Posted by
Bill Crawford on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:31:28 PM
First off, there have been a whole bunch of theories and narratives that have been passed around following this event. This is not really a byproduct of ideological opposition- the conservtaive base, liking the use of force to take the man down, was very generous toward Obama in the aftermath (myself included). The new storylines come from two places. First, the White House passed out a half dozen versions of how things happened in Pakistan in the first 24 hours. The larger factor is that the internet generation has come of age, and they don't trust any one source of information any more. It has fostered a following that realize it is a medium where truth is ephemeral, and there are consequences to that.
Getting past that, there are a few Monday morning quarterback questions that shouild be addressed.
Osama was unarmed, and they didn't need to kill him. This was not a warrant squad. I don't imagine Seal Team Six spent a lot of time in training on hostage negotiation tactics. That house was clearly designed to see and fend off invasion, and anybody who went over that wall would be crazy not to be prepared to unleash lethal force. There was a clear anticipation from recent history of arms, booby traps and suicide vests. Bin Laden's only chance to come out alive would have been to strip naked and walk outside alone with his hands in the air.
We should have upheld the American ideal, and tried him in court. Why the hell did he deserve that? Such a trial would have ended up as a military tribunal in Gitmo, which would ensure that the circus of Americans protesting things would be larger than the circus of Muslims. We would end up spending a trove of time and money that even Obama and Eric Holder would not find worthwhile.
We should have kept the body for evidence. What for? If we have the DNA evidence we say we do, why build a shrine that would only attract more troublemakers? In the long run, I think burying him at sea will prove to be the smaretest move of the op. And paying him Muslim respects beforehand was not for the terrorists- it is for the billion or so non-radical Muslims on the planet who we still have to get to buy in to our war. It had to be done.
This will ensure Obama's re-election. Really? When JFK got finished with the Cuban missile crisis, the Democrats talked large about "running the table" in '64. The Kennedys knew better- heck, he was in Dallas in November '63 because he knew that he was going to have to work like hell not to lose it in a second election. The '64 elections were the way they were because the assasination gave them a boost, and Goldwater was a disastrous candidate. Obama will not get much of a polling bounce from this, like both Bushes got from Kuwait and 9/11.
This also was a gutsy decision by Obama. Not his choice of Special Forces- he was handcuffed on that because the Bin Laden residence was deliberately shoehorned into a crowded city and drone attacks would have caused all sorts of havoc. No, the gutsy part was because he had to know that if the mission failed, the comparisons to Jimmy Carter and the failed Iranian rescue mission would have been politically disastrous. Being as uncomfortable as I know he is with the projection of this kind of force, he probably agonized too long over it. But he made the right decision.