Stay in the Loop
BSR publishes on a weekly schedule, with an email newsletter every Wednesday and Thursday morning. There’s no paywall, and subscribing is always free.
Hit man in the White House
Bin Laden and Petraeus: Two birds with one stone
Robert Zaller
Barack Obama had a good week. He got rid of his two most serious political enemies, Osama bin Laden and David Petraeus.
Like good actors and orchestra conductors, successful presidents must possess a proper sense of timing. Obama clearly knew of Osama's whereabouts for some time, with, as they say, a high degree of probability.
Cynics will argue that he acted when he did because he badly needed a bump in the polls. The economy is still in the tank. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan drags on like the beast that won't die, and Libya is disasterville.
Cynicism is always helpful but seldom sufficient. You don't squander a Big Kill like Osama for a few points in the ratings. You put it to work.
The one issue Obama has committed himself to doing something about is Afghanistan, where a drawdown is scheduled to begin this summer. The problem, until now, is that he had nothing he could plausibly call a victory there, or even a standoff.
Strengthening his hand
His top general, Petraeus, has warned since last August that a premature troop withdrawal could endanger "fragile" and "reversible" gains in the field. Petraeus has expressed these views publicly in a manner that verges on insubordination. But Obama, having spent his bullets last year in dismissing his then-Afghan field commander, Stanley McChrystal, could ill afford another clash with the brass.
Osama's death gives Obama credibility as a commander-in-chief for the first time; and while it does nothing to change the actual state of affairs in Afghanistan (where there are no more than 100 Al Qaeda operatives, according to intelligence estimates), it alters the symbolic equation mightily. It looks like a victory— and, in the wars we've fought lately, appearance often enough trumps reality.
We went into Afghanistan after 9/11 to get Osama, at least on the most elementary level, and—whatever else may happen to a country most Americans know and care nothing about—we got our man. If Obama wants to get out of the war, or at least reduce its footprint, his hand is strengthened. If he doesn't, he has, at least for now, more room for maneuver.
Disposal site
The Petraeus switcheroo makes best sense in this context. With Robert Gates rotating out at Defense (his departure perhaps accelerated by his pointed dissent from our adventure in Libya) and Leon Panetta replacing him, a suitable disposal site opened up for Petraeus at the CIA.
To take the job, Petraeus must retire from military service, thereby forgoing an all but certain tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the same time, he will be drafted onto Team Obama, as Hillary Clinton was as secretary of State. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
To bring off this caper, Obama needed Bin Laden's head. With Operation Geronimo a go, Petraeus could be confronted with a stark choice: accept his mothballing at Langley, or refuse a command assignment.
Of course, the operation might have failed, in which case Obama would have appeared as hapless as Jimmy Carter had in Iran. But assassinating a single individual was a far simpler project than rescuing several dozen hostages, and Petraeus would have known how meticulously it had been planned.
Run for president?
Petraeus's alternative was to leave the service and seek the Republican nomination for president. Given the field, he could probably have had it in a heartbeat. With Osama dead, however, Obama's re-election is— barring calamity or some John Edwards-like scandal— an almost foregone conclusion. Petraeus appears to be a very prudent man, with a clear aversion to defeat. Should presidential politics tempt him, 2016 would be a far likelier year.
Obama too is risk-averse. George W. Bush promised to bring Osama to justice "dead or alive," but Obama ordered a corpse, not a captive. He deep-sixed it in the Arabian Sea. In life, Osama had become a singularly elusive phantom. In death, he haunts only the fishes.
Osama was unarmed, but did he offer to surrender? In war, an unarmed combatant should be captured if at all practicable; one who surrenders must be. But Obama ordered a kill— not a military operation but a targeted assassination, albeit one using military personnel.
No show trial
He thereby took us a level deeper into the moral squalor that the War on Terror has become. We have kept Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational chief of 9/11, alive through a decade of captivity (and torture); we are still planning to give him a show trial. Obama precluded bringing Osama to justice; he simply pronounced it, and ordered his verdict executed.
This isn't about sympathy for Osama, for whom I have none. It's about the values we Americans claim to uphold, and that supposedly distinguish us from our enemies.
Obama would have been on more reasonable ground in authorizing the Seals to kill Osama if he couldn't be captured alive, or if attempting to do so would have exposed the mission to unacceptable risk. But these options were not on the table.
Mafia dons order hits. Constitutional lawyers don't. Generally speaking.♦
For a related comment by Maria Thompson Corley, click here.
Like good actors and orchestra conductors, successful presidents must possess a proper sense of timing. Obama clearly knew of Osama's whereabouts for some time, with, as they say, a high degree of probability.
Cynics will argue that he acted when he did because he badly needed a bump in the polls. The economy is still in the tank. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan drags on like the beast that won't die, and Libya is disasterville.
Cynicism is always helpful but seldom sufficient. You don't squander a Big Kill like Osama for a few points in the ratings. You put it to work.
The one issue Obama has committed himself to doing something about is Afghanistan, where a drawdown is scheduled to begin this summer. The problem, until now, is that he had nothing he could plausibly call a victory there, or even a standoff.
Strengthening his hand
His top general, Petraeus, has warned since last August that a premature troop withdrawal could endanger "fragile" and "reversible" gains in the field. Petraeus has expressed these views publicly in a manner that verges on insubordination. But Obama, having spent his bullets last year in dismissing his then-Afghan field commander, Stanley McChrystal, could ill afford another clash with the brass.
Osama's death gives Obama credibility as a commander-in-chief for the first time; and while it does nothing to change the actual state of affairs in Afghanistan (where there are no more than 100 Al Qaeda operatives, according to intelligence estimates), it alters the symbolic equation mightily. It looks like a victory— and, in the wars we've fought lately, appearance often enough trumps reality.
We went into Afghanistan after 9/11 to get Osama, at least on the most elementary level, and—whatever else may happen to a country most Americans know and care nothing about—we got our man. If Obama wants to get out of the war, or at least reduce its footprint, his hand is strengthened. If he doesn't, he has, at least for now, more room for maneuver.
Disposal site
The Petraeus switcheroo makes best sense in this context. With Robert Gates rotating out at Defense (his departure perhaps accelerated by his pointed dissent from our adventure in Libya) and Leon Panetta replacing him, a suitable disposal site opened up for Petraeus at the CIA.
To take the job, Petraeus must retire from military service, thereby forgoing an all but certain tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the same time, he will be drafted onto Team Obama, as Hillary Clinton was as secretary of State. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
To bring off this caper, Obama needed Bin Laden's head. With Operation Geronimo a go, Petraeus could be confronted with a stark choice: accept his mothballing at Langley, or refuse a command assignment.
Of course, the operation might have failed, in which case Obama would have appeared as hapless as Jimmy Carter had in Iran. But assassinating a single individual was a far simpler project than rescuing several dozen hostages, and Petraeus would have known how meticulously it had been planned.
Run for president?
Petraeus's alternative was to leave the service and seek the Republican nomination for president. Given the field, he could probably have had it in a heartbeat. With Osama dead, however, Obama's re-election is— barring calamity or some John Edwards-like scandal— an almost foregone conclusion. Petraeus appears to be a very prudent man, with a clear aversion to defeat. Should presidential politics tempt him, 2016 would be a far likelier year.
Obama too is risk-averse. George W. Bush promised to bring Osama to justice "dead or alive," but Obama ordered a corpse, not a captive. He deep-sixed it in the Arabian Sea. In life, Osama had become a singularly elusive phantom. In death, he haunts only the fishes.
Osama was unarmed, but did he offer to surrender? In war, an unarmed combatant should be captured if at all practicable; one who surrenders must be. But Obama ordered a kill— not a military operation but a targeted assassination, albeit one using military personnel.
No show trial
He thereby took us a level deeper into the moral squalor that the War on Terror has become. We have kept Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational chief of 9/11, alive through a decade of captivity (and torture); we are still planning to give him a show trial. Obama precluded bringing Osama to justice; he simply pronounced it, and ordered his verdict executed.
This isn't about sympathy for Osama, for whom I have none. It's about the values we Americans claim to uphold, and that supposedly distinguish us from our enemies.
Obama would have been on more reasonable ground in authorizing the Seals to kill Osama if he couldn't be captured alive, or if attempting to do so would have exposed the mission to unacceptable risk. But these options were not on the table.
Mafia dons order hits. Constitutional lawyers don't. Generally speaking.♦
For a related comment by Maria Thompson Corley, click here.
Sign up for our newsletter
All of the week's new articles, all in one place. Sign up for the free weekly BSR newsletters, and don't miss a conversation.
