re: "Bolton: Biden's Statement that Taliban Not Our Enemy Was No Gaffe"

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs (" Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction. ") agreed with Amb. Bolton's characterization.

Money quote(s):

"The Taliban does not share Western values, goals, objectives. The Taliban's playbook is the qur'an and its stated aims.

The whole idea of a moderate Taliban or a moderate Islam is false"

Reasonable people can disagree whether or not there can be a moderate Islam.

(CAA believes in it on alternating days, himself.)

"Never mind their role in 9/11. Never mind their hosting al-Qaeda camps and working with al-Qaeda.

It amounts to surrender, to prostration before the jihadist enemy.

Now, we know old Joe is none too bright, but here Bolton explains: this was no gaffe."

And here's why:

"Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said Tuesday that Joe Biden’s statement that the Taliban is not America's enemy in Afghanistan was not a gaffe, but instead the vice president was “articulating what the White House strategy is.” Biden made his remarks in a recent Newsweek interview, but the Obama administration is saying they were taken out of context

“I don’t think this is a gaffe by Joe Biden — I think he is articulating what the White House strategy is — I think they know exactly what they are trying to do,” Bolton told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “They are trying to redefine the terrorist threat to be a limited group of al-Qaida people along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

“They are going to redefine Taliban away from that — they are going to ignore Taliban in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Qaida in Iraq, and al-Qaida in North Africa,” Bolton said. “And they’re going to say it’s just that one little thing: We’ve killed Osama bin Laden — the war on terror is over.”"

Based upon my own sporadic observations regarding Vice Pres. Biden's tendency to "gaffe," I wouldn't urgently disagree with Amb. Bolton's assessment.

VP Biden sometimes says things that suggest he's regurgitating, in his own words, the substance of things about which he's been briefed. Specifically, I'm thinking about his remarks a few years ago about the H1N1 flu virus and air travel.

He seems to speak uncomfortable truths, as he understands them and based upon some frank and factual briefings (i.e., not for public distribution), and wholly without regard for the political, economic, or diplomatic fallout. Indeed, he says them without any apparent consciousness that there could be, even should be, such repercussions.

"Bolton said the Taliban treats anyone who does not agree with them horribly."

Word.

""It reminds me of Vietnam. Remember Sen. George Aiken, the Republican of Vermont? It was clear to him that we didn’t have the stamina to go on and actually win,” Bolton said. “So the George Aiken strategy: We’ll declare victory and get out — that is what the administration is going to do in the war on terror. Having redefined who the terrorists are and having said the Taliban is not our enemy, they’re going to say we have won and the war is over.""

And, if we'd put some of our HVT Taliban officials on the other side of a conference table, gotten them to publicly disavow Al Qaeda and UBL, and made it clear that if we ever had to come back to Afghanistan it would not be with gentle words and reconstruction budgets....

....all of that before we'd spent a decade nation-building and taking casualties, then this would have been a reasonable, if limited, outcome for our intervention there.

"The jihad against the U.S. will continue all over the world, not just in Afghanistan."

12/21

re: "These things happen for a reason"

Lemuel Calhoon at Hillbilly White Trash ("Commenting about politics, religion, firearms, food, Celtic music, beer, science fiction and the Asheville Vortex. Home of the Hillbilly Ecosystem.") is experiencing some existential-level cognitive dissonance. And with good reason.

Money quote(s):

"America went to war with two nations in response to Islamic terrorism and we have killed or captured most of the top leadership of al Qaeda, including bin Laden himself. However our failure to identify the nature of the problem (which is nothing more or less than Islam itself) and our suicidal fealty to the culturally lethal ideologies of multiculturalism and political correctness have rendered us almost defenseless against this kind of home grown jihad and seriously hampered our ability to deal with the problem on an international level.

Right after Sept. 11 president Bush hosted Islamic religious leaders at the White House to prove that the US was not at war with Islam. Then it came out that most of those imams were tied to terrorism in some way. TSA screeners at airports are told not to pay any special attention to people who look Arab/Middle Eastern for fear of being accused of profiling."

Islam's problem seems to be either that it never underwent a reformation (which might have shifted it from its medieval moorings) or that the reformation it has undergone took it in the wrong (from Western perspective) direction.

I understand that Pres. Bush took pains to emphasize that the West, and the U.S. specifically, was not at war with Islam so as to head-off initiating the sort of Huntingtonian "clash of civilizations" that Osama Bin Ladin dreamed of waging. Not playing into what Al-Qaida wanted is a pretty good argument for Bush's policy there, whatever else you may think of the former president.

As for TSA screening guidance.... from a security perspective, you don't want to necessarily exempt non-Arabs/Middle Eastern persons from security screenings since that sort of loophole creates a security vulnerability that just begs to be taken advantage of.

But that doesn't seem to be how things are actually done; TSA gives the appearance of being more afraid of CAIR's press releases than is healthy or helpful. Going out of the way to avoid paying attention to the patterns and indicators of likely terrorists is a losing proposition and indicates a lack of courage of conviction.

That's a recipe of losing the larger war.

"Christian and Jewish clergy must be banned from the 9/11 memorial service at Ground Zero but a building ruined by wreckage from one of the 9/11 planes (making it as much a part of Ground Zero as the WTC site) must be torn down so that a giant Islamic Victory Mosque can be built.

The United States has helped to bring about regime change in Egypt and Libya (actually going to war in Libya's case) to replace governments that were bad but not currently supporting Jihad terrorism with far worse governments that are connected with organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

The United States and Western Europe (that part of the world once known as Christendom) has seemingly lost faith in itself. In its value to the world. It is very likely too late for Europe but not for the US. That is if we screw up our courage and face facts and take appropriate action."


8/28

re: "PISSING ON THE TALIBAN"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit also had a few things to say about disrespecting the enemy dead.

Money quote(s):

"I have to say I can’t seem to work up any outrage."

If anything, this is psychological warfare (as distinct from public diplomacy) on the cheap.

(We'd already killed them, after all. Sunken costs, just like UBL's funeral.)

"(I)t is easier for civilized men to act like barbarians than for barbarians to act like civilized men, and plenty of events in Afghanistan illustrate this."

A good bit of basic (and advanced) combat training is designed deliberately to sandblast off a bit of that highly civilized behavior, the part about not killing people to be precise.

"CAIR is a bunch of pro-terrorist stooges. Everyone knows that. Okay, maybe not “a bunch,” as their membership is minuscule and I’m pretty sure their money comes mostly from abroad."

1/12

re: "Defense Secretary Panetta Makes the Mother of All Kinsley Gaffes (Update: Correcting the WaPo)"

A "kinsley gaffe" is defined as "when a politician accidentally says the truth."

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") provided an example:

"Panetta has a history standing up and telling the truth that liberals deny. For instance, after the death of bin Laden, it was Panetta who admitted that waterboarding gave us information that led to bin Laden. And in a weird way, I really respect that."

Is waterboarding torture? Is the torture of unlawful combatants (i.e., those not eligible for POW status under the Geneva Conventions) even illegal? Is it illegal under under those treaties to which the U.S. is party, under U.S. federal law, or under some broader interpretation of "international law"?

I wouldn't much appreciate being waterboarded myself, but am under no illusions that I would be subjected to anything so mild-mannered and gentle were I, or any of my military, diplomatic, or other civilian colleagues fall into the hands of our AQ enemies.

7/11

re: "The Left's Rage Over 'Assassination' Of US Citizens Begins"

Jason Bradley at Big Peace addresses some of the proper issues surrounding "Triple-A" 's death.

Money quote(s):

"Assassinating US citizens without due process is in fact wrong. But there is nothing basic about the kind of terrorists’ threats we face daily. We do not have drones patrolling the skies of Los Angles and we are not targeting American civilians in all out military offensive. These terrorists are not simply breaking laws. They are more than just your common criminal or gangbanger. They are continuously plotting to kill as many Americans as possible. They are financed and organized by governments and terrorists organizations that stretch the globe and have plenty of resources from which to operate. That makes them threatening in such a way that due-process would actually be a hindrance in protection of the homeland.

Al-Awlaki’s ‘citizenship’ is the product of an outdated and erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He is about as much of a citizen of the US as Osama bin Laden was. If he was truly a US citizen he would live here, pay his taxes, and be a productive member of society. If individuals like al-Awlaki can be considered a US citizen with a straight face, then perhaps there is need to approach the ideas that constitute citizenship. Al-Awlaki stopped being a US citizen the moment he sat down with terrorists and collaborated with them to kill American citizens."

1. Al-Awlaki got precisely the due process (under the laws of land warfare) that any other enemy of the United States gets; not a trial by jury in a courtroom, to be sure, but by targeteers and military commanders performing their lawful duties.

2. There are those who make this fairly reasonable argument, that children born to foreign citizens who are not themselves legal residents (a broader category than illegal aliens, by the way) in the U.S. aren't due American citizenship under 14th Amendment authority. So far this hasn't been the interpretation of the SCOTUS, but it's not that unreasonable an interpretation.

3. Mr. Bradley's point with regards to expatriation (i.e., loss of U.S. nationality), is meaningful and well-taken. There are existing laws, on the books, to strip U.S. citizenship from those who wage war against America. They ought to exercised.

(10/1)

re: "More on Biden and His Fat Mouth"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is unimpressed by dangerous buffoonery in high office.

Money quote(s):

"The other day I noted how Joe Biden had run his mouth about who killed bin Laden, putting SEAL Team 6 at risk. I said: “there is no way to know whether this was an orchestrated ambush targeting Team 6. But it is an important reminder why it’s not just comedy relief to have cynical glory-seekers and complete buffoons at the highest levels of government.”

Well, the possibility of an orchestrated ambush looks much more likely — as an Afghan official tells the press that’s exactly what happened"

Among professionals, the heart of what makes intelligence information classifiable (i.e., secret, top secret, or confidential) is whether it discloses sources and methods. On the military side, this means not disclosing or publicizing information which reveals to the enemy that which the enemy can use against you. Operational details, procedures, capabilities; if it's public, it gets play. Somewhere. And if it's public somewhere, it's public everywhere. The information superhighway has off-ramps into some very bad neighborhoods, after all.

"In other words, a Taliban no doubt incensed at bin Laden’s death set up an ambush designed to target exactly the sort of forces that would respond to a report of high value targets.

Did the families fear this? You betcha."

Military families have, as they say, "skin in the game." They have an acute appreciation of their loved one's vulnerabilities to this sort of exploitation operation.

"When morons like Biden run their mouths, they put good men at risk. When the Obama administration decided to release all the information about who killed bin Laden, they put good men at risk."

This is why I hate working with amateurs.

(8/6)

re: "Osama bin Ladin's Courier Had Phone Numbers For Longtime Militant-Group Asset of Pakistani Intelligence"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ appreciated the gravity of this news.

Money quote(s):

"The bigger the problem gets, the more intractable it gets.

Pakistan is a country of some 130 million people, many of them terrorist maniacs, and not only has nukes, but acts as a nuclear Johnny Appleseed throughout the world."

This problem hasn't gotten any smaller since this was posted in June, as Adm. Mullen's recent remarks made clear.

re: "Hussein strikes out"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") rakes Pres. Obama over the coals.

Money quote(s) of a non-ad hominem nature:

"just how much clout the NY Times and MSNBC have in the Arab world"

Just about none. Don't believe me? Check overall literacy rates in the Arab world (litaracy in any languages, even their own), look into how often (for instance) Al Jazeera cites MSNBC, and do the math.

"because the vast majority of the Muslims.... live in tribal and honor cultures and they only respect the strong horse"

Nice placement of a UBL "strong horse" reference there.

"the hated cowboy W because say what you want about him, he would kick your ass if you crossed him"

I believe it was the Kennedy administration which followed the adage "Don't get mad, get even." Words to govern by.

re: "Call Him John"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") has an interesting snippet from AP.

Money quote(s):

"Intelligence drives operations."

Write that down somewhere. And read the whole thing.

re: "Bin Laden Stayed Involved"

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) at Big Peace is sharing some of the take.

Money quote(s):

"U.S. counterterrorism officials have concluded that Osama bin Laden was aware of the 7/7 London bombings in 2005, but it was the last successful operation in which he played a prominent role, Reuters reports. While circumstantial information and government analysis suggests that bin Laden was in close contact with terrorist plotters abroad, data found in his Abbotabad compound does not show evidence of any new plots."

Remember: when in trouble, delegate.

It's dangerous to attribute Western-style motivations to a non-Westerner like UBL, but...... if UBL was following the precepts of James H. Boren, then the change to his management style indicates that he was, and knew he was, in trouble.

Of course, having to hide out in Abbott&Costellobad all those years, shut in with just three wives, would have been something of an indicator.

"Data seized after the raid which killed him shows that bin Laden was often aware of plots before they happened. The evidence firmly ties the al-Qaida mastermind to the 7/7 bombings for the first time and indicates that al-Qaida’s senior leadership “supervised” Najibullah Zazi’s 2009 attempt to bomb New York’s subway. It also suggests that bin Laden was personally involved in a European plot last year, which sparked heightened terror alerts in Germany, France, and Britain."

I start to get something of a sense of micro-management here, of nearly Rumsfeldian proportions. Snow-, er, sand-flakes anyone?

re: "Like Watching a Car Wreck...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") finds fault with the law-enforcement model of counter-terrorism.

Money quote(s):

"(E)vidently, the Attorney General of these here United States believes that the best weapon to use against terrorists isn't an M-4 with a SOPMOD package and a rucksack full of ammo in the hands of a skilled operator, it is a Miranda Warning Blaster Cannon, a Search Warrant Launcher and a Legal Discovery Bomb."

It's not that the Justice Department doesn't have a role in the GWOT, it's just not that of "lead agency." Nor should it be. Ever. At least not in more than an advisory and assist role, and that only within the U.S. itself.

Frankly, given the enemy's proven skills at lawfare, this should be more than enough to keep AG Holder occupied.

"(R)emember all those brave barristers that kicked in the doors at the Bin Laden compound and aggressively read Osama his Miranda rights and moved immediately to a speedy trial. This is not one of the most laughable things the Attorney General has ever said, nor is it the most clueless thing either, but it is consistent."

re: "Bin Laden Deserved No Benefit of the Doubt"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("aims to explain in a open-minded, reasonable way how diplomacy works in practice") lifted an excellent passage worth reading.

Money quote(s):

"Pure foolishness. And therefore all the more prevalent these days."

re: "Lawfare v. Warfare: Bin Laden family uses a little “Alinsky” on US and Obama"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") understands the mental judo being attempted through lawfare.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he “bin Laden family” condemns the attack on their father and demands that there be a reckoning"

There was a reckoning. That was the whole point.

"They’re also threatening to take the case to the International Criminal Court which would be an interesting turn of events.

The hidden premise, of course, is OBL was a criminal, not an unlawful combatant and we violated the law."

Which "law" was that exactly?

International law, like the international community, is a fiction. It's a useful one, sometimes, but it's more aspiraational than real. The "World" has no court. The "World" has no policemen. Sovereign nations do, and sometimes let international organizations like the U.N. use them.

"The death of bin Laden is being described in some quarters as an “extrajudicial killing”. In fact, bin Laden was always considered to be an “unlawful combatant” by us and as such had no such protections. In warfare, the targeted killing of an enemy, in this case unlawful combatant, is quite legal.

So what you are seeing here are competing premises, one saying terrorism is simply a criminal act and therefore terrorists must be treated as common criminals would be treated as well as afforded various rights because of that status. The other says they are enemies who have declared war on the US, committed numerous acts of war and, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, are “unlawful combatants” and enemies whose targeted killing is an accepted practice of warfare.

Lawfare vs. warfare.

I think we’ve been pretty clear since the beginning, with the AUMF (which the Obama administration ironically used as the legal basis for its raid into Pakistan), that we’re at war (and yes, I also accept the AUMF as a declaration of war) what we consider these terrorists."

While, as a traditionalist, I would prefer our declarations of war to have "DECLARATION OF WAR" printed in bold typeface at the top of a sheet of parchment, with heavy maroon wax seals in gilt skippets suspended by wide red ribbons, that's just not how congress rolls these days.

"This is not a criminal matter. It is a military matter and it was executed as such. The lesson it teaches other terrorists who’ve declared war on “the Great Satan” is we are relentless and remorseless. Those are two good messages to send." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

re: "This Week at War: Send in the Lawyers?"

Robert Haddick at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") answers the question "Why the president's legal advisors are in no hurry to justify the bin Laden raid."

Money quote(s):

"Osama bin Laden's fourth son Omar along with some of his brothers have called for an international investigation into the killing of their father. A statement written by the sons and published in the New York Times calls for President Barack Obama to cooperate with their demand for a U.N. inquiry into the question of "why our father was not arrested and tried but summarily executed without a court of law." Should there be no response within 30 days, the sons have pledged to assemble a "panel of eminent British and international lawyers" to pursue legal action against the U.S. government and its officials."

This is called lawfare.

"Bin Laden's sons as well as other analysts outside the United States view the raid in the context of the procedures of criminal law. By contrast, Holder and most observers inside the United States view the raid as a military mission with bin Laden just another combatant. Enemy military personnel are not subject to the rights due a suspect under criminal procedure but rather are at risk of ambush and sudden lethal attack without warning. In the military context, it doesn't matter if the combatant is not holding a weapon, is not in a military uniform, or is in an "unthreatening" posture (such as asleep). The only circumstances under which military forces are required to "give quarter" is after an enemy combatant has completed a surrender or is too wounded to resist, something very unlikely to have occurred in the bin Laden compound given the aggressive rules of engagement issued to the assault team. Bin Laden's sons reject this interpretation, viewing bin Laden as a criminal suspect deserving the rights of legal process."

Those inclined to take the criminal law/enforcement model seriously (Sen. Kerry, call your office) will do so. All young Omar and his ilk deserve from the U.S. Government is, perhaps, the traditional telegram notification sent to next-of-kin.

"The U.S. view is that the 9/11 attacks sparked an "armed conflict" between the United States and al Qaeda, a legal status that both the Congress and the United Nations quickly affirmed. The "armed conflict" status has allowed the United States to use its military power and the international laws of war to permit such techniques as lethal drone attacks and commando raids against combatants -- legally delivered without warning or legal process.

All modern conflicts involve irregular non-state actors as combatants. These combatants and their fellow travelers seek to emphasize their status as civilians when useful, both for defense against modern military technology and in an attempt to take advantage of legal rights. Conversely, the United States government will seek, when necessary, to achieve an international recognition of armed conflict status against its irregular adversaries in order to take advantage of the military and legal advantages it gains from such a status. The government's challenge will be justifying the particular circumstances that warrant unsheathing the government's armed conflict powers against specific adversaries."

Considering that UBL had issued his own declaration of war against the U.S. as early as the 1990s, plus all those fairly damning video diatribes, it's difficult to imagine a more clearcut case of an irregular non-state actor qualifying as a combatant (unlawful or otherwise).

re: "Do Victory Laps and Spiking the Football outweigh Operational (and Personal) Security?"

Jeff Emanuel at Redstate ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") considers the Tourette's Syndrome approach to OPSEC.

Money quote(s):

"Shut up about the SEALs already, please"

Excellent advice. Here's why:

"While the information being reported by various media outlets and individuals has often missed the accuracy bulls-eye by quite a bit (yet again demonstrating that life imitates the Onion), enough accurate-ish information has apparently been revealed to the public by the usual suspects - the administration and those members of Congress who hold security clearances because of the voters’ actions rather than for any personal character qualities they may actually possess - that some units within, and affiliated with, JSOC are reportedly being forced to consider adapting their Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) — not to mention the fact that some operators are now concerned for the safety of their families (more on this later).

Joint Special Operations Command is the umbrella under which “black SOF” falls. This does not mean that every individual within the command is a secret agent or Chuck Norris-like commando; however, it does mean three things: (1) the organization, its people, and those it aligns itself with for mission and intelligence purposes conduct operations which are of particular importance to the national security of the United States, and therefore are of particular sensitivity; (2) its members utilize specific procedures and equipment which are highly specific to the types of missions they undertake (and which can therefore be outside the norm of conventional military procedures and equipment, or even of those utilized by “white SOF” units); and (3) due to the former two points, the equipment used by JSOC units and those with which they work, the TTPs employed by them, and the identities of the operators themselves are sensitive to excessive sunlight. In other words, of all the military units the United States has, JSOC is perhaps the one most damaged by public attention being paid to its equipment, its TTPs, and its personnel."

Newsflash: CAA is not now nor has he ever been assigned or attached to a JSOC unit. But the principles of operational security (OPSEC) which underly this are the same ones which applied to our MI units operating in OIF1.

"The high-profile nature of the target made it virtually impossible not to acknowledge the success of this particular mission or to provide some details regarding how, and by whom, it was accomplished. However, the Obama administration’s tourette’s-like insistence on telling the press whatever version of the operational story they felt like giving at that time or on that day (before they decided not to say anything any more), in tandem with the president’s own insistence on reinforcing his narrative of the “gutsy call” that resulted in bin Laden’s death at fundraisers and through media surrogates, have demonstrated that OPSEC and the safety of America’s premier special operators and their families are far less important to the Commander in Chief and his administration than taking so many victory laps and spiking the football with such frequency and repetition that it’s a wonder Obama himself hasn’t coughed up a (redacted) lung yet while simultaneously deflating the prop football he’s been handed for this purpose."

&

"(A)dapting to a changing battlefield environment and a changing enemy is one thing; being forced to adapt because members of your own government - particularly those who see one successful mission as a silver bullet to be used in a reelection campaign, and to enact a comprehensive and completely unrelated agenda - couldn’t keep their traps shut about sensitive information."

re: "The Lawfulness of Killing Bin Laden"

Butch Bracknell at Small Wars Journal ("facilitates the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field") lays out the legalities of schwacking UBL.

Money quote(s):

"Much has been made of the recent revelations that Osama bin Laden was unarmed at the moment he was killed by U.S. special operations forces in close quarters battle. Let us put this issue to rest with dispatch, once and for all: Killing bin Laden was not an extrajudicial execution, a murder, or a war crime. It was a combat engagement lawful under U.S. and international legal authority – full stop."

Mr. Bracknell takes some care explaining the self-defense and jus in bello rationales before continuing:

"Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant – again, full stop. His status as a virtual enemy of the United States is grounded on several factors: his declaration of war (fatwa) by Al Qaeda, of which he was the nominal chief, against the United States; the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40); and, most likely, declaration of a state of hostilities (essentially, a state of “war”) by the President against an opposing belligerent: Al Qaeda, its footsoldiers, and its leaders. The qualifier “most likely” indicates that if the President has, in fact, declared Al Qaeda to be a hostile, belligerent force, the designation probably would be classified and non-public. It is also superfluous, as Congress supplied the necessary authority in the AUMF to make combat actions against Al Qaeda lawful. They described a category of combatants who may be targeted by U.S. forces, and Osama bin Laden fell squarely into that category more precisely than any other person in the world. Targeting bin Laden was based on bin Laden simply being bin Laden: his conduct as he stared down the wrong end of an MP-5 was immaterial.

Once designated a hostile enemy combatant, there are only two ways a combatant can be exempted from lawful targeting: by manifesting a clear and unequivocal intent to surrender, and by becoming wounded or otherwise incapacitated and incapable of resistance (hors d’combat). There is no evidence bin Laden was wounded prior to administration of the lethal force which ended his life. Moreover, U.S. forces engaged in armed conflict are under no obligation to give an enemy combatant a chance to surrender; the enemy combatant must practically force his surrender on the U.S. force by manifesting it clearly, timely, and in a manner which enables U.S. forces to discontinue the use of lethal force. At this instant, a shield of legal protection descends around him, and U.S. forces are obligated to treat him humanely and consistent with the laws of armed conflict pertaining to detainees. Until the shield is present, triggered by manifest surrender, it is absent. Without the shield that only he could initiate through his surrenderous conduct, bin Laden remained a legitimate target and was treated so by the assaulting U.S. force.

Bin Laden’s death was a triumph for the American intelligence community and the armed forces and provides, at long last, some solace to the victims of 9/11 and Al Qaeda’s other terroristic acts. His death will likely prove to be a strategic gain, and it eliminates a continuing threat to Americans at home and her citizens and forces abroad. It also was completely sanctioned under U.S. and international law."

Bottom line: it was a righteous shoot.

re: "Lawfare v. Warfare: Bin Laden family uses a little “Alinsky” on US and Obama"

McQ at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") gets this exactly right.

Money quote(s):

"The death of bin Laden is being described in some quarters as an “extrajudicial killing”. In fact, bin Laden was always considered to be an “unlawful combatant” by us and as such had no such protections. In warfare, the targeted killing of an enemy, in this case unlawful combatant, is quite legal.

So what you are seeing here are competing premises, one saying terrorism is simply a criminal act and therefore terrorists must be treated as common criminals would be treated as well as afforded various rights because of that status. The other says they are enemies who have declared war on the US, committed numerous acts of war and, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, are “unlawful combatants” and enemies whose targeted killing is an accepted practice of warfare.

Lawfare vs. warfare.

I think we’ve been pretty clear since the beginning, with the AUMF (which the Obama administration ironically used as the legal basis for its raid into Pakistan), that we’re at war (and yes, I also accept the AUMF as a declaration of war) what we consider these terrorists.

Second guessing by all the world’s hand wringers should simply be ignored. This is not a criminal matter. It is a military matter and it was executed as such. The lesson it teaches other terrorists who’ve declared war on “the Great Satan” is we are relentless and remorseless. Those are two good messages to send."

re: "Bin there, Killed That..... "

Thanks to No Double Standards at Muttering Behind the Hardline ("Aut insanit homo, aut versus facit") for the mention.

Money quote(s):

"Consul Leslie Slote over at Consul at Arms II followed up with a "money quote" (as he calls them) that I'm pissed I never thought of myself:

Violence never settles anything except for those things that only violence will settle.

How hard does that line rock?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

"Let's get to it: let's not kid ourselves; the Mutterer is a man of principle. I've argued as loudly as anyone that we should not reciprocate the bad behavior of our enemies by compromising our core principles. But I was pretty steamed at the self-flagellating response of the Left to the glee average Americans expressed at Bin Laden's killing."

Thusly does NDS neatly encapsulate civilized modern man's dilemma: how to respond to and deter violence and aggression from barbarians without becoming one. It's a topic worthy of discussion and one, I should note, that serves as something of a self-diagnostic: if you're still asking the question, than you're not a barbarian yet.

"You have got to be kidding me. Mike Hayes over at "Googling God" actually believes that there's some sort of moral equivalency between Afghans dancing on the streets at the news of 9/11 and Americans' rejoicing at the death of Bin Laden.

Let's get something straight: there hasn't been a single misfortune that has befallen the United States that Bin Laden and his ilk didn't celebrate. Why it is I am supposed to show him some sort of deference simply by virtue of having died is beyond me."

Too right. Either UBL was an anomoly, someone who had so twisted the peaceful teachings of Mohammed that he was no longer truly Islamic, or he was a martyr to the cause, a holy man worthy of memorials and emulation. Answers to this question should be chosen carefully.

"Bin Laden and his ilk hate us for who we are, regardless of what we do. And they'll always concoct some conspiracy to explain it all away.

The mistake that the Bushies made was concluding that all Arabs view us this way.

And that is decidely not true, as the absence of a significant Islamic influence in the ongoing "Arab Spring" attests.

Good riddance, Osama Bin Laden. It may very well be that you were unarmed, that you begged for mercy, and that my countryman put a bullet in your eye, anyway.

Tough shit.

You had it coming."

I rather thought Bush (and his ilk, the "Bushies") went to considerable trouble to make it clear that they were not acting as if all Arabs viewed us with hate, that this was not a Clash of Civilizations, and that if we'd responded as if it was that would have given UBL exactly what he wanted.

But yes: UBL had it coming.

re: "A Gutsy Post"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") analyzes the gutsy call.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he left has decided the word for Obama’s is “gutsy.” That’s kind of weird since he made a call that most Americans would have made, so what’s gutsy about it? If you told a regular American, “So, do you want to get Osama or not get Osama?” they would think that’s a trick question. But for Obama, going with the obvious answer was gutsy."

On the face of it, Frank's assessment is valid. But let's drill down a little bit. You see, approving the operation is a little bit more than just deciding to take down UBL. And I'm not even talking about the diplomatic and political repercussions involved in going into Pakistan in order to do it.

A few short decades ago there was this thing called "Desert One." Google it, if you don't already know. The president is of an age, as I am myself, to remember Desert One from late-adolescence/early-adulthood. Desert One was where Operation Eagle Claw went wholly pear-shaped and the predecessors of what became "Delta Force" took a number of casualties. And that was before they'd even gotten to their objective in Tehran.

So there are consequences to be considered. Missions are not always assured of success, even if things don't go disasterously wrong (as they did at Desert One); what if the intelligence is wrong? What if UBL picks that particular night to sleep over at a friend's house? The list of what-ifs and what-could-go-wrongs is limited only by the imagination.

So I'm un-troubled, upon reflection, by those who give props to the commander-in-chief for making a "gutsy" call. The call was his to make, he made it, and it went well for the troops who executed it, went well for the president, and went quite badly for UBL.

"Obama will get a little bit of a bounce and deservedly so for taking out Osama, but I wouldn’t expect too much of it."

re: "Free-Thinkers and Unchained Intellects All Over the World Decide, Simultaneously, That We're All Supposed To Feel Rather Ashamed That Usama bin"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ explains why intelligentsias aren't always very intelligent.

Money quote(s):

"It is truly remarkable how all these maverick minds, these unshackled brains, these members of the Vanguard of Free Thought, nearly always manage to fall into line with what a few of their more mouthy members are saying at any particular moment.

Are we supposed to feel bad that we used lethal force to incapacitate a murderous force for evil? Are we to feel guilt that, having exposed so many of our troops to great risks to preserve innocent, and not-so-innocent life, on this particular mission we told our troops, "Don't worry about bin Ladin's life"?

Are we really supposed to regret this?"

Author Tom Kratman opines that this sort of thing isn't really a conspiracy, but rather a consensus based on a particular, and wide-spread, consensus. (My apologies to The Good Colonel if I've mis-paraphrased him. - CAA)

"This is the primary psychological drive of the bien pensants. If you understand this about them, you understand everything about them.

Everything they say, and everything they do, is calculated towards one specific purpose, one unchanging goal: To differentiate themselves from their "common" fellows, and, by differentiating themselves, in conspicuous demonstrations of anti-common sentiment, declare and affirm themselves to be members of the New Aristocracy." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

My experience to date is that doesn't actually require a great deal of higher education to cause one's native rational faculties to be over-ridden by politically correct dogma, although that does trend towards the likelihood of same.

It certainly requires a certain flavor of higher (and not-so-higher) indoctrination to make a bright person this stupid.

"This isn't thinking. This isn't reason. This is simply the automatic, reflexive contradiction of anything a commoner might happen to say. Even if the "commoner" happens to be right.
Because the whole point is to have a different opinion, one the commoners do not share. And the commoners, being, generally, a reasonable and sound-thinking lot, unfortunately have the tendency to think the right things a distressingly large amount of the time.

Forcing the New Aristocrats to often, and more and more, take increasingly unreasonable positions simply to signal their uncommonness.

And hence: Increasing stupidity from the supposedly smart.

As the saying goes: Only an intellectual can believe things this stupid." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA)