Osama's Dead, and Thoughts on the Military-Industrial Complex

Osama bin Laden is dead.
This marks a turning point in the War on Terror, as it was originally conceived, but more on that later.

In the 9 years leading up to today, we spent trillions of dollars on the War on Terror. Some of those billions were on tracking Osama, but much of it was on militarism that did not really make us safer – invading Iraq, groping elderly people at airports, building lots of bombs, etc. The Military Industrial complex had quite a windfall during those nine years, and the Republicans exploited 9/11 for all it was worth politically. But in the context of laying off teachers and police officers, and cutting local govt budgets to the bone and beyond, those trillions could sure come in handy now. Is that a bit too apples and oranges for you? Those tradeoffs of guns and butter are basic Econ 101. I'm just saying that our country has been all guns and no butter, and the guy whose face was on the most wanted poster that justified those choices is now dead.

The past 9 years of foreign militarism set off by 9/11 came without any real time on introspection. We could have spent more time thinking about what 9/11 was all about. Why did the evil doers pick the WTC and the Pentagon specifically? The answer is typically, because they are evil. And they do evil. But seriously, was it an attack on the whole country of America? Sounds silly to even ask the question, right? But my answer may surprise you. No. It was an attack on the military-industrial-corporate complex. That is different from America. I still haven’t heard any major politician or leader say this. It is interesting to consider for a moment how our country would have responded if we had been told that the corporate-military complex was under attack, but not the American people. Not that attacking things by killing civilians is at all justifiable no matter what your target. But when something big happens to you, usually it is smart to understand why it happened, and what they were trying to say. We never did that. A big part of the problem was that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and to some extent Giuilani) were the only ones given the microphone in the months after 9/11. After that, the course was set. Invade countries. Shoot, kill. Team Amurka. And after all these years, and with Osama bin Laden now dead, I am still annoyed that the Dems (Feinstein, Kerry, and other blue dogs) went along with the Republican-Rumsfeld plan, and later didn't do anything when hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters were in the streets. I have been meaning to write a blog comparing the anti-war movement in 2003 with the tea party movement in 2009. I think there may have been more anti-war people than current tea partiers, someone should do a study or a count to see if that is true. But a major party, the Repubs, embraced the tea party. The tea party has no head, but a bunch of shadow fronts appeared and claimed to speak for them, next thing you know there are all these candidates, and someone like Palin tries to capitalize on them. The Dems did nothing for the 2003 anti-war movement, and no one capitalized on anything, and it took 4 years, trillions of dollars, and Bush and Rumsfeld running the country into a ditch before the Dems even seemed to do something about it. And even now, after all these years, and Iraq supposedly winding down, but with trillions of dollars of financial commitment still on the line, I still can't really tell you what Obama did about Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, Osama bin Laden being killed is a victory. But he wasn't even in either of those two countries. Sure, the Taliban suck, and Saddam used to hang out Rumsfeld in 80's (say no more). I'm telling you though, Osama was in Pakistan, our supposed ally in the War on Terror. I guess they were allied enough to not tip off Osama, at least this time. Curious to know how many previous attempts there were. But give these guys credit for this one. They seem to have accomplished the mission.

So, what does Osama bin Laden's death mean for the War on Terror? There are still crazies in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it seems like the main figurehead is gone. I wonder if he was still the financing hub, or if there are other Saudi-Mujahedeen types in the background? The question is: can we convert more of those crazies by building schools for them, and handing out free laptops and educating their women? Do we still need to be wedded to this testosterone and frankly childish warpath that Dubya and Rummy sent us down? Can we, at long last, close Guantanamo? Can we wean ourselves off of Middle East oil, so that we aren't sending billions to despots (who recently were suddenly put on notice by an exciting youthful pro-democracy movement from Tunisia to Bahrain and even Syria) or supporting Islamist movements. This means renewable energy, electrifying transportation, hydrogen, smart growth, trains, sustainability - Renewable Energy is Homeland Security. Maybe Obama (spelled with a "b") can be the adult in the conversation and articulate a real mission. He can start putting the Military-Industrial Complex in its rightful place in the federal budget. Sure, it would still be there. But maybe 1/2 or 1/8th the current size. And that money could be redirected toward domestic issues, and fighting climate change (a much bigger threat to our country and to civilization and the biusphere as a whole). Let's deploy those troops to fight climate change. They may need to invade a few corporate board rooms. Exxon, BP, Chevwrong. (Note: the "invasion" could be in the form of a carbon tax, or cap and dividend, etc.)

We got Osama. But the country is still not safe. Let's roll!