GUTSY? BILL SIEGEL
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9462/pub_detail.asp
From the very moment the press was alerted of Navy SEAL Unit 6’s success in killing Osama bin Laden, President Barack Obama has been described by one word more than any other: Gutsy.
That so many in the administration, in his party, and in his adoring “state-controlled” media use the same word is testament not to its veracity but to the efficiency of Obama’s public relations skills.
The general narrative used is that Obama was faced with a difficult decision: whether to give the a-ok to the SEALs to proceed. If they are succeed, all is wonderful. But, should they fail in any way, it is believed, Obama would face a political lambast that would destroy his presidency much as Jimmy Carter’s was fatally injured when his hostage retrieval mission fell apart in the Iranian desert. Obama utilized his blessed skills scrutinizing the variables and with steely eyed coolness threw his own concerns to the wind in order to accomplish the higher goal of protecting American citizens by permanently ridding the world of Bin Laden/
Nice tale. Yet highly questionable.
First, there is a story circulating that it was CIA chief Leon Panetta with the political assistance of others who decided upon the operation. “President” Valerie Jarrett kept refusing to go forward with it and instructed her front man, Obama, to issue such responses internally. All accolades go out to Panetta if this story has any kernel of truth.
Assuming instead the facts are as we have been told, however, we still need to be clear. “Guts” is a word that should be reserved in this case for the SEALS themselves and those who participated in the operations. Thank Allah we have them on our side.
Let’s examine Obama’s alternatives. Once it became the opinion of intelligence officers that bin Laden was living in the Abbottabad compound, Obama had no choice but to act in some manner. Adding another lost opportunity to act to the list of prior failures by Bill Clinton and, perhaps, George Bush by way of General Tommy Franks in Tora Bora would certainly leak to the public. Failing to act surely would be fatal to Obama’s image as a tough commander in chief. Acting was a forgone conclusion. Only how to act was open to real question.
The alternative action would be to attack the compound from a distance with predator drones and/or powerful bunker busting bombs. As the administration admits, the very power required to ensure success would also obfuscate any likely chance at obtaining proof of success. And, to Obama, public proof is at least as important as killing bin Laden. Also, no matter how much practice we have had, long distance bombing is subject to errors that are difficult to correct once underway. Manned missions, on the other hand, can always terminate and retreat should anything go wrong. Given the proximity to Pakistani military personnel and installations, a bomb gone awry could easily turn into an international crisis difficult to contain. A true balancing of pros and cons seems likely to lead to a manned mission.
Looked at from this perspective, Obama really had no other choice than the mission that was executed. He had to act and sending in the SEALS gave him the BEST control over protecting his downside. If the mission went awry, he would suffer the least negative consequences under this option politically.
Nonetheless, he is deemed to have been gutsy. Yet, reports have shown that Obama had his final meeting days before and said he was not going to decide at that point. Does this show the careful deliberation that MSNBC media voices describe as illustrative of only his special gift for intellectual feat? Was it, as one drooling Morning Joe guest described an example of Obama’s unique ability to sort information on one level while exercising judgment on another? Or was this to stage timing more suitable to his political face?
Remember, the operation was to take place on a Saturday. If it had taken place then, Obama would have gotten the news of success around 3 pm Saturday afternoon. Is it too “conspiratorial” to presume that he was hoping the SEALS would be successful just in time for him to travel to the White House Correspondent’s Dinner where his devotees would already be assembled and poised for an evening of idolatry? Imagine the adulation and hero worship that would have graced C-Span that evening if he came out and announced “I got him” (He can not resist the first person).
Sadly for Obama, the mission had to be scrapped that Saturday.
Public relations have dictated Obama’s subsequent decisions as well. Giving bin Laden a “Muslim” burial at sea is anything but Muslim. Islamic law permits a burial at sea if the deceased was killed at sea and there is no alternative. Rather, as Alan Dershowitz argued, the quick disposal of the body ensured that we would never find out critical information as to HOW bin Laden was killed. And need anything else be added to the public tumult Obama has created by not releasing the pictures of the deceased bin Laden?
Still, the decision to proceed has been endlessly labeled “gutsy;” in large part again because he risked political consequences if it failed. Is that not simply part of the job? Was the Stimulus program gutsy? It risked failing, did fail supremely, and the economy died.
What about George W. Bush? Was he gutsy? He faced a declared failure in the face of an obvious victory. That is, the military mission was exceedingly successful. The Far Left defined his mission as a failure. Bush was certainly deliberative in taking many months to decide to launch into Iraq. He certainly had to sort information on one level while exercising judgments on another! Yet he was called a diminutive “cowboy.”
And what about the risks Bush took? Not just Bush, but everybody who took any interest in the issue was petrified that our troops would be showered with chemical or biological weapons, if not nuclear. (Recall that at that time only Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson had that “real” intelligence to know Saddam was a paper tiger.) Bush would have faced certain political damnation if the mission failed. The Left still regards him as Satan, not “gutsy.”
Instead, the Left argues that Bush was “stupid” in picking the wrong war with Iraq or war at all. Yet, a close examination of Obama’s actions, from continuing U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Guantanamo Bay, to continuing the use of the very tactics he campaigned against, the Obama Doctrine turns out to be, as radio host Monica Crowley points out, the Bush Doctrine. Very “gutsy” indeed.
Put simply, the presidency requires tough decisions. The nation correctly applauds Obama for deciding to go forward and for the success of the mission. He is well deserving of praise for giving the go-ahead for the operation that eliminated bin Laden. Time will tell both the positive and negative consequences of this action; that is the course of events in war. But we would all be better served if we reserved “gutsy” for those who truly earned it: the SEALS and the other dedicated professionals who executed the operations. At best, Obama did the only real thing he could do.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Bill Siegel lives in New York and is the author of the forthcoming book, The Control Factor ©.
Comments are closed.
