Responses to Osama bin Laden's death have ranged from jubilation to sober gratitude that a man who incited mass murder and acts of terror all over world has been removed from the scene. And while some of us are conflicted about the method chosen to mete out this "justice" -- the taking of a life without so much as a trial -- nearly all agree that justice has indeed been served.
But what about those who don't? The sympathizers with and followers of bin Laden's worldview for whom his killing by American forces is yet another outrage? Their existence, and their presumed outrage, leaves a palpable anxiety that Osama bin Laden's death may motivate even more terrorist activity and spur recruitment, allowing bin Laden to strike again and again from the grave.
The night President Obama announced bin Laden's death, I heard someone compare bin Laden to Hitler -- two men nearly universally regarded as perpetrators of unimaginable evil. Two men whose humanity was so distorted as to be barely recognizable, and yet still compelling enough in their charismatic hatred to lure countless other alienated souls into their webs of evil. In both cases, the world heaved a collective sigh of relief when these men were gone.
The death of bin Laden, like that of Hitler, can be seen both as the end of evil and as an opening to create a new reality, one that offers an alternative to his would-be followers, that can draw a generation of disaffected youth away from the path of destruction and onto a path of constructive engagement with their communities.
The opening in the aftermath of Hitler and WWII was seized upon to create the Marshall Plan, a visionary and practical (though of course in many ways imperfect) approach to victory that sought to raise up the vanquished and reweave the shattered fabric of human society. The healing effect -- socially, politically and economically -- of the Marshall Plan contributed to a peace unparalleled on the European continent, a stark and instructive contrast to the way the seeds of enmity and resentment were sown following the First World War.
What if, at this pivotal moment in history, the U.S. sought to lead the world on a path of reconciliation rather than a path of war? What if, together, the world's leaders seized Osama bin Laden's death as an opportunity to launch a global Marshall-like effort to lift up the downtrodden and take seriously the grievances that have provided such a rich seedbed for bin Laden and his ilk? What if we committed ourselves and our collective resources as fully to the creative and compassionate alleviation of poverty, injustice and oppression as we have to the so-called war on terror?
It would not be easy -- neither was the Marshall Plan, a huge financial outlay coming on the heels of a long and painful period of depression and war -- but it could have profound effects on the long-term peace and stability of Middle East, and by extension the rest of the world. It would take the steam from those who have been, or would be, lured into terrorism. It would help nurture the nascent Arab Spring and bring new hope, new peace, new stability into a long-troubled region. And it would redeem the humanity of the world's powerful, who have too often chosen war. The opening is before us. The choice, once again, is ours.
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Bin Laden Plagued the Arab World, As Well
Levi Ben-Shmuel: Does Isaiah's Peaceful Prophecy Have a Chance?
Richard (RJ) Eskow: The Hangover: Questions for a Post-Bin Laden America
First Read - Poll: Nine-point bounce for Obama after bin Laden news
President Obama Approval Rating Spikes After Bin Laden Death ...
After bin Laden's Death, (Mostly) Fake MLK Quote Goes Viral - TIME ...
Germany after WW II was the legal situation. The really surprising aspect was the
radical shift towards a civil society again. It was the rapid tansition, practically overnight,
from the many deaths due to the war and to macro-crime, the atrocities. With the surrender of the German army all of a sudden practically nobody was killed anymore. For instance the number of murders committed after the surrender was very low, as the crime rate for all crimes was incredibly low after that.
In other words, people enjoyed legal security, in theyears after WW Ii it was rather
informal legal security, again. Like never before. Everybody could walk the streets
again without fear.
It was this change towards a civil society that was essential for everything else.
I just wanted to mention that.
But if it were once again possible to seriously consider, perhaps with international financial contributions.
Post WW2 the Marshall Plan was a brilliant way to rebuild Western Europe and perhaps more importantly create a dependent situation among the recipient nations to the US. The Marshall Plan was at least nominally offered to Eastern European nations under the Soviet Sphere of influence as well. Stalin is said to have rejected it outright - as he believed that it would create dependence and was concerned that it would wrest control of these Eastern European nations from the Soviet Union.
If this facet of the Marshall Plan, dependence on the US is genuine. Then recipient nations would be wise to think long and hard about accepting such largess.
In doing so we can build the bridges that will resolve conflicts not enhance them... No one conflcit can be resolved with military might alone...without dealing with the people with compassion afterwards... the age of huberus is leading us into darkenss. The age of oppression and colonization is not a moral outcome..it is a step into the past. You want to end terror end oppression and hunger.