-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, May 4, 2011 - 9:56 AM
Share
There's some second-guessing going on in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden, mostly having to do with whether he actually "resisted" or whether the SEAL team that took him out did so deliberately. Although it would be better if the Obama administration's original story had been more complete from the start, I'm inclined to cut them a bit of slack on this one. To me, it's not that surprising that some details were wrong in the initial accounts, and to their credit the administration has been forthcoming about amending the basic account.
Did the Obama administration deliberately send the team in to take him out? I don't know. But I'm sure the SEALs were given very loose "rules of engagement," such that even a minimal degree of "resistance" could be met (as it was) with deadly force. At the same time, I suspect that one reason Obama decided to send a team in rather than simply bomb the compound was a desire to use discriminate force, and to minimize the danger to bystanders. Killing bin Laden during the raid is one thing; killing his wives or the children present there would have played far worse in the eyes of much of the world. Sending a team in was also a way to ensure that we could prove we had got him; leveling the compound would have given even more fodder to conspiracy theorists to argue that he had actually escaped (presumably to join Elvis and Hitler somewhere in South America).
There are two reasons to suspect that we were more interested in killing him than capturing him. The first is the obvious point that having him in custody would have been a major policy challenge. How many terror threats or hostage takings might have accompanied his trial and incarceration? In the abstract, I'd prefer to have put him on trial for his crimes, to draw the sharpest possible contrast between his lawless behavior and the principles of the rule of law that we like to proclaim. But the practical obstacles to that course would have been daunting, and I can understand why the U.S. government might have preferred just taking him out.
The second reason, of course, is that targeted assassinations have become an increasingly favorite tool of U.S. security policy. And it's not just drone attacks on suspected terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, targeted killings by special forces are one of the key ways that we are prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. And there's certainly some reason to believe that this is how NATO is trying to resolve the civil war in Libya, though of course we will never say so openly. Given our current practice in these contexts, it would hardly be a stretch to imagine Obama sending in the SEALs not with deliberate orders to kill bin Laden, but with instructions that made his death very, very likely.
Lastly, what about the decision to dispose of his body at sea? Somebody clearly thought about this issue in advance, and this step was supposedly done because 1) there was no country that would want to accept his remains, 2) the United States had no interest in keeping them ourselves, and 3) U.S. officials were worried that a gravesite might become some sort of inspirational shrine for like-minded extremists.
I get all that, but I'm not totally convinced. For one thing, some Muslims are likely to see the burial at sea as disrespectful or callous, and Muslim religious experts seem to be divided on this issue. Second, while it's possible that his body/grave might have emerged as some sort of shrine, that's hardly a certainty. Mussolini's place in the family crypt isn't a big pilgrimage site for proto-fascists, and the site of the bunker where Hitler died hasn't become a big rallying place for neo-Nazis. Revolutionary states like the Soviet Union, Iran, and Vietnam have built enormous shrines to their founding leaders, but do these pretentious attempts at immortality really inspire many followers? And needless to say, no government or charitable foundation was going to pour any money into a shrine for bin Laden. If his body had ended up buried in some remote corner of Saudi Arabia, I rather doubt it would attract a lot of visitors. And even if it did, as Yglesias points out, it would be a nice way to get their pictures on file.
Not sure why this story was even written, they already said from the very beginning that they had kill orders and not capture.
(Reuters) - The U.S. special forces team that hunted down Osama bin Laden was under orders to kill the al Qaeda mastermind, not capture him, a U.S. national security official told Reuters.
"This was a kill operation," the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.
Did the United States murder bin Laden?
I would add that bombing the dwelling would not provide the US with the written materials, computer hard drives, etc. found in the home. An interesting guessing game is which had more value? the elimination of Bin Laden or the seizure of the materials within the home.
Oh and if Bin Laden was ill and hooked up to a machine, it might have been hard to take him and the machine together.
OSB was a valid military target.
Osama Bin Ladin was a military target. Even if he was on his knees begging...which I'm pretty sure he was not...killing him was still a valid action, ethically and legally permissable under the laws of war.
Targeted assasination is difficult to justify in many circumstances based on the possibility of doing something different. If we, for example, killed some of the guys in Guantanimo, or in a holding cell, that is murder. Osama Bin Ladin was in a house, in the middle of Pakistan. Even if he was on his knees, begging...Terrorists have been known to use suicide tactics. All it would hve taken is one small bomb that the SEALs didn't see, and he could have blown the entire Op, and the team with it.
Also, they didn't have the kind of time it would take to make him safe. The SEAL team was in a hostile area (in the middle of Pakistan, and really close to a major military academy.) It was a matter of VERY near timing before the Pakistanis showed up to try to blow the foreign plane out of their airspace.
In combat situations, if a combatant moved suddenly, our standing orders were to shoot to kill. It's not written on any report I have read. But the safety of my Brothers and our mission predates any orders that I have received. Had I been in that compound, Osama would have been dead before he could even blink. Nothing personal, that's policy.
I'm not even sure we are living on the same planet, as I know that governments lie all the time, The US President signed the Kill order (which actually has intent to kill someone regardless of circumstances) days before the assault. At first announcement the world, the President stated as fact that this was an order to kill and not to capture. I guess I am failing to see where there was a lie after the fact regarding killing him. Unarmed or not, health not withstanding, there was an order to kill period.
Now we're splitting hairs, all this is is a case of misinformation in a matter of hours. The fact is we intended to kill him period, that was stated as fact, no lie. Who cares if someone may have had it wrong that he was one of the ones armed and resisting, who cares if someone had it wrong that he was one that shielded himself with another human being. The simple FACT is that he was to be killed regardless of whether he was tossing bombs at our servicemen or watching Oprah and eating ice cream. Kill is Kill.....semantics.
Remember the lies we were told about Saddam? The lies we are being told about Ghaddafi? There is a clear pattern here. Sadly, we have Americans volunteering to serve this corrupt, deceptive, self destructive war machine that itself endangers this country far more than any external foe can.
We have faced down monsters before. We brought the Nazi’s to trial, evil men who murdered millions, not thousands. We exposed their crimes, crushed them with their own words, and showed everyone who cared to look that we were better than them. Even the Israelis, no sissy boys there, brought Eichmann to trial when they could have, well, shot him in the face while unarmed and dumped his body in the ocean. We didn’t need torture and secret prisons.
I'm not sad that bin Laden is dead, but there is a bigger issue here. Once bin Laden was found, it was no longer about him. You can kill a man with a bullet, but to defeat an idea you need to offer something better. Stuff like with liberty and justice for all-- those words either mean something or they don't. I want to explain that to my kids, not encourage them to grow up believing that revenge, not justice, is their America.
Peter www.wemeantwell.com
Big difference between Eichmann and bin Laden
Israel's goal in capturing Eichmann was to bring him to trial to expose the full Breadth of the Nazi crimes committed.
Eichmann was put on trial to highlight the genocide conducted by Hitler and his regime.
Eichmann, when he was captured, was hiding somewhere in the countryside of South-America, trying to find a deep enough hole to hide in so that the world would forget who he was.
By contrast, bin-Laden, continued his war against the West following his attack on 9/11.
He, unlike Eichmann, was an active combatant and treated as such.
Israel follows the same actions, fighting against active terrorists who are trying to kill Israeli citizens. That is hardly acting like a monster.
Overall I would agree, not in the case of non-governmental, insane terrorists. This person incited terror with violence and so do his followers, let's say for argument sake that we captured him, then put him on trial at the cost of millions of dollars, all while everyone and their brother from the terrorist camps and legion of followers will bomb, mame, terrorize and kill all over the world including the locale of the trial in an attempt to free Bin Laden, and the obvious result from that trial would still be execution. As all of the extreme evil you mentioned were killed anyway, the only difference is that is was after the war was over, this one is not that my friend. Sorry, but you do not make a good point in this case. Regardless of the end result, someone, somewhere will complain about the how and why. In this case I know it is safe to say that the majority of the World, not just the US are pleased with the outcome.
Yeah, I can't think of a single time when isolationism has come back to bite a country engaging in it.
Do people really believe this stuff?
it is always 1938. For him and those who rule, there is only one way to think about things. Things will change, but I believe it will take the bankruptcy of the US to kill this kind of thinking.
You sarcastically say you can't think of an occasion where Isolationism has backfired. Well, I want to challenge you to list those. Where has "Isolationism" backfired? ...Watch your ignorance.
One further aspect worth keeping in mind, is Wahhabism's - the "national religion" of bin Laden's Saudi Arabia - strict ban on anything reminding of i.e. Shiism or Sufism's saint traditions. al-Wahhab's doctrine is infamous for its stance against associating anybody, even Muhammad, with God, hence it's unlikely that partly Wahhabi-inspired al-Qa´ida supporters would turn up en masse at their former leader's grave. It's more likely that the martyrdom of bin Laden will get its answer in a terrorist attack. Action before mourning, seems to be the modus operandi of the jihadists, with their martyr cult
The night time raids in Afghanistan are different from the targeted killings by drone or special forces in Pakistan and elsewhere. The Afghan ones are part of an ongoing war (in the traditional sense) and are simply part of a strategy designed to destroy the command and control structure of a military opponent, destroy morale and I suspect, force the enemy to the negotiating table.
Targeted killings adhere to a different set of criteria, one which as yet isn't completely codified. But that's why they don't, by definition I would argue, take place in war zones.
On subject of bin Laden, I think its generally better for everyone that he's dead. There simply isn't a system in place to deal with a person like him - where would he have been tried? If it was a civilian court how problematic would ensuring evidence was permissible be? Would a lot of it be off limits because of ongoing intelligence operations? The list goes on. Finishing him off quickly and as cleanly as one can really expect was the best way, and avoiding the potential farce of a drawn out court case in which he would have got to air his views whilst risking reprisal attacks/kidnappings is simply the best outcome.
The one thing I don't really buy is the shrine argument. Salafists disagree vehemently with the concept as far as I understand it, so I don't really think it would have been much of a problem. I think what is more likely is that the US felt under time constraints to bury him quickly (Islamic tradition etc.) and wanted to avoid potential political problems. I don't think the Saudis would've taken him, I suspect supporters in Pakistan would've wanted to do so, which would be problematic - if the Pakistani government said ok, then it would be seen as tacit endorsement by some when there are already many questions surrounding their role in this. If they had said no, then that would've added to their not inconsiderable domestic problems, again at a time when so many citizens are already suspicious of the government's collusion with the US.
The way it worked out seems to me a best case scenario when dealing with a situation that would never not be controversial. Obama deserves a lot of credit for taking the courageous and risky decision to go ahead with this operation.
Very, very well put.
Try him in NY and let those he harmed confront him. I would incarcerate him for life and allow visitors to come at all hours to "visit" and express their pain/outrage. But, in our country, we are innocent until proven guilty BY A COURT OF LAW. Osama Bin Laden might have done us a favor by bankrupting our dream of controlling the Earth, which is a foolish notion that is antithetical to democracy. But, you go ahead with your nationalist fantasies that aren't rooting in anything but power, not democracy, liberty nor the golden rule. Just lust for power and control
Its pretty clear you haven't considered the implications of a civilian trial Scottindallas. I can see why its helpful to put where you're from in your name because I guess it stops others making silly assumptions about where you're from. Anyway, I'm not American and I don't think any of my ideas are 'rooting' (rooted?) in nationalist fantasies.
Anyway, as I said, it is obvious you haven't thought through the innumerable problems there would be with a civilian trial; judging by the rest of your delusional rants I suspect you never will, so there it is.
Don Bacon, I'm not sure what you're smoking, but I imagine its something similar to whatever it is you're on when you post the rest of your comments here. A case like bin Laden's is just not suited to a civilian courtroom, not least because the rules for evidence are so strict (and rightly so). But the action against bin Laden was not a civilian one, as the US gov has made clear - it was not law enforcement, it was war. There is a distinct difference and this is relevant to the rather angry Scott (from Dallas btw) as well. Regardless, in the real world and amongst sensible people (or 'sheeple' as I'd imagine you think of them) the onus is on you to disprove such outlandish claims.
I would LOVE to have all the covert nonsense exposed. We knew where Bin Laden was for 6 years! There are some real questions about his dealings with the ISI, CIA and other networks.
JBROCKLE, your replies to others' comments might be more useful if they actually contained information as opposed to personal attacks.
I'm sure a civilian trial would have been difficult to set up for Osama. Does that mean it shouldn't have been done? Is this where we're at? It's "difficult" to try him, so we should just kill him instead... sounds a bit like the Government's defense of their treatment of Jose Padilla. Difficult to prove anything, so we'll just lock him up for all time.
If Osama were truly such a one-in-a-million case, then we could have set something new up for him (not that I think it would have been necessary).
I like Obama, but maybe you can tell me how ordering someone assassinated as opposed to captured, tried, convicted, and incarcerated is the "courageous" decision.
JBROCKLE, your replies to others' comments might be more useful if they actually contained information as opposed to personal attacks.
I'm sure a civilian trial would have been difficult to set up for Osama. Does that mean it shouldn't have been done? Is this where we're at? It's "difficult" to try him, so we should just kill him instead... sounds a bit like the Government's defense of their treatment of Jose Padilla. Difficult to prove anything, so we'll just lock him up for all time.
If Osama were truly such a one-in-a-million case, then we could have set something new up for him (not that I think it would have been necessary).
I like Obama, but maybe you can tell me how ordering someone assassinated as opposed to captured, tried, convicted, and incarcerated is the "courageous" decision.
He's lucky we didn't chop off his head and stick it in front of the capitol building. *Shrugs* People who whine about how we treated his corpse are just being silly. He was our enemy. We killed him. Traditionally, when you kill your enemy, you hack his head off and put it on a pike, leave it someplace where people can see it, so they know not to mess with you.
That we didn't do that makes us civilized. *Shrugs* His corpse was a problem. We solved that problem expeditiously. Yay us.
Gen. Washington strongly disagreed with you.
We would look even more bad-ass if we had arrested Bin Laden and arraigned him in a NY police station and thrown him in the drunk tank.
In response to another reply asking how is this 'courageous' !
It really is more epedient politics, and it should be effective with the right-of-centre US voters. The 'politicking' this past week by Obama makes me wonder how different it would have been if Bush was still in the WH !
In all this discussion, espesially about the legality of the assasination, the obvious question that has NOT been raised is: "Why was ObL not killed (in 2002) near Tora Bora mountaions, DURING the war, when he was trapped ?" Why was he allowed to slip out (on a horse back !) ?
mqniaz
This article does not convince me that OBL is dead - or if he is dead, that it occurred on the dates we were given. However, I am interested to know what Stephen Walt's take is on the so-called declining power of the USA as a hegemon, I was reading Ikenberrys foreign affairs article today and I am interested to know what Walt thinks of it. Also, I am interested to know what Walt thinks will occur, internationally, if China, or Russia (but more China) becomes the next superpower, and how that would affect both domestic politics and foreign policy of the USA. Thanks very much.
Walt would have to write several books to answer those questions, possibly not even then since they are so vague. It would be more productive if you did some research and came to your own conclusions.
I'll start you off though: Russia isn't going to be a superpower in the foreseeable future.
bin Laden death - did US murder?
Yep, we did. And about time.
Yes, Obama and the US Government ordered the murder of Osama (has anyone else accidently mixed those two names up when talking to friends over the last couple days?).
Didn't they say at some point that he died with a bullet to the head. Tell me, since he wasn't even armed, that it was anything else. Was it at close range, possibly on his knees, hands behind his head? Or hiding like a coward behind a couple of women? Or perhaps he was unarmed but running for a gun, or a grenade. I doubt we'll ever know exactly how he was killed.
On the other hand, we had already been told that the mission was definitely a kill mission, there was no capture wording used, that we know of.
I also believe he needed to die. A man willing to kill as many as he did does not deserve to live. But was it right according to law? That's not the question we need to ask. The real question is..
Is anyone going to care enough to actually look into it? Or is everyone just going to breathe a big sigh of relief that the most publicized mass murderer in recent history is dead, and who cares if it was legal or not, that man deserved to be shot...
>> Last I checked, just because we missed back then, and just because we didn't get the opportunity to kill him in Tora Bora, means that all of a sudden, OBL needs to be read his Miranda rights, offered counsel, a judge, a 'jury of his peers', and several opportunities for appeal.
Even if he had been captured alive, I cannot fathom how the US would have put him on trial. KSM is beign tried by mikitary tribunal, so surely OBL would have been given the same, if at all.
take your reasoning and go with it
A man willing to kill as many as he did does not deserve to live. But was it right according to law? That's not the question we need to ask. The real question is..
Is anyone going to care enough to actually look into it? Or is everyone just going to breathe a big sigh of relief that the most publicized mass murderer in recent history is dead, and who cares if it was legal or not, that man deserved to be shot...
Ummm, that doesn't sound like logic that George W Bush would like. Who should die for America's crimes in Iraq?
Just as the Israel project is a dead end
Perhaps we should kill all the Jews involved in the occupation. Oh, wait, you possess no such clarity, no sense of fairness. You're all about elitism, those chosen get to live above the law, others are but fodder. Intellectual and moral degenerate
Let's see Scott, you're going to equate a man who repeatedly
mass murdered innocents around the globe with a political practice you don't like. You're then going to equate the idea of genocide with the killing of an individual mass murderer.
Yeah, I can see how that works out for you intellectually.
on this one. We really had no choice but to kill him. Capture and trial would not have been wise. Look at what happened in Germany when they imprisoned the leaders of the Baader-Meinhoff gang. There were kidnappings and murders in attempts to free them. So the German authorities ended up suiciding them.
The analogy to Nazi war crime trials is not a good precedent. In 1948 the Nazi organization ceased to exist. There were no cadre left willing to risk their lives for the imprisoned leadership.
The treatment of OBL's dead-body...jt
"... some Muslims are likely to see the burial at sea as disrespectful or callous, and Muslim religious experts seem to be divided on this issue."
What Osama Bin Laden did to disgrace Islam, throughout the course of his arrogant, vicious over-privileged life, is greater than if the SEALS had hacked up his dead-body and fed it to pigs.
OBL did the worst thing possible to a group that is socially isolated and economically challenged, he made people afraid of Muslims. No one feels empathy with the person who terrifies him. Thus, he further isolated the most isolated major population group on earth. Note: There are more books published each year in Dutch than in Arabic... do the math.
By any rational analysis Bin Laden was the mortal enemy of Muslims. The last thing we should be doing is bolstering the credibility to those Imam who are too stupid or too bigoted to recognize that fact.
In spite of unanswered questions, it was handled well
I tend to agree with much of the commentary I've read above but the truth of the matter is that we may never know exactly how the events unfolded that night and in the months leading up to it. Dont forget that in terms of what we receive for information from our government, we are the underprivileged masses. We don't get the details. It's a frustrating feeling in a case like this.
In all likelihood, there was a 'kill order' placed on UBL dating back to over a decade ago when this all began. When you look at it from the perspective of the administration, it saves them (and us) a whole boatload of trouble that comes along with figuring out when and where to hold him, try him, execute him?, all in the face of public outrage. It was simply the best option, whether we accept it or not. Whether or not he chose to resist would have been a nonissue for them.
I do agree that this incident raises a lot of questions not just because of the significance of the targer, but also because the way the whole operation went down reads like something out of a spy novel. Those circumstances themselves create a problem for the administration: the poeple need to know he's dead, but in order to inform the people they need to acknowledge that a few rules were bent to get it done. It's not the best example we could have set, but really did we have any other plays in the book that would've given us the proof we needed that the job was done?
I will say that amongst many other things, the administration needs to do a better job handling public announcements. They tend to start talking well before they read through the details. They could have avoided the problems with revising their story if they had taken the time to get all the facts first. Sure, it's nice that they told us directly after it was done, but there is no need to spin a temporary web about what happened if they weren't sure yet.
In spite of unanswered questions, it was handled well
I tend to agree with much of the commentary I've read above but the truth of the matter is that we may never know exactly how the events unfolded that night and in the months leading up to it. Dont forget that in terms of what we receive for information from our government, we are the underprivileged masses. We don't get the details. It's a frustrating feeling in a case like this.
In all likelihood, there was a 'kill order' placed on UBL dating back to over a decade ago when this all began. When you look at it from the perspective of the administration, it saves them (and us) a whole boatload of trouble that comes along with figuring out when and where to hold him, try him, execute him?, all in the face of public outrage. It was simply the best option, whether we accept it or not. Whether or not he chose to resist would have been a nonissue for them.
I do agree that this incident raises a lot of questions not just because of the significance of the targer, but also because the way the whole operation went down reads like something out of a spy novel. Those circumstances themselves create a problem for the administration: the poeple need to know he's dead, but in order to inform the people they need to acknowledge that a few rules were bent to get it done. It's not the best example we could have set, but really did we have any other plays in the book that would've given us the proof we needed that the job was done?
I will say that amongst many other things, the administration needs to do a better job handling public announcements. They tend to start talking well before they read through the details. They could have avoided the problems with revising their story if they had taken the time to get all the facts first. Sure, it's nice that they told us directly after it was done, but there is no need to spin a temporary web about what happened if they weren't sure yet.
>They could have avoided the problems with revising their story if they had taken the time to >get all the facts first.
They could not - for they are stupid to the degree of not being able to anticipate a possibility to be caught lying (in the case, by the 12 year old girl). Another example are Mme Clinton's revelings (at the time of her election campaign) about her running under sniper's bullets during a visit to Balkans - with no idea that she was filmed at the time, and no running and bullets are in the movie. It was called "wishful thinking" in another Walt's post.
I have read that Osama generally had someone at his side at all times ready to take him out if he were to be captured.
"murdered, assassinated, executed" what ever you want to call the killing. I keep waiting and pushing for the same alleged standards of justice and accountability that have been applied to Osama Bin Ladens crimes against humanity to be applied by the Obama administration, our so called justice system and our congress to the crimes against humanity that the Bush administration officials committed by invading Iraq based on a "pack of lies" A real and profound and sustained bounce would take place when Obama and team would consider the innocent Iraqi lives who have been lost as a direct consequence of the US invasion are as valuable as the American lives lost in the brutal attack on 9/11
Instead of continuing to "shelter" these war criminals the way Pakistan "sheltered" OBL Obama , our alleged justice system and our congress could apply those same standards of accountability and justice right here in the US to the Bush administration's "crimes against humanity"
The only difference between OBL's crimes against humanity and the Bush administrations crimes against humanity in Iraq are the Bush administration is responsible for the deaths of more innocent people. And so far they have gotten away with it. And instead of being put on trial at the Hague for their war crimes they are being paraded on MSNBC ( Feith on Martin Bashirs, Condi "mushroom cloud"Rice is going to be on Lawrence O'Donnells tonight) Rumsfeld has been all over the place, Wolfowitz too. Chris Matthews and lawrence O'Donnell keep having David'"axis of evil" Frum on. These people should be at the Hague being tried not beamed into our living rooms to spin and lie some more. Enough!
No need for a International navy seal team..trials would suffice
The whole world is waiting and watching
I don't really have a problem with the killing of OBL. But, the revelry is detestable. We should keep in mind our own sins. I don't imagine anything will happen to Bush and Co. But, we shouldn't point our fingers too enthusiastically, we need to be humble and learn to respect other people, their rights and dignity too. It would be wrong to allow this chest pounding to go without a rebuking look in the mirror.
I do believe we should keep pushing for justice and accountability in regard to the Bush administrations crimes against humanity. How in the hell can we even pretend to be that "shining city on the hill" with individuals responsible for hundreds of thousand dead in Iraq living in real "mansions, villas" (what else did we hear Obls' compound called). Our MSM is allowing Feith on Martin Bashirs, Wolfowitz all over the place, Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice to spew her opinions about OBL on Lawrence O'Donnels etc. Trials at the Hague all ready. Why do the host of these shows subject the American public to more torture and insults by having these war criminals on their programs?
Frankly, it is a relief to know that Osama bin Laden is no longer alive. But I hope this is an opportunity to end our further fruitless engagement in Afghanistan and perhaps a lesson that we need to pick better allies than Pakistan in the future. The most significant development associated with that evil bastard's death is that he was pretty much hiding in plain sight less than 40 miles from Islamabad. I am fairly convinced that the Pakistanis continue to shelter their long-time ally, Mullah Omar and Ayman al Zawahiri.
I wish that the perfidy of our engagement in Iraq could be totally exposed, although I find it difficult to believe that any fair-minded citizen believes that the invasion and occupation of that nation was justified by any threat to the US. Frankly, the same applies to our recent actions against the Libyan regime of Col. Qaddafi. The sad fact of Iraq is that more than 4,700 of our brave soldiers gave their lives in that action, and more than 32,000 more have been injured - some maimed for life. We still have service people in Iraq and 11 of them have been killed in April alone (5 by hostile fire). See http://casualties.org
Also significant is the fact that Iraq was an occasion when we became distracted - took our eye off the ball - and abandonned our efforts to drive al Qaeda from its havens in Afghanistan, then allowed most of its operatives to escape to Pakistan, where they have evidently lived rather comfortably since 2002. I am still concerned by what might have happened if we had been fortunate enough to kill OBL at Tora Bora in 2002. It is no certainty that we might have foregone the entire Iraq mis-adventure.
Nevertheless, I rather doubt that Bush, Cheney, yes and even Blair etal, will ever be called to account for their deception on the people of the USA, and on their allies as well. History will certainly judge them, and by association all of us as guilty of a massive fraud in Iraq. Perhaps that judgement will be sufficient. I doubt it would be for those who were killed or wounded there.
What we knew before the invasion of Iraq
Jaydee why is it that so many people give up on the idea that we are all brought up on in the US that we have a justice system or should expect a justice system that applies to all. From my understanding hundreds of thousands of people around the world have contacted the International criminal court about the Bush administrations crimes against humanity in Iraq. It is logical to think that if Osama Bin Laden has now been held accountable for his crimes against humanity that the Bush administration who are clearly responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead and injured in Iraq and millions displaced based on a "pack of lies would be called out on the international stage and held accountable for their crimes against humanity? Keep pushing. Contact your Reps, our so called justice system and the International Criminal Court. Keep pushing.
Last night on MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnells "The Last Word" he had Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice on. Now I am offended by the persistent recycling of these Bush administration war criminals on our MSM but he had her on. Just a week before O'Donnelll had thrown a rabid birther liar off this program because she continued to lie, spin and would not answer his questions. The same rules should have applied to Rice.
Anyway the bases of the interview was "what we know now" instead of "what we knew then" (before the invasion) Lawrence allowed the myth that congress, the public did not have reason to seriously suspect the Bush administrations intelligence. In 2002 I was still a soccer mom in southeastern Ohio but I listened intently to the news. That fall of 2002 Senator Durbin (on the intelligence committee) and 21 other Senators including Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee voted against the 2002 iraq war resolution. Most of the Dems voted against that resolution in the house. Just a bit of a clue that they had little to no confidence in the validity of the Office of Special Plans "stovepiped" intelligence. All a soccer mom had to do at that point to access information and experts questioning the WMD intelligence was to turn on NPR's Diane Rehm show and The Talk of the Nation along with listening to Democracy now and going on the web. I heard former IAEA weapons inspector Scott Ritter who was in Iraq most of the 90's inspecting question the validity of the intelligence. I heard former CIA middle east analyst Ray McGovern, Former President Jimmy Carter, General Zinni, Scowcroft and many more. In early March of 2003 the head of the IAEA El baradei came out and said that the Niger Documents were forgeries and bad ones at that. I of course thought the push to invade Iraq would come to a screeching halt.
As hundreds of thousands of Americans petitioned, marched, lobbied in the halls of congress against the invasion of Iraq the MSM basically ignored us. Many of us were protesting based on the questions around the intelligence. The crowds in the fall of 2002 in DC (right in NPR's and MSNBC''s back yard) were made up of WWII, Korean,Vietnam, Desert Storm Vets as well as families pushing children in strollers and seniors in wheel chairs, truckers, students, nurses, doctors, plumbers etc. A real representation of how diverse our country is. When I would turn on the national news they would show the same damn clip of the 20 individuals at the march with hoods over their heads. No interviews with the Vets who were marching, the mothers, etc.
In Feb of 2003 the crowd in New York City marching against the invasion was made up of even more. At least 300,000. Again a diverse crowd. At the head of that march the 9/11 families for peaceful tomorrows and Vets lead the huge crowd. Dear friends Bev and John Titus who lost their daughter Alysia who was an airline stewardess on one of the United Flights slammed into one of the Twin Towers. I had the honor to push a 92 year old WWII vet who was there in his wheel chair rolling against the unnecessary and brutal invasion of Iraq. Again the MSM did not show the rest of the American public sitting at home in front of their screens or the rest of the world who was really there. 30 million people around the world marched against the invasion...before the invasion.
O'Donnell allowed Rice to insult the American publics intelligence once again. She spun, lied and endlessly interrupted him during last nights interview. Some simple questions a soccer mom would have asked her based on what I knew from listening to the Rehm show, Talk of the Nation, Democracy Now and reading on the web. (Jason Vest of the nation "The Men from Jinsa and the CSP" fall of 2002 and many other articles.
Now millions of us are sorry the MSM barely covered these protest but there are no way to get around the facts on the ground.
1. Former counterterroism expert Richard Clarke has stated that both you and Steven Hadley ignored his warning about potential terrorist attacks by Al Queda during the Clinton Bush transition. Would you please respond
2. In Ron Susskinds book "The Price of Loyalty" former Secretary of the Treasury in 43's first administration stated that at the very first cabinet meetings in 2001 Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were all ready discussing ways to go after Iraq militarily. Can you please tell us what you were hearing in those early cabinet meetings in early 2001 about targeting Iraq.
3. In early March of 2003 the head of the IAEA El Baradei came out and told the world that the Niger Documents were forgeries and bad ones at that. Why did the Bush administration keep steam rolling towards the invasion after this was announced. And why has no one been held accountable for the false Niger Documents?
4. The Bush administration demanded that IAEA weapons inspectors in Iraq be taken out of Iraq in early 20003. Why did the Bush administration stop inspections?
5. Why is it that you know how many Iraqi people were allegedly killed by Saddam and you can not report to the world how many Iraqi people have been killed, injured and displaced as a direct consequence of the invasion?
Now these are some simple questions from a concerned soccer mom who could have asked the Bush administration these questions based on what I knew in the fall of 2002 and in early 2003.
O"Donnell pushing the myth that "what we know now" makes the situation look very different. Lawrence what many of us "knew then" before the invasion should have been enough to stop that invasion based on a "pack of lies"
Sir the least you could have done is throw that liar and war criminal off your program the way you did that crazy assed birther lady.
And the very least you can do for American soldiers who have been injured and killed as well as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people injured and killed (Lancet report in 2006, recently released Pentagon report) is to push our congress our so called justice system, the MSm to hold those responsible for creating, cherry picking and disseminating false pre war intelligence which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people accountable. The same justice and accountability standards applied to Osama Bin Laden for killing innocent people should be applied to the Bush administration war criminals. Hearings and trials would suffice.
I so hope our MSM stops recycling these war criminals who should be on trial at the Hague
Former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer
Stephen "Lastly, what about the decision to dispose of his body at sea? Somebody clearly thought about this issue in advance, and this step was supposedly done because 1) there was no country that would want to accept his remains, 2) the United States had no interest in keeping them ourselves, and 3) U.S. officials were worried that a gravesite might become some sort of inspirational shrine for like-minded extremists. "
Former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer (have heard him on Washington Journal, Democracy Now, Bill Maher, read several of his books etc) was on the Diane Rehm show yesterday. He said this about the burial:
Rehm
"And we'll open the phones now. First to Umar (sp?) in St. Louis, Mo. Good morning to you.
UMAR
10:40:11
Good morning, Diane. I have a question. You know, the government always seems to be able to leave itself open to conspiracy theories, to leave itself open to questions. If bin Laden was shot and killed, it doesn't make any sense as to why they would dump the body in the ocean. Now, this is not in keeping with Islamic burial tradition because it's only permissible to bury a Muslim at sea if he died on a ship and they're worried about infectious disease allowed to be going in the ship. Why not allow the body for viewing, hand it over to the Pakistani authorities? And if they wanted to ensure that the grave wouldn't become a shrine, they could put them in Saudi Arabia. There's a grave for the Prophet Muhammad. They can contain it. I'm not even sure it's at Saudi Arabia.
REHM
10:41:04
All right. Michael Scheuer.
SCHEUER
10:41:06
Yeah, I think the aftermath has been a little bit biased. There was no really -- there was no reason at all to fear the idea of a pilgrimage to a shrine to bin Laden. Bin Laden is a Salafi Muslim, a Salafi Sunni. They regard all shrines, except for Mecca, as heretical and would tear them down, and so there was really no reason not to bury him in the ground. But, you know, I think this is an issue that's really not all that important, but it does reflect that certain lack of knowledge of the target, that they were afraid of a shrine being built.
Scheuer had many insights about the "execution, murder, assassination" Pakistan, Al Queda
"SCHEUER
10:31:54
Well, let me say, Diane, that I think that somehow we've missed a little bit of growth since 2001. Bin Laden had always planned not to live to see the end of the war. He had written several times and spoken about it that this would be a generational struggle. And in the last four or five years, his organization has been dispersed, whereas on 9/11, we had been facing a threat only or primarily from Pakistan in terms of planning, training and launching operations. They now have a slice of Pakistan -- a slice of Afghanistan. They have a good position in Pakistan. They're in Yemen and Somalia. They're growing -- regrowing strength in Iraq. They're in the Levant. The Israelis say they're in Gaza. And they're in North Africa and Somalia. "
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-04/osama-bin-ladens-death-what-it-means-us-and-region/transcript
interesting stuff. Scheurer is one of the few people who I will listen to when he speaks about Bin Laden. He should be a contributor to FP.
the whole interview is over at the Diane Rehm show website. He actually brought up how Al Queda has grown and how Pakistan and Israel have
"SCHEUER
10:55:23
You know, I don't know, Diane. I really don't. There's a lot of truth there, that the Pakistanis are duplicitous and look after their own interests, which I think is perfectly legitimate for them to do. I'm not sure the United States government is clever enough, especially the Congress, to be conducting a disinformation campaign. So I, you know -- I don't know. We're dependent on the Pakistanis. This thing is going to blow over. They're going to continue to get aid. And that's kind of the whole story, I think. They certainly are better allies than, for example, the Israelis. They've done far more for us in the last decade than anything the Israelis have ever done.
Different feelings about Bin Laden (Rachel Maddow has been rabid telling everyone Bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist in the world and telling everyone how they should feel and think about the execution)
"SCHEUER
10:45:14
Well, I, you know -- I think there are different feelings about bin Laden in the Muslim world. Some people hate him. Some people love him. The fact of the matter was, in terms of historical personages, he was a great man. He affected, certainly, negatively, American life more than anyone in the last 50 years. And for the presidents to keep repeating it, as did Mr. Bush, that we are not at war with Islam is -- it sounds very, very good. But increasing numbers of Muslims are at war with us and our allies.
He brings up our support for Saudi Arabia
"SCHEUER
10:26:39
I think to probably some of the government it is embarrassing, but I think they're relieved that they can say that they didn't have anything to do with killing Osama bin Laden. They're likely to have violence on the streets anyway because he was killed on Pakistani territory. But embarrassment doesn't buy you much, really, Diane. And the Pakistanis are very hard-headed people. They know we need them more than they need us. They also know that the Saudis and the Chinese would step in with money and aid if we backed out. And, really, it's always amusing to me that we're so worried about Pakistan, and no one ever mentions the Saudis. We pay for their protection. We buy their oil. "
was Bin Laden murdered? Yes, that's what shooting another human being is...murder. However,the better question is...who gives a #^@%? I know I don't. The man was a sworn enemy who ran the organization that was actively engaging us in terrorist warfare. So, we killed him, awesome, end of story. All this liberal whining about "murder" and "legality" makes me want to vote conservative.
Re: Not if You're a swamp critter
If someone preaches the death of innocent men and women, it is not murder. What Osama bin Laden preached "Death to Infidels."( transcribed loosely as "non believers" in the Quran, Osama bin Laden made no difference between the government and its citizens. Sadly, Osama bin Laden choose the later choice. Then it becomes a matter of how many he chooses the latter, not the former. In this instance he died as he lived. Only in this case, bin Laden was shot in the head for failing in doing his work; i.e., to promote the healing of the riff he saw was there. This is not about political warfare, this is about killing the disease of hate toward those opposed to peace.
Not to be nitpicky on this great piece but wouldn't Ill Duce's shrine attract Neo-Facists?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(72)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE