So . . . the bogeyman has been killed. The name that made a generation uneasy and made us feel unsafe for the past decade was wiped out by a Navy SEAL's bullet (once he managed to get a bullet into the female human shield first). What Bush, that beacon of "security" could not accomplish, the supposedly soft and supposedly foreign Obama managed to do. But how much credit can be taken by the principal players involved? It has been seen as a universal good that Bin Laden been leaden, and that remains the same no matter what the analysis (despite what Jesse Ventura and other conspiracy theorists say). I just question the laurels that are being given out.
The story, as I understand it, is this. The name of Osama's courier was discovered a few years ago during interrogation of Al Qaeda members. CIA analysts eventually found him some weeks ago and tracked him to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The compound was painstakingly surveilled until it could be confirmed that Bin Laden was inside. The Navy then built a replica of the compound for training purposes, a plan was developed and executed this past weekend, and Bin Laden was shot. The whole thing took years to develop and weeks to plan, and during that time no one knew. No information was shared outside of a tight circle and no allies were informed. Even the SEALs didn't know the target until they were on their way.
That the name of the courier was discovered and that he was tracked to Abbottabad cannot be credited to any particular president, past or present. The secrecy of the plan was a good idea, but would Bush have told others? Doubtful - he was generally more insular than Obama. In fact, if it were Bush who was president when this happened, there likely would have been more criticism of his secrecy, and in that regard Obama deserves some praise. By being more open and transparent with the international community he bought himself some leeway in situations like this.
Also consider that the big news story from the U.S. prior to this was Obama's performance at the correspondent's dinner. He knew everything that was going on with the plan and did an outstanding job of projecting business-as-usual: standup routines for reporters, appearance on Oprah last week, golf game on the weekend, tussling with Trump. I can't see Bush as keeping that under his lid any more than a six year old who knows he's getting candy could keep that a secret.
So it seems that while chance played a role in the timing, I would say that the whole plan had a better likelihood of success with Obama instead of Bush. The other thing to consider is that the armed forces' first plan was to just drop a bomb on the whole place. Obama decided that he wanted to avoid unnecessarily casualties (and have a confirmed kill), even if that meant a riskier operation. Would Bush have done the same? Don't know, but if I had to guess I would bet on the bomb drop.
I guess I believe that while it was pure chance that the opportunity came along during Obama's presidency, the probability that the opportunity would be successfully taken advantage of was higher with the current U.S. president than the former. And that's the part of chance that often gets ignored - you can choose once you're in a situation, but you can't choose what situation you're in.
So far Obama has handled the news cycle with restraint and poise, and I hope this continues. I would be very disappointed if this becomes a campaign point for him (though I don't see how it wouldn't be, and I have already seen a headline stating that "Obama Got Osama" wouldn't play in as a 2012 campaign slogan). But as long as he doesn't appear on an aircraft carrier in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, it should be okay.
No comments:
Post a Comment