Does Obama deserve political credit for getting Bin Laden?

[Taro T]

Non-intelligence position? The POTUS? WTF is going on in here. He's a !@#$ing intelligence position it all flows to him and w/ good reason b/c he's the commander in chief. And military experience? That's the point...we aren't Egypt. Civilians ultimately are in control of our military.

 

Now tactics and the means by which we accomplish our goals obviously need to draw on our military experience and such and I assure you Obama and every other President has done so...I'm not saying to micromanage the tactical plan lol...but overall don't pull back too much on this Juror you were on the right path as far as I'm concerned.

 

He should have known, and he should be involved deeply, and he should take responsibility that we didn't go get Osama then. As the Presdient get things under control. Don't just let the structure or bureaucratic system drift away and take on a life of it's own. Be an Executive. Be a Commander. Be "the decider" lol. That's my take anyway.

You seem to be taking issue with Juror's statement just to take issue. There is a big difference between leading and micromanaging. Your statements above make it appear that you understand this distinction, so I'm not certain why you are upset with Juror's statement.

 

Even if Eisenhower were still President, I wouldn't want him handling the details of this operation as he has far too many other things to be dealing with daily. The President should deal with the decisions and delegate the details.

[dayman]

You seem to be taking issue with Juror's statement just to take issue. There is a big difference between leading and micromanaging. Your statements above make it appear that you understand this distinction, so I'm not certain why you are upset with Juror's statement.

 

Even if Eisenhower were still President, I wouldn't want him handling the details of this operation as he has far too many other things to be dealing with daily. The President should deal with the decisions and delegate the details.

 

 

When it comes to the big stuff and certainly when it comes to missions like the one that actually did get Osama where we send people on foot into places we shouldn't be...IMO the President should exercise direct personal oversight.

 

And generally speaking the further removed a lot of these "modern war on terror" decisions are from that office the worse off we are as a people. This isn't traditional war I mean in a full scale invasion against another army and stuff...that isn't what I'm talking about or what we will likely deal with anytime soon (hopefully).

 

To just say "get Osama wherever he is I delegate it" or "shoot drone missiles at terrorists wherever they are I delegate it to you military man"....it has to be more than that and it has to be significantly more than that. He has to know and he should know every time where/who/how IMO.

 

It ultimately comes down to accountability.

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Taro T]

When it comes to the big stuff and certainly when it comes to missions like the one that actually did get Osama where we send people on foot into places we shouldn't be...IMO the President should exercise direct personal oversight.

 

And generally speaking the further removed a lot of these "modern war on terror" decisions are from that office the worse off we are as a people. This isn't traditional war I mean in a full scale invasion against another army and stuff...that isn't what I'm talking about or what we will likely deal with anytime soon (hopefully).

 

To just say "get Osama wherever he is I delegate it" or "shoot drone missiles at terrorists wherever they are I delegate it to you military man"....it has to be more than that and it has to be significantly more than that. He has to know and he should know every time where/who/how IMO.

 

It ultimately comes down to accountability.

Of course there's more to it than that and it's setting up a strawman argument to claim anybody was making any claims that that's all there is to it.

 

What most people would consider 'making the decision and then delegating the implementation' involves more that you seem willing to admit. The President should be choosing the strategy (not necessarily developing it, but choosing it) and getting the hell out of the way of the tactical, operational aspects of implementing that strategy. (And yes, before you go claiming that I'm stating that he shouldn't be involved in choosing whether to off bin laden via drone strike or boots on the ground, he should be involved in that. He shouldn't be involved in the nuts and bolts of how they go into the compound. Leave that decision to somebody that actually knows what they're doing.)

[dayman]

Of course there's more to it than that and it's setting up a strawman argument to claim anybody was making any claims that that's all there is to it.

 

What most people would consider 'making the decision and then delegating the implementation' involves more that you seem willing to admit. The President should be choosing the strategy (not necessarily developing it, but choosing it) and getting the hell out of the way of the tactical, operational aspects of implementing that strategy. (And yes, before you go claiming that I'm stating that he shouldn't be involved in choosing whether to off bin laden via drone strike or boots on the ground, he should be involved in that. He shouldn't be involved in the nuts and bolts of how they go into the compound. Leave that decision to somebody that actually knows what they're doing.)

 

 

In re: "knowing what you are doing" ... if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be interfering and if you don't know what you don't know you shouldn't be POTUS. That said for what it is worth (I'm sure most people here already know/have seen this and it's probably in this thread somewhere anyway):

 

http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/obama-pushed-for-fight-your-way-out-option-in-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1LKNgqtJu

 

A senior U.S. military official Monday credited President Obama for having a prominent role in pushing and shaping the plan to get Osama bin Laden. “In the final weeks and really months of this, his personal interest and direction and attention pushed the case to a new level that enabled real action,” the official told reporters. “And I think that role is quite important.”

 

On Tuesday, White House officials began to offer more details on exactly how Obama had shaped the final assault plan. In particular, the President, they said, urged the Pentagon to revisit the number of helicopters it planned to bring into Pakistani airspace on the mission. One of those extra helicopters later played a role in the mission.

 

The president made his concerns known in a briefing about 10 days before the assault on the bin Laden compound. According to senior aides, Obama felt that the special operations COA, or course of action, was too risky. Under the COA at that time, only two helicopters would enter Pakistani airspace, leaving little backup if something went wrong. “I don’t want you to plan for an option that doesn’t allow you to fight your way out,” the President told operational planners at the meeting, according to the notes of one participant.

 

So the plan was revised. Ultimately, four helicopters flew into Pakistani airspace, including two refueling helicopters that carried additional personnel. In the end, the extra forces didn’t need to fight their way out of the compound, but a backup helicopter did play a key role in the operation. One of the two primary assault helicopters, an HH-60 Pave Hawk lost its lift, landed hard and had to be destroyed. The backup landed to lift its passengers to safety. “The President created the ‘fight your way out’ option,” explained an administration official.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long story short this was important, he directly supervised it, and in the end he added value not only by making sure there was accountability but even by overseeing the revision of the COA and directly adding value to the logistics of the operation.

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

In re: "knowing what you are doing" ... if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be interfering and if you don't know what you don't know you shouldn't be POTUS. That said for what it is worth (I'm sure most people here already know/have seen this and it's probably in this thread somewhere anyway):

 

http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/obama-pushed-for-fight-your-way-out-option-in-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1LKNgqtJu

 

A senior U.S. military official Monday credited President Obama for having a prominent role in pushing and shaping the plan to get Osama bin Laden. “In the final weeks and really months of this, his personal interest and direction and attention pushed the case to a new level that enabled real action,” the official told reporters. “And I think that role is quite important.”

 

On Tuesday, White House officials began to offer more details on exactly how Obama had shaped the final assault plan. In particular, the President, they said, urged the Pentagon to revisit the number of helicopters it planned to bring into Pakistani airspace on the mission. One of those extra helicopters later played a role in the mission.

 

The president made his concerns known in a briefing about 10 days before the assault on the bin Laden compound. According to senior aides, Obama felt that the special operations COA, or course of action, was too risky. Under the COA at that time, only two helicopters would enter Pakistani airspace, leaving little backup if something went wrong. “I don’t want you to plan for an option that doesn’t allow you to fight your way out,” the President told operational planners at the meeting, according to the notes of one participant.

 

So the plan was revised. Ultimately, four helicopters flew into Pakistani airspace, including two refueling helicopters that carried additional personnel. In the end, the extra forces didn’t need to fight their way out of the compound, but a backup helicopter did play a key role in the operation. One of the two primary assault helicopters, an HH-60 Pave Hawk lost its lift, landed hard and had to be destroyed. The backup landed to lift its passengers to safety. “The President created the ‘fight your way out’ option,” explained an administration official.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long story short this was important, he directly supervised it, and in the end he added value not only by making sure there was accountability but shockingly even by overseeing the revision of the COA and directly adding value to the logistics of the operation.

 

There's a world of difference between critiquing a plan (which any reasonably smart person with a modicum of common sense can do) and actually planning (which is highly specialized). By that snipped, Obama's input was strictly limited to defining the gross mission parameters, and critiquing within those.

 

Which is not a criticism. If he did that, he did his job. And for the single example the snippet gives, he did it well.

[dayman]

There's a world of difference between critiquing a plan (which any reasonably smart person with a modicum of common sense can do) and actually planning (which is highly specialized). By that snipped, Obama's input was strictly limited to defining the gross mission parameters, and critiquing within those.

 

Which is not a criticism. If he did that, he did his job. And for the single example the snippet gives, he did it well.

 

 

I'm no implying the President should sit down and plan every little thing but the "world of difference" is an overstatement IMO... look it's being involved. You are the Commander in Chief, you're the Chief Executive, you are the head boss mofo in charge. You get involved to the point that you need to in order to have the plan be something you are ready to go forward with (whatever that point may be).

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Jauronimo]

There's a world of difference between critiquing a plan (which any reasonably smart person with a modicum of common sense can do) and actually planning (which is highly specialized). By that snipped, Obama's input was strictly limited to defining the gross mission parameters, and critiquing within those.

 

Which is not a criticism. If he did that, he did his job. And for the single example the snippet gives, he did it well.

Complimenting Obama is one sure fire way to have yourself removed from rk fast's christmas card list. Maybe you should send his daughter a few safe fisting kits while you're at it.

[Taro T]

In re: "knowing what you are doing" ... if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be interfering and if you don't know what you don't know you shouldn't be POTUS. That said for what it is worth (I'm sure most people here already know/have seen this and it's probably in this thread somewhere anyway):

 

http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/obama-pushed-for-fight-your-way-out-option-in-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1LKNgqtJu

 

A senior U.S. military official Monday credited President Obama for having a prominent role in pushing and shaping the plan to get Osama bin Laden. “In the final weeks and really months of this, his personal interest and direction and attention pushed the case to a new level that enabled real action,” the official told reporters. “And I think that role is quite important.”

 

On Tuesday, White House officials began to offer more details on exactly how Obama had shaped the final assault plan. In particular, the President, they said, urged the Pentagon to revisit the number of helicopters it planned to bring into Pakistani airspace on the mission. One of those extra helicopters later played a role in the mission.

 

The president made his concerns known in a briefing about 10 days before the assault on the bin Laden compound. According to senior aides, Obama felt that the special operations COA, or course of action, was too risky. Under the COA at that time, only two helicopters would enter Pakistani airspace, leaving little backup if something went wrong. “I don’t want you to plan for an option that doesn’t allow you to fight your way out,” the President told operational planners at the meeting, according to the notes of one participant.

 

So the plan was revised. Ultimately, four helicopters flew into Pakistani airspace, including two refueling helicopters that carried additional personnel. In the end, the extra forces didn’t need to fight their way out of the compound, but a backup helicopter did play a key role in the operation. One of the two primary assault helicopters, an HH-60 Pave Hawk lost its lift, landed hard and had to be destroyed. The backup landed to lift its passengers to safety. “The President created the ‘fight your way out’ option,” explained an administration official.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long story short this was important, he directly supervised it, and in the end he added value not only by making sure there was accountability but even by overseeing the revision of the COA and directly adding value to the logistics of the operation.

If he did that, that's great. But there is a big difference between 'adding value' and drawing up the actual plan. If the 'military official's' version is correct, then the President kept one of his campaign promises and that sounds quite plausible.

 

Without knowing whether the 'White House officials' included Axelrod and his ilk, I'll take the rest of the story with a grain of salt. If the President did make the suggestion that his people claim, then good for him and good for the troops. If he didn't, it still was a job well done.

[DC Tom]

Complimenting Obama is one sure fire way to have yourself removed from rk fast's christmas card list. Maybe you should send his daughter a few safe fisting kits while you're at it.

 

I haven't been on Rk's Christmas list for years...ever since that unfortunate argument about Tomcats vs. F/A-18E's.

[OCinBuffalo]

If he'd have ordered the hit and failed, he would have been grilled for it.

This is the only point here. The rest is irrelevant to making a hard decision in practically real time, knowing that the consequences of failure are not only serious for you, but more so for the people who actually have to carry out the order.

 

There are plenty of other terrible national security F-ups to be critical about with this President. There is 0 reason to try and marginalize the one right one. That merely makes it look like you're a clown who can't tell the difference.

 

For example, leaking secrets for political gain. I am much more concerned about a President who deliberately breaks faith with the people who carry out the orders, than I am about one who makes the wrong call in good faith.

Complimenting Obama is one sure fire way to have yourself removed from rk fast's christmas card list. Maybe you should send his daughter a few safe fisting kits while you're at it.

Man...if I could get my hands on some of those. Hilarity. Merry Fistmas. All of it. First one goes to my now brother-in-law, with a Bills sticker on it, and a "Hey Pats* Fans! Enjoy our new line!" card.

Edited June 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

If he'd have ordered the hit and failed, he would have been grilled for it.

 

 

And "blame" in that case would have been as egregious as "credit" is in this.

[dayman]

If he did that, that's great. But there is a big difference between 'adding value' and drawing up the actual plan. If the 'military official's' version is correct, then the President kept one of his campaign promises and that sounds quite plausible.

 

Without knowing whether the 'White House officials' included Axelrod and his ilk, I'll take the rest of the story with a grain of salt. If the President did make the suggestion that his people claim, then good for him and good for the troops. If he didn't, it still was a job well done.

 

LOL fair enough. But c'mon man...anything that sheds a positive light on his leadership shouldn't be seen as a lie no matter what party you identify with. And in any event, the huge difference between "adding value" and drawing the plan...I mean yes unilaterally doing everything wouldn't be a good idea (although he could do that and then order it to be done) but that just is never the case no president is that idiotic. Point being they should be as involved as they need to be to approve of it..whatever that level of involvement is. The posted article highlights one instance where he was more involved than previous posts thought he should be and it was good. If it was bad and he said only take 2 helicopters and original plan called for 4...that would be bad. But it was good. It's his call. President is the President.

 

 

And "blame" in that case would have been as egregious as "credit" is in this.

 

Bleh...still don't see how anyone can say this.

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

B-Man, DC, and 3rd, this is why I'm making that points that I'm making -

 

youtube.com/watch?v=mYefHfokP44

 

 

Here is the rub...Obama took so much heat for saying in 2008 that he would strike Al Queda in Pakistan. Clinton, Biden, and McCain pilloried his statements. In fact he was just about the lone voice saying "this is what would be done in this instance..."

 

The rest of them equivocated...and postured...and spoke in platitudes....

 

And Obama did what he said he'd do. The decision was even more laudable when you consider the political calculation and what the various criticisms during the campaign.

 

Remember this gem from McCain:

 

"Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?" asked the Arizona senator.

 

Even after the Wisconsin speech, McCain reiterated his criticism.

 

The next day, he said, “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.”

 

“You don’t broadcast and say that you’re going to bomb a country without their permission.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/obama-pakistan-policy_n_856321.html

 

According to all indications post-mission, though, coordinating with Pakistan would have been a nightmare:

 

http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/cia-chief-breaks-silence-u-s-ruled-out-involving-pakistan-in-bin-laden-raid-early-on/

 

 

So based on his own articulated sentiments, I feel that McCain would have botched it. Clinton too. Biden too. They were all equivocating 'do nothings' who were too afraid to take a position and stand on it.

 

Bush wasn't; Obama wasn't. I respect them both for that constitution.

Normally I'd say no, but I've watched enough seasons of 24 to know how this stuff works. Citizen McCain was right that you don't say you're going to bomb an ally (unless you want to scare them straight). The problem is, Pakistani leadership can't afford to help us take out OBL b/c it will cause great strife among its people. So Obama gets his wife to call Gilani's wife to convince him that he needs to cooperate. So as not to compromise his position with his people Gilani agrees to help as long as Obama agrees to pretend it was unauthorized. Unbeknownst to Obama, his chief of staff had been running intel to Osama because as a patriot he believed Osama served as a necessary boogie man to keep Americans vigilant in the "war on terror". Because Obama went through back channels the Navy Seals were able to get the drop on him and sent in their units. Obama wisely reinstated a rogue agent wanted for war crimes to execute the mission (a ballsy move Citizen McCain would likely have been too yellow to make) which proved to be the right move when Bin Laden was able to escape to the roof by taking out the reinforcements blocking the way and was just about to escape in his helicopter when the rogue agent brained him.

 

Say what you will about Obama; sure, he's a chilly, narcissistic man-child who has blind faith in discredited economic policies, but he let his balls hang low and made the call to off OBL and if nothing else he deserves credit for that.

[Nanker]

^{is the level of his involvement. No doubt.}

[dayman]

So the answer is mostly yes even from staunch anti-Obama folk...except in the case of Tom who writes the POTUS a blank check and gives no credit but also no blame for any actions taken in good faith.

[DC Tom]

Bleh...still don't see how anyone can say this.

 

It doesn't take a hell of a lot of courage to order a mission to go get the most wanted man on the planet. And if I disagree with Gates on that matter...so be it. If Gates thinks it takes more courage to order a SF raid than it does to say "No, we're not bombing Afghanistan, we're putting men in-country so we can accomplish something" like Bush did, I have very little confidence in his statement anyway.

 

Likewise, it's not the responsibility of the guy in the big chair when the mission goes pear-shaped. In point of fact, I've felt Carter was off his gourd accepting all the blame for Desert One - he okay'd the mission, but he didn't create the convoluted commo plan, or tell anyone to half-ass an airbase in the middle of a sandstorm.

[dayman]

Well I'm generally sympathetic to issues some presidents dealt with including Carter and Bush (so we're actually similar there) but it isn't unfair to criticize the the man in charge when things go wrong and it's my personal view point as I said earlier that he should be (and in fact it is his job/responsibility to be) more hands at least when compared to more hands off...if you lean towards the more hands off approach I can see how that may reasonably change the analysis.

Edited June 5, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

Well I'm generally sympathetic to issues some presidents dealt with including Carter and Bush (so we're actually similar there) but it isn't unfair to criticize the the man in charge when things go wrong and it's my personal view point as I said earlier that he should be (and in fact it is his job/responsibility to be) more hands at least when compared to more hands off...if you lean towards the more hands off approach I can see how that may reasonably change the analysis.

 

I've studied enough history in general and military history in particular to know that "hands on" from the highest executive is often-times disastrous. It's easy enough to say "Ask Hitler's generals"...but so easy, it's trite. Instead, ask Churchill's admirals.

 

And even then...so much can go so wrong in an operation of any kind, that blaming the president for what amounts to tactical error is ludicrous. His role in a Special Forces raid doesn't even rise to the level of Ike commanding Overlord.

[3rdnlng]

It doesn't take a hell of a lot of courage to order a mission to go get the most wanted man on the planet. And if I disagree with Gates on that matter...so be it. If Gates thinks it takes more courage to order a SF raid than it does to say "No, we're not bombing Afghanistan, we're putting men in-country so we can accomplish something" like Bush did, I have very little confidence in his statement anyway.

 

Likewise, it's not the responsibility of the guy in the big chair when the mission goes pear-shaped. In point of fact, I've felt Carter was off his gourd accepting all the blame for Desert One - he okay'd the mission, but he didn't create the convoluted commo plan, or tell anyone to half-ass an airbase in the middle of a sandstorm.

 

You are exactly right on. I never criticized Carter for the failure of a just mission. If he had restricted the military and it failed because of that then I would have. I never heard that he did that. If the OBL mission had failed and it wasn't because Obama restricted the military I wouldn't criticize him at all. I personally praise him for doing the right thing. I also think that any president would have made the same call. Regardless what he did with his actions post killing OBL have been political and reprehensive. Makes me wonder what his agenda is though.

Edited June 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[dayman]

I've studied enough history in general and military history in particular to know that "hands on" from the highest executive is often-times disastrous. It's easy enough to say "Ask Hitler's generals"...but so easy, it's trite. Instead, ask Churchill's admirals.

 

And even then...so much can go so wrong in an operation of any kind, that blaming the president for what amounts to tactical error is ludicrous. His role in a Special Forces raid doesn't even rise to the level of Ike commanding Overlord.

 

 

While I would NEVER sit here and say that they haven't made mistakes...I do believe that is the job. Killing them for tactical errors isn't something I'm for either, but criticizing them when things go wrong is something I can't discount based on the views I have about their job. I mean, I know the President is a lot of things...but first and foremost to me he is the Commander in Chief.

 

And when I say that I don't mean to suggest he's a military general btw. But he's the civilian leader of our civilian controlled military and it's his responsibility.

Edited June 5, 2012 by TheNewBills