A

s the flag wavers outside the White House cheering the triumph of a “free world” over evil, it resembles nothing so much as an adrenalin-fueled Roman crowd roaring jubilantly at the sight of the spilled blood of a gladiator.

How far have we come since Roman times? Or more to the point, how far have we come since 9/11? In the pivotal week after that massive tragedy, ill-advised decisions were made that were to plunge the whole world into a seemingly unending escalation of vile terrorism and draconian security measures.

In the days that immediately followed the attack, sympathy and support for the United States poured into the White House from the world over, including many predominantly Muslim countries. It was an opportunity to create a united front, to share resources in an intelligent, long-term and effective effort to undermine any support for fundamentalism as a whole across the East/West, North/South and intra-Abrahamic religious divides.

Instead, George W. Bush — prompted and prodded by his advisors — opted for a “crusade”-like war on the sources of terror in Afghanistan.

Though the “crusade” epithet was quickly dropped, the damage was done. The neo-conservative association with the Christian right, the ongoing US blanket support for Israel’s aggressive intrusions into the West Bank and Gaza strip, reinforced a massive line of confrontation between the “West” and an ever-more radicalized, neo-pan-Islamic movement.

In simple terms, the result has only been an escalation: There has been no “triumph of the free world”, but on the contrary, as commentator Neil MacDonald points out, many underpinnings of American democracy went out the window: Habeas corpus was swept under the carpet, torture sanctioned, Guantanamo became infamous.

Even the name of the outrageously undemocratic Patriot Act was symbolic of this loss “free world” reason. On the other side of the fence, radicalization became an everyday occurrence.

With the election of Obama there was hope — a light at the end of the tunnel some said. His speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo was deemed historic, though many Arab commentators at the time adopted a wait-and-see stance. Whether this was simply cynicism or an awareness of the immense pressure an American president experiences in office, there does seem to be some indication that they were partially right.

Obama remains likeable as a figure, and for us Indonesians, there is something of an emotional investment in his attempt to change the world order, but right now the odds for his success in bringing about change don’t look so good. Whether out of personal conviction or under incredible pressure, Obama’s bid for change is perceived to have been seriously compromised.

Obama pledged to pull US out of Iraq, but he continues to try to win a military victory in Afghanistan. There is little to indicate this will succeed, nor will it do much to bring about peace, so it begs the question why a man as intelligent as Obama would take this route, which so clearly will lead into a quagmire? Is it political expediency? We expected better from Obama.

Whatever the case, the impression the world gets is that Obama has let himself be swayed by hawkish elements and there are political gains to be made. It is clear that this mission to take out Bin Laden was, from the word go, a mission to kill, not to detain. The speed and manner in which his body was dispatched at sea smacks of conspiracy and insult, and is arousing anger among Muslims the world over. Indonesia will not be an exception.

What happened to the ideals spoken of in Cairo? Bin Laden committed heinous crimes, but is “an eye for an eye” really the way forward? In a macabre scene again reminiscent of Roman emperors at the arena, Obama followed the whole mission live from A-Z, right up to the moment when a bullet entered Bin Laden’s left eye.

When Obama made his speech, he emphatically and repeatedly used the word “I” regarding the authorization of the mission. It is clear that Mr. President is now fully endorsing military solutions to a problem that he once talked of as one of the misperceptions between cultures and creeds.

How this brutal and bloody “success” is supposed to bring peace is a mystery. Even the CIA is predicting more violence, and the rhetoric from the Arab world supports this.

Those who stood outside the White House and cheered are surely fools. Americans the world over will be reviled anew, senseless violence will escalate. As Mahatma Gandhi once said: “An eye for an eye will make the world blind.”

The writer is a photographer and founder of a visual media company that provides services on Indonesian cultural films and television documentaries.