Assassination and torture, viable American tools in this new form of war?
The Raid in Pakistan establishes a new operational mission for US American military forces... by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Monday, May 9, 2011
Every account of the raid in Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden paints a military operation that turned into a Chicago style mob hit.
Twenty five heavily armed elite special operations soldiers rappelled into bin Laden's compound engaged a total of seven lightly or unarmed people killing all but one woman. The Seal Team itself cannot be held accountable for its misuse, but the national command authority and President Obama should be.
In any other scenario this would be seen as straight out murder. What's worse, the United States had this compound and its residents and visitors under surveillance for eight months. One would think that with this much time, through satellite, and human intelligence gathering assets, US military and intelligence senior leaders should have had a very solid appreciation of the actual conditions within the compound, and likely number of enemy to be present. We are told two mock ups of the site were constructed within the United States in order to conduct rehearsals.
President Bush had shocked the world and much of the US foreign policy and national defense establishment when he proclaimed the right to attack an enemy peremptorily, if there was evidence they were preparing to attack us. And now, President Obama has taken that philosophical change to the American Way of War, and manifested it in an assassination-type way of war. (Should the terrorists respond with a like type of attack, we could not be either surprised or outraged!)
In addition, it is coming to light that waterboarding and other intensive interrogation techniques were used against captured terrorists which provided the key information to finding Osama.
A liberal President, Obama seems to have had no qualms about launching the raid, and after its success has made great effort to publicize his role and take credit for the success. So now we have a President of the United States claiming credit for what was nothing less than a mob style hit.
My problem with this operation is not the results, or the use of interrogation. I would submit that President Bush was correct when he proclaimed that the attacks of September 11th were acts of war against the United States.
Where I differ with President Bush and now President Obama is that a war on terrorism is significantly different in character and means from conventional war. While President Bush seems to have used the war on terrorism as the principle reason for conventional war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and now President Obama seems to be using the same excuse for military operations against Libya, I completely disagree with the reasoning and actions of both Presidents. Further, I disagree with nation building, and with the crusader like purpose of these wars.
From 1945 to 1991 the United States participated in a war against the Soviet Union. This war was known as the Cold War. One principle element of the Cold War was the rise of arsenals of nuclear weapons which caused restraint by both sides. Direct military conflict between the two principle belligerents was absent because of the possibility of dual annihilation as a result of escalation to nuclear war. The Cold War did result in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact and the liberation of almost half a billion people. Real change occurred. But human death was significantly curtailed by the restraint showed by both parties.
The War on Terrorism has not benefitted from what we learned through the Cold War. When the terrorists struck in New York, President Bush ultimately resorted to conventional warfare. Though there is no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists, nor between groups in Afghanistan and the same terrorists who conducted the assault on the United States, conventional military operations followed up by crusader-like nation building costing a trillion dollars resulted. All this military activity occurred because of the actions of less than fifty terrorists.
More than that, the US is now deeply invested in the Middle East. Gasoline prices rise, severely damaging the US economy, partially as a result of continued tension in the Middle East, and partially as a result of lack of US aggressiveness in developing its own resources.
The attack on bin Laden by American military forces crosses a line which we as a nation may regret.
I would submit that the war on terrorism is closer to a combination of fighting criminals whose purpose is to harm the American people. The war aspect is that the intent of the criminal action is to destabilize American national security and to impose their will on their targets. It is because of this intent that war is in fact occurring, and should allow the US to employ violence to destroy our opponents. But where I differ is that in this instance, a covert civilian operation, organized and conducted by our Central Intelligence Agency, would have been more appropriate.
This raid on Osama has many lessons. It teaches the US military that targeting political leaders for assassination is a viable military mission. It also teaches other potential opponents of the United States that targeting our leadership is legitimate.
The United States simply CANNOT afford a fifty year War on Terrorism where conventional military warfare dominates the action. We CANNOT afford to occupy large parts of the Middle East at the very time our economy is challenged both by globalism and a lack of cheap energy. If the United States is to continue this effort, we must shift to a more James Bond like approach. It is vital that the US learn state craft in order to manipulate other nations to take on much of war, both in terms of financing it and in terms of battling the terrorists.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
