Obama: The Next 'War President'?

In a recent CBS "60 Minutes" interview, President-Elect Obama made clear that "stamping out Al Qaeda once and for all" and "capturing or killing Osama bin Laden" were among his top priorities. Is this sound policy or petty revenge?

I would argue the latter, particularly because it is quite likely that bin Laden is dead already, serving only as a justification for militarism and paranoia, and even if he were alive, how is his capture or death at all helpful to, let's say, saving the United States (and the world) from economic collapse, bringing our soldiers home promptly and safely, resolving global and domestic poverty, countering racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination - need I go on?

Let's take the issue of national security. How does a dead or captured bin Laden make the United States and its allies safer? If he's half as important as the media and the politicians say he is, wouldn't his capture or martyrdom only serve to strengthen the resolve of what few foot soldiers he still has at his disposal? Would not another man, or even another bin Laden (he has dozens of brethren), take his place?

When I hear all this rhetoric about "getting" Osama bin Laden, it makes me wonder whether Americans know the difference between real life and Hollywood - otherwise how could the Obamas and McCains of the world continue to insult our intelligence? In the wonderful world of Hollywood, when you catch or kill the "bad guy," all his cronies seem to disappear. Even his ideology fades into the margins. Afterward there is only light where darkness once reigned supreme. This is not reality.

First, in the real world "good guys" and "bad guys" are much harder to define. Bin Laden is, in fact, a "good guy" to those who support him or understand that there is a method to his madness: that he has expressed concrete grievances against U.S. foreign policy that have been shared by much of the world along with some Americans. Conversely, the soldiers that make up any unwanted and/or illegal military expedition whose goal is to capture or kill bin Laden, whether he be in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bermuda, would be considered "bad guys" by the fearful locals, especially if they harmed civilians along the way (which they are bound to do if history is any lesson).

And say they actually find him somehow, six years after Bush himself admitted he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about Osama bin Laden, and they don't harm any innocent bystanders in the process. Say there is no backlash from his lieutenants or from sympathetic Muslim populations. Let's pretend no one arises to replace him, assuming he is more important than his name recognition. Earlier in the same press conference in 2002, Bush said the simple words that should serve as a guide (though not in the direction Bush had intended): "Terror is bigger than one person."

It certainly is far bigger than one person. It involves people who have been "marginalized," as Bush put it, by oppressive governments and their militaries. It involves grave disputes between state and nonstate actors. It involves poverty and hopelessness. But Obama, like his opponents and predecessors in typical Hollywood fashion, would rather attack the symptom instead of the disease.