Too Many Questions

Would releasing “the photo” incite more violence? Should we have buried Osama bin Laden at sea after according his body proper Muslim treatment, rather than taking proof of his death back to U.S. controlled territory? Are enhanced interrogation techniques justified by the end of Osama, or would we have achieved this ultimate goal through the normal course of intelligence gathering? Have we been able to compute how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

As the last question connotes, there are questions to which there are no certain answers. During the days of the Talmudic sages some 2,000 years ago, they suspended debate on questions with no definitive resolution by calling them a “Taiku,” a Hebrew acronym that generally meant, when Tishbi (Elijah) returns (before the messiah comes), he will unravel all the mysteries, all the hard unresolved questions.

But that doesn’t stop the debate in the 21st century, so herewith some opinions:

If extreme interrogation, a euphemism for torture, were truly effective, we would have found bin Laden years ago.

Whether we release a photo of a dead bin Laden, his head partially blown away by a bullet just above his left eye, his chest pierced by a bullet, or ask the public to trust the government that he is indeed a resident of the netherworld, Osama’s acolytes would be gearing up for revenge of unspeakable measure. The battle against evil goes on.

Yes, we killed Osama, but that does not mean we treat his body as carrion or a trophy. Other cultures and peoples might violate ethical norms and disrespect the dead; we should not.

As to the question of proof of the kill, we live in an age of skepticism, here and abroad. Regrettably, even the straight-forward narrative of the mission has been changed several times since the first accounting. Thus it behooves the administration to release photos that clearly and unequivocally show a dead Osama bin Laden. This afternoon, however, CBS News reported President Obama decided not to release any photos.

Let’s also own up, as CIA director Leon Panetta did to Katie Couric yesterday, that first and foremost the Navy Seals’ objective was to kill bin Laden. Any movement on Osama’s part when cornered would be considered hostile, prompting a strike. He moved. We shot him.

What’s puzzling to me in the narrative is the sense the firefight was ongoing as the Seals made their way up the stairs to Osama’s room. He was unarmed, as was his wife. The others in his entourage were killed on lower floors. Who was still shooting, and why? I’m not challenging the actions of the Seals in killing the world’s #1 terrorist. But let’s not sugarcoat this execution by suggesting he was a threat to the Seals.

I also wonder why the U.S. has acknowledged the Seals rounded up a treasure trove of intelligence data from bin Laden’s compound. Wouldn’t it have provided us at least a few days' advantage if we rushed the material back for review without Al Qaeda knowing immediately their secrets had been compromised? In the euphoria of the kill, perhaps we have let other terrorists escape into the shadows.

As I wrote to a friend yesterday who asked what’s next, I expect “we will see more clothing bombers, hopefully discovered before they set their pants or whatever on fire, more crazed individuals, in our military or civilians, who will harm if not kill handful or scores of unsuspecting Americans. (They’ll do no more damage and will be) no different than crazies like the kid on the University of Virginia campus or the one who shot Gabby Giffords. There will be lots of hand wringing, but just like the NRA doesn't believe guns kill, liberals won’t let conservatives (bigots) turn this country into a police state. Perhaps, perhaps we'll accelerate evacuation from Afghanistan, with the understanding that any major military campaign by the Taliban will be met by drone attacks. My crystal ball is getting hazy now, but that's a starter.”


(Editor’s note: From time to time—which means when I remember—I will include the following disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my dear wife, Gilda.)

The Major, The Navy, and a Simple Word

The celebration of the late George M. Steinbrenner III continues, with some of his admirers advocating his immediate election to the Baseball Hall of Fame rather than making the legendary, controversial owner of the NY Yankees wait several years as other mortals must.

The last two weeks have been particularly sad for Yankee fans. Aside from Boss George, we lost Bob Sheppard, the longtime “voice of the Yankees.”

Equally poignant was the death of Ralph Houk, the Major, a true World War II decorated hero, who managed the pinstriped boys in The Bronx for 11 years, winning three straight pennants (1961-63) and two consecutive World Series (1961-62). Houk’s first three years as Yankee skipper spanned the last glory years of Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, Yogi Berra, and Roger Maris. He returned for a second stint as manager during the nadir of the franchise, taking over in 1966 and staying until the end of 1973, Steinbrenner’s first year as owner. It’s no coincidence Houk left the Yankee dugout when he did. His managerial philosophy could not have been more diametrically different than Steinbrenner’s.

“I don’t think you can humiliate a player and expect him to perform,” Houk was quoted as saying.

The bottom line is this: when Houk was given great players, the team won. When his roster had aging or mediocre talent, like Horace Clarke, the team failed. The same can be said for Steinbrenner’s bullying manners. When he paid for the right players, they won. When he bought the wrong players, they failed to win.


Ask Not...: It’s a very simple word. Only three letters. A-S-K. But this word is among the most mispronounced in the English language. Listen, not even too carefully, and too often you will hear someone say “aks” instead of “ask.” Education or socio-economic environment or race doesn’t typecast offenders. One of my former staffers made this egregious mistake, and believe me, when a reporter/editor says in an interview, “May I aks you a question?” it doesn’t reflect favorably on the publication or the writer.


The Navy in Afghanistan: It’s upsetting to learn two U.S. sailors ventured into harm’s way in Afghanistan, with one killed and the other taken prisoner by Taliban forces. First question that came to mind—why is the Navy represented in a landlocked country? Second question—why would these sailors voluntarily travel into a danger zone?

The NY Times tried to answer the first question with the following sentence in a Sunday article: “Although soldiers make up the lion’s share of American forces in Afghanistan, which is landlocked, most bases have a mix of service members, including from the Navy.”

My hypothesis for the second question is these sailors were part of a Special Operations unit. Otherwise, I can’t figure out why any sailors are there.

The frantic efforts to find and retrieve the captured serviceman will give Americans a greater appreciation for what Israelis are going through the last four-plus years, since Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas and taken to the Gaza Strip.