Salon's Greenwald: Americans Unreasonable in Wake of Bin Laden's Demise

From Glenn Greenwald’s recent Salon piece:

The U.S. has erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force.

I don’t see it that way, but so what if the U.S. has done exactly that? American Special Operations Forces killed Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the calculated murder of thousands of innocent people in various locales around the world, including the massacres on September 11, 2001. What you’re witnessing is relief and jubilation that all of America’s sacrifice, which was foisted upon us by Osama bin Laden in the first place, has not been in vain.

We’ve been after this man for the better part of a decade; it’s not like Americans erupted into jingoistic rapture in some sort of Pavlovian response to random violence. This is the symbolic denouement of America’s war on terrorism, and Americans are rightfully relieved at what this development represents: the victory of good over evil. Twisting this into some sourpuss statement on alleged American foolishness is absurd.

Greenwald is all too eager here to use the celebratory mood of America upon hearing the news of bin Laden’s demise to take critical swipes at the American people. Some people chanted “USA!” outside the White House and at a Major League Baseball game; that doesn’t mean those celebrating are advocating more and more violence just for the hell of it. I get the feeling Greenwald might have accused the residents of Los Angeles of insane community pride upon the capture of Charles Manson or Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez.

I see no celebration of the “righteousness of military force” here. The celebration is in response to the success of one particular instance of military force to achieve what most Americans believe to be a legitimate aim: take out the head of a terrorist organization who has caused worldwide death and destruction for many years. According to Greenwald, Americans celebrating makes them indistinguishable from the Arab street that cheered after 9-11. This superficial view ignores the specifics of each case. Those celebrating 9-11 were cheering the unprovoked, wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians; Americans are celebrating the deserved demise of the man responsible for that slaughter.

Greenwald’s thinking seems to be one dimensional regarding what America means:

I got on an airplane last night before the news of bin Laden’s killing was known and had actually intended to make this point with regard to our killing of Gadaffi’s son in Libya — a mere 25 years after President Reagan bombed Libya and killed Gadaffi’s infant daughter. That is something the U.S. has always done well and is one of the few things it still does well.

I’m thankful we have people who are willing to carry out the unpleasant tasks necessary to maintain America both as an international idea and a sovereign nation. Greenwald’s gratuitous, overwrought critique of America’s foreign policy at this particular moment is perplexing. U.S. foreign policy has not always made perfect sense to all people, but getting bin Laden simply had to happen. The guy was a mass murderer, remember? American military might does not define America, not by a long shot, but it does define the American commitment to winning what many of us see as an epic struggle. Reducing America to a mere military Moloch is unimpressive under any circumstances.

Nobody is cheering the deaths of innocents. The major difference is that we are concerned about collateral damage often to the point of handicapping our military while terrorists thrive on inflicting collateral damage. If that’s not obvious, I don’t know what is.

Might the violence increase? Sure, but our all-volunteer military has proven more than capable of handling things. Even if you disagree with American might abroad or our general handling of terrorism, there is no mistaking the fact that our military has provided an inspiring example of how to stare down terrorism. Their sacrifice has been astounding. If there is indeed an American character, let’s hope this at least partially defines it.

To shrink from what needs to be done in fear of more challenges in the future defines “cowardice.” I don’t think any reasonable person thinks terrorists were not already plotting more violence. It’s what they do. While President Obama has the excruciatingly annoying tendency to frame everything in terms of “I,” he gets full credit for giving the go ahead on this mission to get at bin Laden inside Pakistan. President Bush also gets credit for putting bin Laden on the run in the first place and keeping the pressure on.

Finally, does the celebrating by some Americans regarding this development really register as “bloodthirsty,” as Greenwald implies?

Hardly. It defines America as possessing a latent unity regarding the principles of the Western World in general over principles of cowardly terror, corrupt politics, and an illegitimate social system. Those who cannot see the larger picture of the last decade will miss this point entirely.

Americans can unite at this moment because while we may dislike each other, we loathed bin Laden and for good reason. You may call your political opponent a douchebag, but we all pretty much viewed bin Laden as pure evil. I’d guess much of the Arab world was beginning to share that view as well; after all, how many Arabs can your organization blow up before public opinion turns on you?

People are not robots. The jubilation in response to Osama bin Laden’s death is both understandable and completely justified. Jumbo jets slamming into skyscrapers tend to stir up some emotions.

Any linking of America’s celebratory mood in light of bin Laden’s demise to some sort of flaw in the American character or equating it to celebrations after 9-11 in the Arab world is just plain nonsense.