Fred Thompson Joins the Out To Lunch Bunch

The Geek admits this is not the most timely post he's ever written. That's OK. He's a historian. Anyway, keeping up with the foreign policy idiocy is exhausting. Sometimes the old Geekmo just can't take anymore.

Now it is probably too much to expect an undistinguished, former short-time Senator and lobbyist to come to the presidential campaign with any knowledge of the intricacies of foreign policy, war, and peace. But, as a TV actor and Ronald Reagan imitator, he darn sure should understand the importance of symbolism.

When Thompson derided Osama bin Laden as "more of a symbolism than he is anything else," it knocked the Geek off his rock in the sun.

Get a grip, Fred!

There are many things Osama bin Laden is not. He is not a political-military strategist. He is not an organizational genius. His combat record in the anti-Russian jihad in Afghanistan is, to put in kindly, undistinguished. Heck, his stone face and black beard aren't even the stuff of which great video drama are made.

Now, Mr Thompson, there is one thing at which bin Laden is very, very good. Symbolism. That's what he is. A symbol. An icon.

And, Mr Thompson, that's all he needs to be. That is his power. That is his strength. His appeal.

Bin Laden comes across to his target audience as a hero, a saintly remake of earlier heroes of Islam during its historical prime a millennium and more ago. He is seen as the austere, self-denying exemplar of Islam by those inclined to the Islamist ideology.

He is a walking, talking recruiting poster. He is seen to have lived as he has preached. Pure, willing to die, willing to fight, willing to kill for the cause and vision of Islamism.

Osama bin Laden doesn't need to be brilliant. He doesn't need to make good decisions. He doesn't need to have a strategic or tactical vision. Others can fill in the awesome blanks in his abilities and knowledge.

All he needs is to be who he is. To be seen as he wishes to be seen. For him, being seen as he wishes is easy. He plays to type. He plays himself.

You should have recognised all of those features, Mr Thompson. You invoke the memory and image of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator.

Reagan and bin Laden are the same under the skin. They both understood and played to the mythic imagery of their audiences. Bin Laden is what Reagan was--a symbol, an icon. As Reagan was "Morning in America," bin Laden is the "Dawn of Islamism."

Now, about your muddled thinking regarding "due process." Perhaps you've been playing a lawyer on TV too long to have a grip on this.

Capturing bin Laden, let alone giving him public exposure similar to that accorded Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega in handcuffs and orange jumpsuit would be the second most stupidly counterproductive thing that might be done. The most stupid thing would be to kill him with after-the-fact publicity of the fact.

Don't you or any of your aides realise that a symbol cannot be killed, an icon cannot die or be put on trial? Capture or publicly acknowledged killing would only elevate Osama bin Laden to the highest pinnacle of martyrdom.

Think how many young Islamist-leaning wannabe martyrs would be stimulated to offer their lives (and our deaths) at the metaphoric feet of bin Laden.

Mr Thompson, if you want to be something more than a second-generation facsimile of Ronald Reagan, you would be well advised to get a grip on the real nature of the war facing us and the centrality of symbolism--both their's and our's--to its prosecution.

A side note to John Edwards: Did you really, really mean it when you challenged Thompson on not understanding the "importance" of "capturing" bin Laden? If so, it is obvious that you still are totally clueless about what is happening in the world today (and have been for the past several decades.)

As a former Tarheel, the Geek will be happy to fill you in, Mr Edwards. And, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the same goes for you, Mr Thompson.