our nation.
How can this possibly be a problem for most Americans? I can almost understand how lawyers (who make their livings from swallowing camels whole) can bray their outrage. I can even understand (while pitying) citizens who are ostrichlike in their belief that Islamic terrorists and their backers *really don't mean it* when they say their objective is the death or submission of all infidels (us).
As for me, my feelings on hearing of Awlaki being blown to bits on the orders of my government are somewhat akin to the feelings I had watching Quentin Tarantino's fictional destruction of so many theater-going Nazis (The Master Paperhanger among them) in Inglorious (Unacceptable to NR's censor)"Out of Wedlock Children".
It feels good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongress has AUTHORIZED (and authorized funding for) this warfare. Of the 100+ times that the U.S. has engaged in military action abroad, Congress has declared war five (5) times. A DECLARATION is not required in order to engage in hostilities.
Just trying to add some clarity for those who may be hung up on the "No Declared War" strawman argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNotice how Mr. Hanson lacks the minimal grace and honesty to acknowledge that President Obama authorized the attack, or to note that President Obama has not acquiesced to critics from the Left who would have him take a different course of action. Instead, Mr. Hanson only credits "military and intelligence" services.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse