Jihadists of the right in Congress

Osama bin Laden always said he wanted to destroy America's economy (presumably to set it back to the seventh century, when Islam began). While he never achieved that goal in his lifetime, he'd probably take some pride in the work of the Tea Party conservatives in Congress. These yahoos are so determined to make their point about government spending that they're willing to risk economic catastrophe for the federal government, state and local government, domestic and foreign investors, car makers, home buyers and ordinary consumers. Enough of them are willing to allow a historic government default on its debt that they are rejecting not only the Democrats' proposals to raise the national debt ceiling but even their own party leadership's plans.

Call them "enablers" of al-Qaida or "fellow travelers" or whatever the operative phrase is in this post-Cold War world. They are making themselves the jihadists of the right wing. They can destroy the American economy without blowing up any skyscrapers or hijacking any airplanes, but their impact on the economy could be worse than anything that happened 10 years ago on 9/11. They even share some traits with the Islamic terrorists who wish to destroy us economically or any way they can — zealotry for their cause, unwillingness to compromise, contempt for their opponents and blind allegiance to their vision for the world.

The American military finally got bin Laden, who had threatened to destroy America. Now this country faces destruction from another group vowing to "save" America by pushing it off an economic cliff.

Cold War strategies still affect policy

The "Arab Spring" continues, and Osama bin Laden is dead, but little attention is being paid to the ways the Cold War created and cultivated the authoritarian regimes that dominate the Middle East. During the Cold War, every developing nation was a battleground between communism and capitalist freedom. Africa, South America, Europe and Asia contained philosophical battlegrounds, where advocates of Marxism and capitalism competed for the hearts of the population and, especially, for the allegiance of the leaders. In many nations, the United States reluctantly supported cruel dictators because they were anti-communist. The battles for allegiances were especially strong in the Middle East, where strategic locations and vast reserves of oil made these nations important to both sides in the global struggle.

America installed and supported the Shah of Iran and supported the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. In Egypt, the Soviet Union wooed and won the support of Abdul Nasser, but the United States was able to persuade his successor, Anwar Sadat, to change sides. U.S. support continued for Sadat's successor, Hosni Mubarak, who was finally forced from office after decades of brutal repression. How different the history of the Middle East might have been had the United States not been focused on fighting communist expansion at all costs? With global communism consigned to "the dustbin of history" (in Ronald Reagan's memorable phrase), the United States is willing to support protests and insurgencies in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya without fear of turning these countries into mortal enemies.

The United States this week took out its primary mortal enemy of the post-Cold War era, al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. Even though bin Laden has no allegiance to Marxism, his rise began in the U.S. support for Afghan fighters opposing the Soviet Union — support born of Cold War containment strategy.

The Cold War, which the United States won with the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991, ruled U.S. foreign policy for almost half a century and continues to affect U.S. policy today, 20 years after global communism collapsed. The Arab dictators, whom restless Arab populations have begun to rebel against, and the Islamist terrorism that opposes Western secularism, can be traced back to Cold War decisions. In containing communism successfully, we have developed entirely new problems.

In bin Laden killing, give credit to Obama

I have watched, with some chagrin and amazement, the lack of respect for President Obama displayed by the birthers, tea partiers, racists and the rest. Admittedly, disrespect for elected officials, including presidents, is not unique to Obama (George W. Bush was the target of frequent vitriol), but it seems more accepted and less related to policies with Obama.

In the aftermath of the assassination (you can't call it any less) of Osama bin Laden, the Obama detractors were quick to give credit to Bush, the guy who vowed to bring bin Laden to justice but never got around to it. On Facebook, Bush fans/Obama detractors posted Bush's statement about bin Laden's death, ignoring the fact that bin Laden was located and killed two years after Bush left office, and the order to execute the mission came from Obama. After bin Laden's death, Obama did one more thing: He telephoned Bush and former President Clinton as a courtesy to tell them the news first. Both former presidents had made their unsuccessful attempts to capture, kill or cripple bin Laden.

Bin Laden's death sparked celebration among many Americans and not a few foreigners, including some Arabs. One can argue that killing is wrong, even in an act of legitimate self-defense or justifiable vengeance, but the vast majority of Americans are glad bin Laden is dead. What is difficult to understand is why some Americans won't give the president who issued the orders credit for the success of this mission.

Osama bin Laden is dead at last

The death of Osama bin Laden is one of those rare moments of nearly unmitigated rejoicing. A celebration of death goes against our nature, but in this case, as with the death of Adolf Hitler, a death brings closure and, in a word used by both Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, "justice."

Bin Laden's assassination — that is the honest description of his demise — places a cap on America's decade-old rage over the 9/11 attacks, which Bin Laden instigated and planned. Bush had promised to avenge those attacks by tracking down Bin Laden and his associates, but he took a detour through the quagmire of Iraq and lost sight of his promise to bring bin Laden to justice. Obama will get the credit for ordering the operation that killed bin Laden in a firefight inside his Pakistan compound, but the intelligence personnel who had tracked the wily bin Laden for nearly 10 years and carefully planned the surreptitious attack deserve most of the credit for this success.

Bin Laden's death gives a glimmer of revenge and justice to the thousands who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks and other al-Qaeda crimes, but it does not eliminate al-Qaeda. Without the charismatic bin Laden, al-Qaeda might lose some followers and financial support, but it will remain a thorn in the flesh of Western civilizations and a threat even to Islamic nations. The greatest benefit of this assassination might be the elimination of bin Laden's periodic videotapes promising doom for all who oppose him and thumbing his nose at the concerted efforts to find and kill him. At least we won't have to see those any more.

While clearly pleased with this achievement, President Obama still has his hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq, where al-Qaeda-inspired or -allied insurgencies continue their war against U.S.-allied governments. Militant Islamist perceptions will not die with Bin Laden and will continue to endanger the world economy until the financial and political support for this philosophy is buried along with its most prominent proponent.

One speech won't change the world

President Obama pleaded with the Muslim world Friday in a 55-minute speech in Cairo, Egypt, that was widely praised by Western officials and moderate Muslims. Like all of his speeches, it was eloquently delivered and persuasively written. The problem is that moderate Muslims are not the ones making trouble in the world. At the same time Obama was visiting the Middle East, Osama bin Laden was issuing an audio recording calling on Muslims around the world to continue the violence al Qaida has sponsored against Western interests everywhere. Al Jazeera, the Arabic news channel, played the bin Laden tape while Obama was speaking.

Some of the reaction to Obama's speech (not quoted in the above-linked Washington Post article) showed just how far America and the West have to go to resolve the enmity felt by Muslims, especially Arabs. Obama sought to plow a middle ground, criticizing both Palestinian rocket attacks and Israeli settlements, for example, but a middle ground is unfamiliar territory in this region. One Palestinian I saw quoted lambasted Obama for defending Israel's right to exist, saying the president ignored Palestinians' "right of return."

The hatreds in this region go back many centuries. Often-violent differences between Shia and Sunni branches of Islam go back to the eighth century. One speech, even one that runs nearly an hour, is not going to resolve those differences.

Obama deserves credit for attempting to improve relations between America and moderate Arabs and Muslims, but the promoters of violence and hatred will not be won over by a speech.