The River Green

If, in the late evening on May 1, 2011, you were on the street, within earshot of someone else, watching television, attending a baseball game, you heard it at almost the same time as the rest of America: “We got him; Bin Laden is dead.”

Just about an hour or so later, President Obama addressed the nation, confirming that Bin Laden was killed and his body is in US custody.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The word was on the lips of spectators’ as the Phillies and Mets played in Philadelphia: “Bin Laden is dead,” and then the chants started: U-S-A, U-S-A. This was followed by an announcement of the news over the loudspeakers and was met with a roar from the crowd.

Inside of an hour, Lafayette Park, across from the White House became the focal point of a spontaneous celebration by students and Washington residents.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Times Square, Ground Zero became swollen with more crowds, more chants, flags, song, cheers, tears.

Most of the people in the crowds are young, maybe 18-22. Significantly, these are the young adults, who nearly 10 years ago, experienced, as children, a terrible nightmare. The sights, images, sounds of survivors, first responders, the terrible death and destruction of That Day seared into their young minds (and ours, too) forever. These celebrants were 8-12 when 9/11 happened. Bin Laden became the face of evil for them (and for us, too). He was the boogeyman, the monster under the bed, a personification of the scary, shadowy figure hiding in the corner.

And now, he is dead.

The manifestation of a profoundly impactful event such as this, is likely to result in a salient, tangible effect on everyday life. Particularly in terms of national unity. Nearly four hours after President Obama’s announcement, there remain thousands of people in Times Square, thousands around Ground Zero and thousands in Lafayette Park.

A succinct Facebook status read “Thank you... US and cooperating Intelligence agents, politicians who have supported the continued search, and all my brothers and sisters in the military serving in all places, foreign and domestic, whether ever deployed or not, as well as those who applied for the military and were not able to join, and all of you who support all of them. It took all of us to fight this evil.”

It is not unusual to now fear, or even expect, retribution by whatever is left of al-Qaeda. Having said that, Bin Laden’s death is a very significant blow to organized terrorism.

The most worrisome figures are possible ‘sleeper cells’ of domestic terrorists, either sympathetic to or directly connected with organized terror, could have a pre-existing plan in place in the event that Bin Laden is captured or killed. This sort of ‘mortality signal’ was used for the attacks on 9/11, when Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the ‘Northern Alliance’ in Afghanistan, was assassinated on September 9, 2001.

It’s worth mentioning that the second in command of al-Qaeda (now the de-facto senior leader), Ayman al-Zawahiri, is still alive. To my earlier point, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the ‘mastermind’ of the 9/11 attacks, has stated during his interrogations, that should Bin Laden be killed, a massive, dramatic attack on American soil would take place, involving non-conventional weapons.

I think ultimately, the point should be tempered celebration. The war on terror is not over; other leaders will take Bin Laden’s place. But for now, the boogeyman is dead and some of us can sleep better knowing that.

Labels: history , politics

So, there’s this wedding in England, have you heard of it? Yes, Prince William and Catherine Middleton are tying the knot in London on 29 April 2011. It is true that a great many people died right around 235 years ago so that we Americans wouldn’t have to care about stuff like this, right? Then why are there more news media from the US in London right now, than from any other country?

I am one of those people who are enthralled by stuff like this. The ceremony, pomp and circumstance is not unlike the excitement surrounding a Presidential election. The difference of course, couldn’t be more starkly contrasted. We are, after all, precisely not a colony, commonwealth or territory. Yet there is still a certain allure to the monarchy in general. The idea that a country can be singularly united in the face of a national crisis- World War II, for example, is such a foreign concept for we who are male and female, white and black, red state and blue state, etc. For the British and other constitutional monarchies, the regent is part of their national identity, and thus exemplify a national unity.

Naturally, I have a reverence for the Dutch Queen Beatrix for obvious reasons. But there is also a certain attachment to Queen Elizabeth II. I’m sure it has to do with the language, and yet there is more. She is history, more than any other person alive in the world, she has been a central figure in historical events since her birth in 1926. Her father, King George VI (the King referred to in The King’s Speech), led Britain and its Empire (including Canada and Australia), through some of the darkest times in history. With his family, including the future Queen Elizabeth, he stayed in London during the bombing blitz. That small gesture had a profound effect- not just on Britain, but on the entire Allied movement. There was a very real threat that their Palace would be hit by a Nazi bomb and they could all loose their lives. The entire population lived under constant fear of occupation and invasion, yet the Royal Family stayed, along with their people, facing the same chances of survival as everyone else.

In fact, the British Royal Family hosted Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands when that country was occupied. She ran the Dutch government-in-exile and the resistance movement from Buckingham Palace and daily addressed her people from London.

To re-iterate a point made earlier, a national identity can depend on the continued existence of their monarchy. It is that sense of continuation that draws me very close to this wedding. William is going to be King of England one day, and beside him will sit Queen Catherine. To know that they got their start as a couple and as the future monarchs of their country on a damp Friday morning in April 2011, is somewhat comforting.

We live in very uncertain, very anxious times. It does everyone some good to focus on the future in the form of this wedding. The world will go on as the tradition endures and history goes marching surely into the future.

And so, with English Muffins and a spot of tea, I shall enjoy watching history unfold on the telly.

Labels: history