Fixed.

President Obama has announced that the "buck" stops with him when things go wrong within the elaborate intelligence apparatus that supports airport security and anti-terrorism in general. But what about with respect to another type of terrorism - the kind we perpetrate on others? Is he willing to accept that "buck" as well? His predecessor certainly wasn't. Like under Bush II, civilians have been the target of our military in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, and, indirectly, elsewhere. According to the U.N., more than 2,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan during the first ten months of 2009, about 450 of which are attributable to the U.S. and our allies. That number is probably low, since in every conflict the line is deliberately blurred between combatants and non-combatants, but even if we accept it at face value, 450 deaths represents a lot of suffering, disaffection, and anger. I'm not sure how it is any different to kill hundreds of peasants with unmanned drones than it is to blow up buses or passenger airliners - both are indiscriminate, heinously destructive, and criminal. Both shield the true perpetrators. And both seek to advance a political cause through faceless violence. Will Obama take responsibility for that?

It is hard to see how we as a society will ever get beyond our eagerness to resort to killing as a preferred means of foreign policy. Let's face it - its advocacy is a great way to drum up votes if you're a tin-pot politician. Has any national leader since Barry Goldwater sacrificed an election simply on the basis of being too much of a hawk? It has an amazingly broad appeal. I can't tell you how many times otherwise smart people have suggested, nominally in jest, that we drop bombs on this country or that. There's a cathartic simplicity to it. And since most Americans are blissfully unaware of the degree to which their government has meddled in the affairs of other peoples, opting for military action seems to many an appropriate response in the face of an irrationally hostile world. Why do those people hate us? we're always asking ourselves. What the hell did we ever do to them? It is as if we are born anew each moment, perpetually free of our dark past and our equally troubling present.

Obama's administration is, like many of its predecessors, propelled forward into bad policy by the criticisms of some very cynical voices, including some who were primarily responsible for the catastrophic failures of the last regime. It occurs to me that one of the more common Cheneyisms - that we are less safe from attack under Obama - may, in a sense, be grimly true. Cheney, Bush, and his crew nearly destroyed the U.S. empire. They led us into two disastrous wars that drained us of blood, treasure, and international credibility, to say nothing of the death and damage they dealt to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their idiocy at governing knew no bounds, as the destruction of New Orleans and the implosion of our economy amply demonstrated. This is well-known to the leaders of Al Qaeda, I'm certain, just as I'm sure they are aware that terror attacks (and attempted attacks) redound to the political benefit of people like Bush and Cheney. Ergo, if they attack us, they know we are likely to turn around and elect people who will surely bring this country down, and its empire with it.

Simple strategy - let your enemy destroy him/herself. Al Qaeda appears to know that one. Do we?

luv u,

jp