Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are condemning Obama for his handling of the fatal capture of Osama bin Laden. From the right, Republican (the entire leadership is extreme right) torture mavens are trying to claim credit and criticizing Obama for his failure to take Osama alive to torture him. There is no need to respond, because their justification of war crimes is long debunked. From the extreme left the criticism is that Obama murdered Osama, because he had no intent to capture him. However, there is now evidence that indicates the opposite.
President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said yesterday.
In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: one to bury bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators, and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea.
Obama’s decision to increase the size of the force sent into Pakistan shows that he was willing to risk a military confrontation with a close ally in order to capture or kill the leader of Al Qaeda.
Such a fight would have set off an even larger breach with the Pakistanis than has taken place since officials in Islamabad learned that helicopters filled with members of a Navy SEALs team had flown into one of their cities and burst into a compound where bin Laden was hiding.
One senior Obama administration official, pressed on the rules of engagement for one of the riskiest clandestine operations attempted by the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command in many years, said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorized to do it.’’
The planning also illustrates how little the administration trusted the Pakistanis as they set up their operation. They also rejected a proposal to bring the Pakistanis in on the mission…. [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Boston Globe>
In a highly risky mission, wasting space on unnecessary personnel, needlessly increases the risk. Therefore, the rational interpretation is that Osama’s fate depended on conditions on the ground. Based on his teachings, bin Laden would certainly have preferred martyrdom to being taken alive, so I do not doubt that he would have made gestures that the soldiers would interpret as threats.
Sadly, there are too many for whom facts take a back seat to ideology. Fortunately most of them are Republicans, and the American people as a whole support the outcome.
Lawrence O’Donnell and Eugene Robinson cover Obama’s 60 Minutes interview and discuss Obama’s approval ratings in the wake of last weeks events.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
There remain several areas in which Obama has disappointed me, but he deserves credit for putting to rest the bogus Republican meme that Democrats can’t handle national security, but they can. Events have shown that Republicans couldn’t keep America safe or catch the perpetrotor, but a Democrat has done both.
8 Responses to “Killing Bin Laden Not Predetermined”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks for this post, TC. When right-wingers try to claim that Bush policies provided the “blueprint” for this success, I only ask:
Which exact policy would that be … the Let’s Invade Iraq – a Nation with NO Connection Al Qaeda”Policy? Or the “I Really Just Don’t Spend That Much Time Worrying About Osama bin Laden” Policy? Or the Mission Accomplished Banner Policy?
But I suspect they probably mean the Let’s Violate Geneva Conventions and Torture People Policy. So to Hell with them!
Over at “The New Yorker” there’s an excellent discussion of why the mission was legal. And I think it’s important that peope understand this rather than simply saying “He got what he deserved.” Because Pres. Obama and our nation’s fealty to the rule of law allows us to occupy the moral high ground – it puts on proud display the very best of our American values.
I also have heard that there was a secret agreement in place with Pakistan, in which they signed off on an OBL raid in advance. That makes sense, because Pakistan has not raised a stink over it.
I think it is interesting that the right has jumped back and forth from story to story to try and take this accomplishment away from the president. There is plenty that has occurred behind the scenes that we are not aware of and the forces on the right are trying very hard to minimize the political damage they may face.
Democrats need to come out against these allegations swinging.
I agree Kevin. Republicans are desperate to keep people from realizing that they are the weak ones.
I’m with you, TC. Obama did the right thing and for all the right reasons. He simply DID do what Bush said HE would do, but like everything else Bush promised, that, too, was a lie. Obama SUCCEEDED where Bush and Cheney failed MISERABLY.
Jack, he also did what he said he would do. During the campaign, he said he would do exactly this, and McConJob put him down for it.
I’m with Jack – and I’m surprised he didn’t get a bigger bump for killing the most hated man in the world. Capturing him alive would have induced the military to torture him and the word would have gotten out. Instead it was 2 clear shots, and buried at sea (which I think was extremely wise) and done. I’m just glad that fucker is dead.
Lisa, I would have preferred a capture. Walking him behind the chariot in triumph would have been an image for the ages. Again, I think Osama avoided that outcome by forcing his own death.