Cause for Celebration

I woke up this morning to an email from my Mom saying that Osama Bin Laden had been caught and killed. Immediately, I opened Yahoo to see what the news would be. I watched President Obama's address, and found it to be poignant and moving. I thought he did a good job, touching on how this was a long sought after act of justice, but that America needs to remain vigilant as Bin Laden's death is going to create some backlash. Hopefully, though, as al-Qaida loses popularity among Muslims, this branch of organized terrorism will start to die down. The flip side, that by killing Bin Laden America has galvanized the extremist, is another equally likely possibility. Again, though, as Obama hinted in his address, Bin Laden's death feels like closure - closure the Nation badly wanted and has been denied over the last ten years.

But, that's not on what this entry is really going to focus. My Mom also raised a question: "I wonder what the British make of this." The small survey of British people that I know (and one Polish woman) all seemed rather indifferent. The biggest tell would be the front page of Yahoo.co.uk.

Because it makes finding my Fantasy teams easier, I have Yahoo set to the Extra Freedom edition (aka Yahoo.com). When I went seeking more information, partly convinced my Mom had been duped by some sort of Internet hoax, I was greeted with this:

Generally, Yahoo has a series of stories, ranging from hard news to entertainment journalism (yesterday, for instance, I learned that Indian scientist had reintroduced giant tortoises to an island off their coast to help the plant life survive, particularly the ebony tree). This morning, though, the story was fixed: "Osama Bin Laden is Dead." This was later softened throughout the day as fervor wore down, and messages were reconsidered. All the headlines lead to more information on Bin Laden, his death, and America's reaction: "Death Comes for the Master Terrorist: Bin Laden's twisted path" and "How the U.S. Finally Got Him." The message was clear: America has done something major here. Something worth celebrating. The main image is of celebrating Americans, mostly young people waving flags and clamoring outside the White House.

How, then, did the British Yahoo decide to handle the news? This is the screen capture from Yahoo.co.uk this morning:

This story was run like any other major headline. This looks like what Yahoo any other day would look like. There are four stories to scroll through, some hard news (such as the story of Bin Laden's death) and others are lighter stories (like movies actors have decided to disown certain movies [I'm looking at you Harrison Ford and the last Indiana Jones movie] and the soccer goals from yesterday's matches). Interestingly, in the top ten trending topics, there is no mention of Bin Laden, al-Qaida or President Obama's address. Instead, British Yahoo searchers were more concerned with William and Kate, and David and Victoria Beckham. Even the story of Bin Laden's death focuses on the facts of the situation: a major player in a terrorist organization was killed by the US military. There are no pictures of celebrating Americans. There are no American flags emblazoned across the screen. By 10:00 PM BST, the story of Bin Laden's death was relegated to the third page of stories, and spun as a cause of concern among British Homeland Security personnel. It was sandwiched between a story about foods to boost your brain power and how bees held up a soccer match by nesting in a goal.

I also find it interesting how no other countries involved in the military actions in Afghanistan want any part of this. Even the Pakistanis, who have a lot to lose in foreign relations with the Afghani, are only remotely mentioned. All stories, from America and abroad, clearly pin this action to America.

It could be that the British just don't understand the catharsis that immediately washed over Americans when the news broke. Or, it could be that the British are looking to distance themselves from the celebrations, going as far as to bury news about it. From the British standpoint, I can understand if that is the impetus: if there is going to be a backlash, I wouldn't want to be associated with the target. By sticking to the situation itself, not showing how the situation has been interpreted, the British news seems less antagonistic to angry Bin Laden followers.

But, like most Americans, I wanted blood. I've never condoned going to war in my life, but as soon as a face was attached to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, I wanted vengeance in a way that makes me uncomfortable. Honestly, had I been in Chicago, I might have joined in the revelry.

3000 miles away, though, distanced both by time and location from the main celebration, I'm afforded a different vantage point on the picture that graced Yahoo for most of the day. Remember after the September 11th attacks, when news was scarce, the 24 hour news outlets showed pictures of certain countries rejoicing? Pictures of people celebrating the loss of American lives - I remember how viscerally angry that made me. I understand that Bin Laden was anything but innocent, and he got what he deserved in the end; while those who lost their lives in the attacks were innocent, having done nothing wrong other than go to work that day. Clearly those celebrating the attack on 9/11 were celebrating something atrocious while America was celebrating justice. Obviously, the two situations are different, but I am not sure people outside of America see this as a reason for celebration. And I know that people who are sympathetic to Bin Laden's cause are going to see pictures of these celebrations as cause for recourse (much in the way that Americans saw the celebrations and flag burnings after 9/11 as reason to bomb a country to rubble).

Again, though, I was pretty happy when I heard the news; I'll admit it. As I noted earlier, I watched the President's address, and then went to collect something for breakfast. I ran into my housemate Bernie in the kitchen, and he hadn't even heard the news at this point in the day (which was later than most people eat breakfast, I'll say...and leave it at that). He didn't immediately express his happiness hearing the news, and this was confusing. I expected him to congratulate me for what my country has done, shaking the hand of a citizen of a great nation that just did a great thing. Instead he said, "Wasn't he old when the terrorist attacks happened? So he must be really old now. Your government just killed a really old, possibly dying man. Is that a good thing?"

The subtext to this argument raises questions about the value of killing Bin Laden. By some accounts, he was not a well man, physically. Some believe it's likely that he wouldn't have lasted much longer as it is. I guess only time will tell if killing Bin Laden was worth it. If there are major offensive strikes against America by a rejuvenated terrorist cell that has atrophied in recent years, then maybe it was a mistake to kill him. If this puts the killing blow to terrorist thinking that America is soft or an easy target, then it was certainly worth it. If this is the act that brings a divided America together, healing wounds that have been festering for the last ten years, then I am elated that it went down as it did.

As for how to handle the news, in the end, I am torn. I am really happy to see the face of the 9/11 terrorist attacks put down like the rabid animal he was. But I also understand the need for some tact here. In an effort to not further poke the anemic bear of terrorism, it might be best if America kept the celebrations quiet and dignified, to try our best not to sound overly confident or arrogant.

Remember when France lost to Italy in the 2006 World Cup Final? If you are in America, maybe only vaguely. In that game, French soccer legend Zinedine Zidane had scored the first goal, and the Italians answered. With ten minutes left in the game, the Italians were playing well, and feeling cocky. One of the strikers said something to Zidane as they trotted up field. After briefly walking away, Zidane turned and headbutted the Italian striker in the chest. It was violent, and it tarnished his run at the World Cup that year. In the end, though, Zidane was unapologetic to Marco Materazzi. He was willing to sacrifice the game, his reputation and France's chance at returning to glory all because of something the Italian had said to him. There's a lesson to be learned by everyone here, and Zidane sums it up pretty well in the linked article above:

Asked what had caused to react so violently, he said Materazzi had directed some "very hard words" at him.

"You hear them once and you try to move away. But then you hear them twice, and then a third time," said Zidane.

"I am a man and some words are harder to hear than actions. I would rather have taken a blow to the face than hear that."

Sometimes the actions aren't the catalyst; sometimes it what's said afterwards that inspires violence. America needs to choose her words carefully from this point forward.