Monday, November 22 2004
"A GREAT MAN IN MANY WAYS": I don't think I could have been less impressed with Michael Scheuer on Meet the Press yesterday:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Osama is still fully in control of al-Qaeda?

MR. SCHEUER: I think it's wishful thinking to think that he isn't, sir. The one example is the tremendous sophistication and spontaneity of his media machine. There has to be some command and control there. And to imagine that it doesn't--that he's unable to do it is just absolutely incorrect. He's really a remarkable man, a great man in many ways, without the connotation positive or negative. He's changed the course of history...

I'm willing to cut Mr. Scheuer a bit of slack here. In the heat of the moment on national television sometimes people can find inartful ways of expressing themselves. Though I personally would never have used the phrase "great man" to describe Osama bin Laden, I'll cede to Mr. Scheuer the point that there have been many men (and women) whose actions have changed the course of history - for better or for worse.

But then Scheuer went on to say this:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you see him as a very formidable enemy?

MR. SCHEUER: Tremendously formidable enemy, sir, an admirable man. If he was on our side, he would be dining at the White House. He would be a freedom fighter, a resistance fighter. It's--and again, that's not to praise him, but it is to say that until we take the measure of the man and the power of his words, we're very much going to be on the short end of the stick.

It's one thing to call Osama bin Laden a "formidable enemy," something entirely different to call him "an admirable man." The word admirable is defined as "having qualities to excite wonder united with approbation." Mr. Scheuer says he's not trying to praise bin Laden, yet he's doing exactly that.

And how can Scheuer suggest that the White House (or the American people, for that matter) would embrace a murderous thug who advocates the indiscriminate killing of innocent women and children, praises suicide bombings and beheadings, and hopes to annihilate his enemies with weapons of mass destruction? We made a similar mistake with Arafat in the 1990's. After September 11, one can only hope we won't ever make it again.

Scheuer went on to say that Osama bin Laden's "agenda is not to destroy America" and that we need to have "a debate in the United States on the set of policies bin Laden has identified, and we need to make sure that those policies, which have been on autopilot for 30 years, still suit American interests." This sounds awfully close to taking our foreign policy cues from terrorists.

Yet Scheuer admitted Osama is actively pursuing WMD to inflict massive casualties on America and that short of total capitulation to his demands (which include the complete withdrawal of US political, military and diplomatic influence in the Muslim world - something we cannot and would not do) Osama's agenda will not change and the jihad will continue.

In other words, we have no choice but to fight and to win. Should we always seek to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world while eradicating the terrorists? Yes. And should we respect our enemy's intelligence and zeal? Clearly. But we should never fall prey to the mind set that anything short of the utter annihilation of al-Qaeda is what is required. And we should never, ever, find anything to "admire" in Osama bin Laden. - T. Bevan 10:00 am Link | Email | Send to a Friend