Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
New York magazine beat me to writing this (and did it better than I could have). It's been playing on my mind since I heard the news--how unbelievably wrong this all could have gone:
That an unequivocal military success could still provoke bitter condemnation of the president made us wonder what would have happened if Operation Geronimo hadn’t gone off successfully — a possibility that was very real to the mission’s planners, who the Times reports made frequent mention of Black Hawk Down and Jimmy Carter’s botched hostage rescue in Iran. Here then, an alternate history of the past 36 hours. ...
The fighting has stopped, but a bloody scene has emerged. Casualties are heavy, including Americans, Pakistani armed forces, and others who may be civilians. An American helicopter has been destroyed, and there are reports of a Pakistani jet crashing in the center of the city. Several buildings in the vicinity are ablaze. Residents are reporting that the incident began with two helicopters carrying American troops descending on Abbottabad. The troops stormed a large house here and a prolonged firefight broke out. Pakistani jets, scrambling to the scene, destroyed one of the U.S. helicopters. “It was a free-for-all,” said a local man. “You couldn’t tell who was fighting whom.” ...
12:15 a.m. The Times is reporting that the debate on whether to bomb bin Laden’s alleged hideout using drones or to send in troops raged for a week prior to the president giving his go-ahead to send in Navy SEALS. “It was about avoiding civilian casualties in light of the Raymond Davis issue and minimizing damage to our relationship with Pakistan,” said a source close to the discussion, characterizing the president’s decision. “In the end, we did neither.”
Indeed, it could have been far worse than New York is imagining: Reading the Indian press, I realized there was another huge risk in this operation--that the Pakistanis would mistake our intrusion of their airspace for an Indian attack. Nuclear states, remember.
New York is absolutely right to suggest that the President would have been excoriated had this gone wrong. He made the call, he took the chance. It is proper to give him full credit for making it. I'm sure we'll hear everyone around him taking credit for it in coming days, and we're already hearing hints that he was hesitant and had to be persuaded. Nonetheless, he was the only one who had the authority to make the decision, in the end, and he made it.
In no way does this mean anyone needs to love his presidency, declare Obamacare a terrific idea, admire his budget proposals, enjoy his vapid speeches, or vote for him in the next election. But there is something grotesque in refusing to give him credit for this. It's intellectually dishonest to refuse to admit that no, this does not at all fit the story many of us had constructed about him--that he is flaccid, vacillating, pathologically incapable of making difficult decisions, unconcerned with foreign policy, and unable to wipe his own nose without the approval of the UN.
A thought occurs to me. This went right, and the results clearly justify the decision a thousand times over. But man, what a crazy, reckless thing to do! I'm reminded of something that was said of Margaret Thatcher--that if she'd had any military experience, she'd never have authorized the Falklands campaign. I'm wondering who was saying to the President, "This is nuts, don't do it?" And I'm wondering if we got lucky in having a president who just didn't have enough experience to grasp how wrong this could go and think better of it.
History is a strange thing. Always surprising. People, too.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
One has to assume that we had massive air assets ready to attack if Pakistani forces came out of their barracks and that we were ready to advise Pakistan's leadership, instantly, to stand down.
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
I'm no Micheal Bolton (AKA The 'Stache™), but it seems unlikely that a very small operation like this raid could somehow be misconstrued as a nuclear first strike (or the prelude to an invasion, necessitating a nuclear response).
Middle of the night, two choppers helocast a very small number of men into a compound and then leave again in less than an hour's time, with minimal fighting and one big boom.
Hell, it was all over before the locals could even think about having a response.
When the shooting stopped and then didn't start back up again, even the densest folks would have realized that whatever just happened was over and done with.
Add to that the fact that we gave them a rang shortly afterward to let them know it was us, and I'm not seeing a huge risk of nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
And before we go heaping too much praise at the feet of the Good King Barak, we might let it simmer for a while and see what all floats to the top.
I read an interview with some sort of Whitehous insider this morning that basically lays this all out as a situation where the top CIA, State, and Military folks had to cajole and sweet talk Obama into doing anything at all. The fellow being interviewed said that those folks had been pressing Obama to act on this information literally for months, and he was finally forced into it by a combination of crummy circumstances at home, and the threat that the truth of his inaction would eventually leak (to his extreme political detriment).
At this point, all I'm willing to praise Obama for is not crapping this whole deal up royally (which he most certainly could have). In that respect at least, he did some things right.
Edited on May 3, 2011 at 10:49pmRe: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Interesting comment in that it suggests we've all already changed our paradigm of how things are working. Your assumption is that we were planning at all, and baseline competent. None of us would have taken that as a given several days ago, would we?
Jul '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Interesting comment in that it suggests we've all already changed our paradigm of how things are working. Your assumption is that we were planning at all, and baseline competent. None of us would have taken that as a given several days ago, would we? · May 3 at 10:57pm
I believe our military is more than competent in such matters, as the success of the mission clearly indicates. The question then becomes whether our political leaders were willing to follow the lead. To Obama's credit, he was.
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Wrong on all accounts.
First, wait a few weeks to know more “facts.”
Who killed Osama bin Laden? His bodyguard, on his orders? Or us?
Why would one believe Pakistani armed forces stood down? Because they were asleep? Or were they informed?
Who believes our historic first Islamic apostate president was decisive when for years Geronimo had retired to Abbottabad?
And he dithered in following Panetta’s advice.
And he compelled the sailors of the USS Vinson to stand at attention for a ceremonial tribute in accordance with Mohammedan burial honors for America’s worst murderer?
Jul '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
A thought occurs to me. This went right, and the results clearly justify the decision a thousand times over. But man, what a crazy, reckless thing to do! I'm reminded of something that was said of Margaret Thatcher--that if she'd had any military experience, she'd never have authorized the Falklands campaign
Compared to what Claire? It's one thing to be Regan, H.W. Bush, or Clinton and to have passed up a risky shot at wasting O/UBL. It's another beast entirely to be Dubya or Obama and do the same... and to risk being called on it after the fact.
Obama deserves credit. Still, the risks he weighed weren't quite as loaded as New York magazine suggests.
Jan '11
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
People make decisions in the dark every day.
The reason you hire professionals is so that they can figure out things that normal people can't. But of course, that means that when they tell what they think, you have no way of judging whether they're correct. (If you already knew, you wouldn't have hired them.)
Now consider this. For this raid to succeed, think of how many different things had to fall into place. OBL had to be there. Your units had to get there undetected. You had to win the firefight. You had to breach their defenses. You had to get bin Laden. THEN, you had to get out, which meant you had to extract from Pakistan, and who knows how Pakistan was going to react.
(continued ...)
Jan '11
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
(... continued)
And when you're planning all these things, you had to keep it all quiet.
Now, just like you find yourself at the mercy of the mechanic, the plumber, and the surgeon, you know that all the professionals involved in each step in the operation have their own agenda, to some extent. If everyone else is gung ho, the guy who's supposed to make sure that the extraction plan will work doesn't want to be the only guy who isn't certain. So you're going to get a group of people who are likely to want to please you, and tell you what you want to hear.
You place your trust in a lot of people who, professional and well-trained as they might be, have a lot of conflicts that might motivate them to "adjust" their advice.
I have problems trusting the plumber or mechanic or surgeon. I can only imagine how many more magnitudes of trust are needed to assemble a risky operation like this.
But here's my main point ... anyone who claims that they knew it all along is a sure liar. It's a guess. A gamble.
May '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Ever since I learned that we found out about Bin Laden's compound 8 months ago, I've been thinking they were lucky he didn't change location in that time. Who's to say that was Bin Laden's only compound? or that he wouldn't get the jitters and move on a moment's notice?
And I'm still utterly amazed that our politicians and commanders could keep such monumental information out of the press for so long. Normally, they leak like a sieve.
In any case, we got him. Kudos all around.
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
This compound may have been at the top of the list, but there were other leads only slightly less or maybe more credible, in accordance with the groupthink of the intelligence establishment and especially with the dictates of political interference.
Give Osama bin Laden credit for surviving on his assumption of the triumph of bureaucratic arrogance over the power of analytical intel.
May '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Is that right? I had read that there were only a few people on one of those plane elevators who witnessed the tip-into-the-sea. If our sailors had to stand at attention, by order of Obama, that would be truly appalling.
A more appropriate gesture would have been a post-burial, mass discharge of the latrines.
Jul '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Personally I think that the mission was originally a grab mission that changed to an Eliminate mission when the Helicoptor went down.
They flew in completely undetected and were in the mansion before anyone knew waht was happening. Then a helicoptor goes down and now there is a signature that the U.S. has been there. I'm betting if that chopper hadn't malfunctioned the whole compound would have been emptied with all occupants removed without a trace, and the Pakistan Government without a Clue.
Not to mention the Rock and Hard Place created by being totally unable to complain someone who they didn't know anything about and who wasn't anywhere in thier country being kidnapped by persons unknown but suspected to be the U.S.
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
When I first got word that OBL got wacked by the USN Seals, I thought "Good!"However, as news trickled out as to the details and why it was important that we got close and pesonal to verify that it was in fact OBL, in I kept thinking "Wow, all the stuff that might have gone wrong." Several "what ifs" began to emerge, not to mention the risk of putting our service personnel in such dire straights all to get confirmation. So what? Many in the world community here (Cindy Sheehan and her ilk) and abroad will ALWAYS believe it was a crock, so why not just drop a few lazer guided 2,000 lb bombs on the target and call it a day? Yet, I'm reminded of Washington at Trenton, the landings at D-Day, and the Greek story of the Trojan horse and reflect upon the old adage "Fate favors the bold."
Oh, and a final comment regarding the burial of Bin Laden and reminder to those at the top in charge - OBL ain't no von Ritchtofen !!
Mar '11
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
At least none of the SEALs punched him. That would've been an outrage. Did anyone try to read him his Miranda warning before the shooting started?
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Obama is in political trouble, and he and his advisers know it. He had to take this risk, and Wikileaks forced his hand. A week ago, that outfit released information indicating that we had identified Bin Laden's courier. Consider the alternative that Obama considered: we had Bin Laden pinpointed and a dithering President let him slip through our hands. That was something he could not let happen. Political considerations were, I suspect, paramount.
Oct '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
US forces did a terrific job (no casualties on their side), but assassinations are easier to accomplish than rescue operations (carter) or extractions (black hawk down).
Jun '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
My first thought was, thank Obama for taking the risk, but also thank his campaign pollster for successfully convincing Obama that he had to do it.
Sep '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
It's intellectually dishonest to refuse to admit that no, this does not at all fit the story many of us had constructed about him--that he is flaccid, vacillating, pathologically incapable of making difficult decisions, unconcerned with foreign policy, and unable to wipe his own nose without the approval of the UN.
This is a decision he had to make, and good that it came out well. One can be all these things and still, every now and then, be forced to make a decision.
The CIA comes to you with credible information about the exact location of Osama bin Laden. You are already on record claiming you will go anywhere to get him. How can you not act? Eventually?
I have by now had enough experience with this Obama guy to take his measure. His every move, his every word is reflexively political and his speech after the mission is more evidence. Besides he's already taken plenty of credit for himself.
The fact that he,quite inappropriately in my view, will travel to Ground Zero in NY further supports my thesis that Obama is a political narcissist.
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
God bless democracy, then.
Aug '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Sorry, but the concept of covert action probably includes the proviso that the public be damned and the details of the mission be kept secret . Our voracious expectation doesn't necessarily reflect what is prudent to disclose. While we may trust ourselves with the truth, do we expect the press to respect it ?