As you probably already know Osama Bin Laden was assassinated last night by US forces in Pakistan. The fact that he was hiding in Pakistan probably wasn't much of a surprise to anybody but what was surprising to many was that he was hiding in plain sight in Abbottabad, Pakistan which is a Pakistani 'military city" less than 2 hours north of the capital city of Islamabad. But should we have been surprised that he wasn't hiding in a cave in "no-man's land" near the Pakistan-Afghan border? I have suspected for quite some time that the Pakistani government has played a role in hiding Bin Laden and the details from last night's raid have helped to validate those suspicions. Fortunately President Obama wasn't to keen on playing along with Pakistan's ruse and focused his hunt for Bin Laden in that country despite protests from his critics.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to write a blog entry about the assassination of OBL at all, especially one that politicizes the issue. I have felt for quite some time that killing Bin Laden wasn't of much strategic value and would not make us safer. Al Qaeda has splintered into many factions since our invasion of Afghanistan and this along with the pressure from the international community searching for Bin Laden had essentially relegated him to just being a figurehead, not an involved leader. Don't get me wrong I still felt it was necessary to pursue and capture or kill him, but mainly because this would have been good for the American psyche and after the Bush administration became distracted I just assumed we would have to wait until he died of natural causes or an accident. But after watching and reading political assessments from commentators who are giving credit to President George W. Bush's policies and, even President Bush himself, I feel I must interject.
There are several flaws to the "continuation of Bush policies" argument and I'd like to start with the Bush administration's pre 9/11 mindset. Bill Clinton was said by some of his staff to be "obsessed" with Bin Laden, he had even given an order to the CIA after the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa to capture Bin Laden and even authorized use deadly force if needed. The US did launch multiple attacks on Bin Laden between 1998 to 2000 without success. Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke held initial meetings with Bush's incoming staff to include Condoleezza Rice stressing how important it was to take on al Qaeda, from their accounts (and those of others) those pleas fell on deaf ears. Richard Clarke made multiple requests to address the al Qaeda issue (you can read a released memo here) but to no avail (his position was eventually demoted to a non-cabinet level position). After serving less than 7 months in office President Bush decided he deserved a month long vacation to be taken in August 2001. At this point there was no substantial effort on the part of the Bush administration to deal with al Qaeda and it was during this vacation that the infamous August 6th Presidential Daily Brief that stated al Qaeda had and was planning to carryout attacks within the United States, likely with aircraft. It even said that al Qaeda operatives were witnessed conducting surveillance operations in New York City. Shortly after his month long vacation was over al Qaeda carried out their attacks on September 11th, we all are aware of what happened then. I think you will agree that Bush's pre 9/11 policy on terrorism was a failed policy.
The next flaw of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument is perhaps the worst. The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored and aided Bin Laden in the training of his terrorist operatives, including those that carried out the attacks on 9/11. Going after the Taliban, Bin Laden, and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was good policy; pulling troops out of that fight to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, terrorism, or national defense was reckless. The worst thing that could have been done in regards to bringing Bin Laden to justice was moving resources to Iraq, we just didn't have enough boots on the ground to mount a serious effort to "get" Bin Laden. Let us be clear, according to internal accounts from Bob Woodward and others Iraq was foreign policy issue #1 for the Bush administration, even before the 9/11 attacks. They used the murders of thousands of Americans to help justify a war they wanted to wage before they took office anyway and ultimately helped Bin Laden escape and emboldened al Qaeda around the world. Then there's the Battle of Tora Bora, this is where US troops along with other allies had Bin Laden cornered but we let him get away. The Bush administration thought it would be beneficial to have Pakistani military forces go after Bin Laden, but as we now know those same forces helped escort him across the Afghanistan border into Pakistan to hide. Bush's lack of knowledge of that region, a tribal region sympathetic to Bin Laden and his efforts, allowed him to slip through our grasp. I think you will agree that Bush's war policy was a failed policy.
The final fault of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument was the administration's policy towards Pakistan. As I had stated earlier I felt that Pakistan aided Bin Laden and I believe that those in Pakistan's government were sympathetic to him (I'm confident that I wasn't alone in that feeling). Bush apparently did not share my assessment. Bush saw Pakistan as an ally, so much so that he authorized over $1.5 billion to be given to Pakistan to aid them in the war effort (you can see the administration's policy towards Pakistan here) but as we have now found out Bin Laden was hiding amongst the US funded army all along. Abbottabad is a military city, a military city that had a $1 million mansion/complex built 5 years ago that housed Bin Laden, and we're supposed to believe that nobody noticed. I think the New Yorker stated it better than I can "bin Laden was effectively being house under Pakistani state control." Anytime some military or intelligence officer suggested entering or flying over Pakistan then President Pervez Musharraf would protest, and Bush would appease him (and continue to give him US taxpayer dollars for "assisting" in our efforts). The good money was on Bin Laden being in Pakistan, but Bush decided not to pursue him there. I think you will agree that Bush's policy on Pakistan was a failed policy.
Enter Barack Obama. Candidate Obama campaigned on taking the fight to Bin Laden in Pakistan if there was intelligence that would validate such action. If you recall this was "controversial" and he was criticized by both the right and the left on this position. This included Republican candidate Senator John McCain who, like Bush, considered Pakistan an ally and felt that it would be inappropriate to conduct military operations within that country or over it's airspace. Unlike President Bush, President Obama has at least a basic knowledge of that region and realized that Pakistan wasn't an ally in the true sense of the word, they were our "ally" only because we were funneling over $1.5 billion to them. Their actions (or lack of action if you will) clearly demonstrated otherwise. He campaigned on making the monetary aid to Pakistan conditional and would take Pakistan to task on combating terrorism. After taking office he shifted our focus back on Afghanistan and Pakistan by withdrawing troops from Iraq, increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and began conducting drone strikes in Pakistan. He enacted policies that were a complete 360 to Bush's policies and made getting Bin Laden foreign policy issue #1 (remember Bush basically gave up in March 2002). He then authorized the operation that was conducted yesterday, a carefully and smartly planned operation at that. We all know the results of that action.
Make no mistake, it was the renewed search enacted by President Obama's policies that led to our killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Certainly we can't give full credit to the President, it took the intelligence community, our troops, and others in our government to execute these policies. But we have to give credit where credit is due, Bin Laden is dead today because of President Obama's policies and President Bush nor his policies had anything to do with it.
I thought about ending this blog with that last paragraph but felt that I couldn't leave out this quote from our "ally." Former President Perves Musharraf was quoted as saying (in response to the US killing Bin Laden, you know the guy they were helping us get) "America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty. Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct" and he went on to say "US forces should not have crossed into Pakistan." Some ally huh? Pakistan is a terrorist state, we will see that come to light as this story develops further, who knows what could have happened if Bush had come to that same realization.
No comments:
Post a Comment