I'm hearing a lot of wanking from both sides of the aisle, about how our President undertook a mission to enter an allied country and assassinate an enemy. They're forgetting one important consideration. We're at war with Al-Qaeda.
You see, we've been entering allied countries for years. Eisenhower did it several times (Algiers, France, Belgium). MacArthur did it (Philippines). George HW Bush did it (Kuwait). Clinton did it (Kosovo). George W. Bush did it (Afghanistan). The history of presidents entering supposedly allied countries and conducting military operations is easily examined.
I'll grant that normally, the US Government does not, should not, enter allied countries and conduct assassinations. There are laws to stay the hands of American presidents in that regard. However, we're at war, and the Bush doctrine says that you're either with us, or against us. The idea that someone in the Paki government didn't know that bin Laden was living there is laughable. They can deny it all they'd like, it's still laughable.
When we're at war, things change and whether we like it or not, we're at war with al Qaeda. They've declared war on us, and like a stallion killing a mosquito, we've still got toe deal with al Qaeda. The real question, in my mind, is how long we stay in a country. We entered Pakistan, from all accounts, with a limited military objective. We've been doing that for several years now, with drone attacks. We conducted this operation in a matter of hours. The operation was extremely limited. We left quickly. So quickly that we were in and out before the Paki government knew we were there. We didn't threaten the Paki civil government and collateral damage was severely limited, if not non-existent.
It's no secret that I don't like this President. However, I don't see that he did anything wrong by ordering the military to enter into Pakistan to take out a sworn enemy. We've been doing that for years. If the Pakis don't like it, they should have taken them out themselves. As for our domestic nay-sayers, read your history. This ain't nothing new.
2 comments:
The wankers need to learn that a targeted killing of a terrorist is not the same as the assasination of a foriegn government official.
OBL was not a government official, was not a uniformed soldier or combatant according to international war protocols, was wanted by numerous governments for capital crimes, and was not protected as a civilian by the Hague or Geneva Protocols. He was, in essence, an outlaw, and could be captured or killed(if he resisted capture)by either military or private security.
Those wankers are ignorant dipshits, and they should be ignored.
Personally, I think that these radical Islamic terrorists justify reviving Letters of Marquis, under very limited circumstances. Offer Dyn Corp, Blackwater, etc. a princely sum to whack said terrorists, with the understanding that if their private operators get caught in the act in a hostile country, or a "friendly" country that forbids bounty hunters, that they are on their own, and the US.gov has plausible deniability.
Oops.....that should have said: "...Letters of Marque".
Post a Comment