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
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
how wikileaks may have caused obama to not dither anymore...
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
God bless democracy, then. · May 4 at 4:57am
Yes, when supported by a free press, it tends to promote honesty.
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Paul A. Rahe
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
God bless democracy, then. · May 4 at 4:57am
Yes, when supported by a free press, it tends to promote honesty. · May 4 at 5:51am
Slowly, messily and imperfectly, but yes.
Jun '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Killing Osama was little more than a symbolic victory. He was a leader without an army after all. His organization died in Iraq thanks to the US military and GWB's perseverence. So give credit where it's due. No less important than Iraq is the job our security services have done since 9/11. That, too, is a legacy of the Bush years. Obama can only take credit for continuing policies and protocols already established.
Where Obama has failed miserably is taking on the states that sponsor terrorism: Iran and Syria. His failure to back the Green uprising two years ago was an opportunity squandered. His silence today about the situation in Syria is equally appalling. In geo-political terms his foreign policy is a failure. As long as state-sponsored terrorism exists, we can do little more than nip around the edges of the problem.
The third failure, shared by both Obama and Bush, is the long overdue reckoning with the House of Saud. Failure to cut off the sources of funding for terrorism means the problem will be ongoing.
Osama is dead. Big deal. The problem continues.
Edited on May 4, 2011 at 3:11pmNov '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
I only know one thing, and that is this: the day helicopters filled with Navy SEALs land in your back yard is a bad day for you.
May '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Knowing where he had been all along, the Pakastani leadership was probably surprised that the US had not rooted him out long before -- and figured that it would happen sooner or later.
Oct '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
I refuse to give him credit unless George Bush also gets credit. They both deserve it. It's either both, or neither.
It's funny (not really) how the Left bends over backwards to give Mikhail Gorbachev credit (along with Ronald Reagan) for the fall of the Iron Curtain, and how they bend over backwards NOT to give George Bush credit (along with Chairman Maobama) for the fall of Osama bin Laden.
Interesting dichotomy there, no?
May '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
I don't know if it's fair to compare the SEAL operation to Black Hawk Down or even the attempted Iran rescue. From what I understand, the Special Forces of the Carter administration are very different than today, even different from the Clinton era. Their missions were also different. Today, they also have better resources of gaining vital intel, as well as better interagency communication. How much time and how many resources did Carter or Clinton give to plan compared to this operation?
That said, I think the credit we should give Obama is that he had a competent SecDef and listened to him and the Joint Chiefs, among other advisors. But the Bush administration was at least partially responsible for the the infrastructure used to gather the intel and train those involved to make things happen, including assets at the CIA, NSA, etc. Should we give Obama credit for rubber stamping an operation that began before his inauguration? After all his Bush-bashing about handling the war on terror, Obama will have to do better than that before I give him a standing ovation.
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
As to a bounce in the polls: I argue that this is a one-sided situation. The public will only give Obama limited credit for doing what they expected their President to do anyway. Yes, if it had failed badly, he'd have gotten a lot of blame, but as you point out, he'd have gotten even more blame if he'd somehow let Bin Laden sneak away before approving this operation.
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
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.
Given that he apparently was first told that Bin Laden was in that compound last August, there is room to suspect that he vacillated for about eight months over what to do.
Given that he is supposed to have demanded of the military a plan to take Bin Laden by direct assault rather than destroy him by bombing, it's passing strange that it took him 16 hours to decided to greenlight his own pet project once he was told the necessary assets were in place.
Sep '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
I'm with Claire on this. I've always been repulsed by the shrill people on the Left who refused to give President Bush credit for anything. I refuse to emulate them with respect to President Obama.
Whether his motives were mixed or not, this was a tough decision. Sending in a team by helicopter--instead of using stealth bombers to obliterate the compound and surroundings from 40,000 feet--was a bold move. There was a lot of risk. Give the President credit for making this decision.
We're supposed to be better than the leftists. Let's act like it.
Apr '11
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
All due respect, but no he wouldn't have taken blame for letting OBL sneak away. We never would have found out about it, or if we did, years from now, there would have been plenty of plausible deniability. The downside of a mission gone horribly wrong was much, much greater than of letting him go.
Dogsbody (and Claire) are right on this: Obama deserves credit, along with Bush. Obama would've taken the blame if it had gone wrong, and he deserves credit since it went right.
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
James Jones
All due respect, but no he wouldn't have taken blame for letting OBL sneak away. We never would have found out about it, or if we did, years from now, there would have been plenty of plausible deniability. The downside of a mission gone horribly wrong was much, much greater than of letting him go.
I still disagree. If it were known to a clique of people in the Administration -- Panetta, Clinton, Biden, Brennan, Gates, and various others in the intelligence and military eschelons -- that the President knew where Osama Bin Laden was to a reasonable certainty but refused to take action, I am confident that information would have leaked sooner than later.
As for a mission gone wrong, it's well understood that sometimes horrible things happen in war. Plausible deniability would have been on Obama's side there as much or more as in the "he got away" scenario: the military designs the operational specifics of its missions, and so long as the military brass signed off on the probability of success of the mission along with its acknowledged risks, the President wouldn't be raked over the coals for a mission failure.
Apr '11
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Great, I'll let President Carter know that. ;)
Dec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Stuart Creque
Given that he is supposed to have demanded of the military a plan to take Bin Laden by direct assault rather than destroy him by bombing, it's passing strange that it took him 16 hours to decide...
For several reasons I doubt dropping a couple of 2000 pound bombs was an option -- bad location, 8-10 dead children, the possibility we could not prove Bin Laden was there, etc.
Obama's choices were do nothing or a SEAL raid.
This particular SEAL team is trained specifically for this type of operation. They have likely performed many we will never hear about.
While there were risks I do not think they were as high as some think. We knew there were only a few males in the compound. The risks were not unusual for this type of operation.
I think an adoring MSM is exaggerating and inflating the risks to promote the image of Obama as a "gutsy" high stakes gambling terrorist assassin. The realistic worst case is that several SEALs would have been killed and we would not have gotten Bin Laden.
Placing this in perspective, we are losing several soldiers and Marines every week in Afghanistan.
Edited on May 5, 2011 at 4:43amDec '10
Re: Killing Bin Laden: How Wrong That Operation Could Have Gone
Stuart Creque
I still disagree. If it were known to a clique of people in the Administration -- Panetta, Clinton, Biden, Brennan, Gates, and various others in the intelligence and military eschelons -- that the President knew where Osama Bin Laden was to a reasonable certainty but refused to take action, I am confident that information would have leaked sooner than later.
As for a mission gone wrong, it's well understood that sometimes horrible things happen in war. Plausible deniability would have been on Obama's side there as much or more as in the "he got away" scenario: the military designs the operational specifics of its missions, and so long as the military brass signed off on the probability of success of the mission along with its acknowledged risks, the President wouldn't be raked over the coals for a mission failure.
I agree with all of this.