The Political Fallout of the OBL Execution


President Obama is praised with reason for his decision to kill Osama bin Laden, when the CIA offered him this opportunity. As the Commander in Chief he bears the ultimate responsibility for the success and the failures of the US military. If the operation had failed, he would have been blamed for it. Now that his decision produced success, he deserves to be applauded for it.

Up till now, Obama committed one international blunder on top of the next international humiliation. The execution of OBL becomes a shining star on his coat of arms. Obama will counter all critique on his international record by any Republican candidate for the Presidency in 2012 with: “Was it not me, who killed OBL, the most wanted Muslim terrorist in the world?”

Obama, when he still was a US Senator, together with his left-wing friends and lots of young ‘useful idiots’, opposed fiercely the prison in Guantanamo Cuba, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the CIA’s harsh interrogation techniques, the military tribunals for terrorists, listening in on international phone calls to suspected numbers in the US, questioning and guarding captured Muslim murderers in secret foreign prisons, etc.

But, assassinating OBL would not have been possible without each of these policies, introduced by President Bush. Americans understand that these Bush guidelines are now vindicated. Water boarding some important prisoners and listening in on some foreign telephones produced key information for making the OBL killing possible. If the US had ran out of Afghanistan years ago, something the Democrats in Congress wanted to do, Obama would not have had the launching base to go after OBL. But, the two extremes of the political spectrum, the left more than the right, will now add pressure to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan. For them, the main purpose of the war, killing or capturing OBL, has been realized.

The so-called peace-movement is exposed as just a front for the Democratic Party. As if this still had to be proved. Socialism in the US is more important for them than world peace. Just look at the last two months: (1) Obama starts a third ‘undeclared’ war in the Middle East against an oil exporting country, Libya, without even informing Congress. Not a single action by the peace-movement. (2) Obama sends an assassination team inside a foreign country, an ally no less, Pakistan, without informing them, to kill a political leader. Up to two years ago, the leaders of the Democratic Party labeled such methods ‘fascist Cheney death squads’. Now they jubilate, since their guy is manning the cannon.

Speaking about Pakistan. The number of members of Congress, still considering Pakistan an ally, can probably be counted on one hand. The sense of betrayal by Pakistan is very high in the US. India is here the big winner on the international scene.

Political commentators of the left declared the death of OBL meant the end of the war on terror, and they cheered Obama for his ‘Mission Accomplished’. They erred. Actions by Al Qaeda will suffer in the short term because the CIA is discovering a treasure of information on the computer disks and phones of OBL. But I haven’t seen anybody in the streets of the Middle East celebrating the offing of OBL. OBL was a symbol in our fight against Muslim terrorism, and it is good to destroy the enemy’s symbols. But, the Al Qaeda fighters, spread now all over the world, and their spiritual motivation, as defined in the Koran, to destroy ‘infidels’ stays intact.

The sinking in the sea of OBL’s cadaver, with Islamic honors, offends the healthy sense for revenge of the American people. The following contradiction is pointed out. Al Qaeda and OBL are generally defined by the political establishment of the West as standing outside Islam, the ‘religion of peace’, you know. But now OBL is recognized as a full-fledged Muslim. So, what is it? Is terrorism and the slaughter of non-Muslims an acceptable policy within Islam or is it not? Why does Obama respect the sensitivities of Muslims? He doesn’t understand Muslim terrorists hate us for what we ARE, not for what we DO.

Starting this week the OBL story will fade from the US TV-screens, because more troubling and urgent domestic problems come to the forefront. America runs out of money, and the law prevents borrowing more. Obama wants the law to be changed so he can borrow another two trillion dollars. The Tea Party doesn’t want to change the law to force the government to cut spending drastically. The Republicans will change the law, but they don’t say yet with how much they will push up the ceiling, nor do they specify the conditions Obama has to fulfill to get his money. It will be a very interesting fight. Obama will have to come out of the sunlight and into the political trenches. That is, if he finds the time besides his travels to raise money for his reelection campaign in 2012. Campaigning is by now almost a full time job for him. He wants one billion dollars to secure his reelection.


I don't want to belabor the point. In the larger context of Bin Laden's death, the terminology is perhaps insignificant. However, you are citing the denotative meanings of the term and of course, in that context, an execution can denote a legally sanctioned proceeding. However, clearly for some people, whether Bin Laden's death was legal and whether the U.S. had any valid judicial writ to impose such punishment are very moot issues. In objecting to the term, I simply wished to avoid both its denotative and connotative meanings. As A friend of mine recently commented concerning Bin Laden's death, there are persons whose very existence and presence negate the rationality of lawfulness and compel those of us who wish to survive the existential threat they pose to embrace "extra legal means," not as a preferred but as an essential behavior. The bullet to Bin Laden's skull is the hard testimony to that truth. 

Reflecting on

"Who cares for (international) law when it comes to a good killing."


What Osama bin Laden said on 9/12/01?

Reflecting on

"Who cares for (international) law when it comes to a good killing."


What Osama bin Laden said on 9/12/01?


Who cares for (international) law when it comes to a good killing.

(Shall we reflect on this attitude?)


You misunderstood my objection to the term "execution." I find the connotations of the term negative and was objecting to the author's use of the term in this context.  I firmly believe the killing of Bin Laden fully justified and could care less whether it conforms to international law.  

The term "Execution"

@ Kindler

No, I did not "misunderstand".  Your original comment was somewhat cryptic. I suspected that you also wanted OBL dead, but could not be sure of that.  

Why interpret "execution" as having negative connotations?  It is a factual statement.  It refers to (a) putting to death as a legal penalty, or (b) to a judicial writ empowering an officer to carry out a judgement.  So, executions certainly can be legal.  Whether they are moral or immoral requires a difficult judgement, or 'moral calculus', and that necessarily will depend on circumstances and true underlying intentions.

The term execution does carry connotations of 'organisation and planning' of a killing, as opposed to an 'accidental' killing.  As I suggested earlier, in the case of OBL we should object to the value-laden term "murder", which involves a moral calculus and normally would be both illegal and immoral, but not to factual statements like killing and/or execution. 


Maybe we are squeezing him, maybe the whole thing is a false flag via Dr.P? :-)

I think the way we took him out was perfect, next SOB OBL wannabe wahabi will get the same special delivery, hopefully we reduce the 10 year delivery service.

OBL killing #2


Let's not get carried away.

You have a very valid point that, if it was possible, OBL should have been taken prisoner and sent to Guantanamo for interrogation.

But, as you well know, Obama cannot 'afford' to take terrorist leaders prisoner.  He is stuck with his past and with his 'liberal' supporters.  What would he do with them?  Interrogations to gain intelligence are out of the question in his naive worldview.

So, the killling was probably "a mega-mistake" ONLY in comparison with capture.  Not in comparison with the status-quo-ante.     

@ marcfrans & Capo

I have nothing against killing the SOB and dumping him, but after squeezing him.

I don't like half jobs.

An American Perspective

The Seal who wasted the SOB OBL is a national hero. The Americans who took part in the operation: ditto. President Obama did something that President Bush should have had as his highest priority from 9/12 on. Bravo Obama, conservatives who don't like it, go join the Michael Moore whiners club.

I loved that they dumped the SOB in the sea. No pictures, no problem, I just hope the skipper in charge drapped the the SOB in the American flag as they dropped the excrement into the Arabian Sea.  

Now for some dilemnas the killing might pose, check out the Kappert News wire:

@ Kindler If you prefer the

@ Kindler

If you prefer the word "killing" that would be fine.  Just don't call it a "murder", which would normally be illegal and immoral.

Al Qaeda is at war with the USA and does all it can to harm Americans.  So killing/executing its leader IN THAT WAR is neither "unwarranted", nor "illegal", nor "immoral".  



I can only call the killing of OBL, and the way it has been done, a mega-stupidity or a criminal hiding of the truth.

Either he was OBL and then I would take him for interrogation for at least 6 months and learn all there is to learn, or they had to hide a shitload of double-and triple-crossing, mistakes and criminal cooperation between the many different parties.

If that last point was the case his killing was necessary to hide the truth.

the historical perspective

We could not be our ancient ancestors, nor even our more modern fathers.  Then, his head would have been cut off, placed on a stick, and paraded through an arch of triumph.  Think of the late Italian dictator, Mussolini.  Or Nicolae Ceaușescu.  I am not sure the reason the body was tossed off into the sea, but it was done with more dignity than he deserved.  Not that much will change out of any of it.

@ Fincioen

I'm sorry but perhaps you could explain why OBL's death should be called an "execution"? Is the implication that it was unwarranted, illegal, and immoral? 

Inconsistency in Obama policies @ traveller

Obama had absolutely no choice killing OBL, when he was offered the opportunity. A refusal would have leaked out, and it would have been Obama's political death. Americans would never forgive him. The American urge for revenge following 9/11 is too big. Thus, this one Obama act may be an outlier. A second reason for Obama was: he absolutely needs something positive to boost his chances for reelection in 2012.

The facts, as presented to us, learn Obama opted for the difficult solution of going in and killing OBL, instead of just bombing the house. That is bold. But on the other hand, he ordered a kill and a dump in the sea, instead of capture, because this solution doesn't require more tough decisions from Obama. What would he have done with a living OBL? Guantanamo Bay prison? Military tribunals? Water-boarding for more information? All policies he vilified in the past.

Obama will address again all Muslims next week. He will continue the fable Islam is not the root of the hate versus the West, the infidels, the non-Muslims. Obama (and other Western Establishment leaders) don't recognize that Reformist Muslims (who believe some parts of the Koran are not valid any more) are a tiny minority within Islam, have absolutely no power in Muslim lands, and their teachings are heretic for devote and moderate Muslims (who believe all the words in the Koran are the words of Allah, and nothing he said can be wrong).


Somebody has to explain me why he killed OBL and goes in partnership with Al Quaeda in Benghazi...

Your question is rhetorical, and meant to underscore Mr. Obama's incoherent foreign policy. But it is a good question, nevertheless. One way to understand would be to "follow the money," if one could do so. Another would be to think that it is just another example of "military-industrial" opportunism; an example not much different from that of Mr. Obama's predecessor—in fact, despite the President's campaign rhetoric, he has not done much differently than Mr. Bush, the younger. It is opportunistic (and nothing more) simply because invading, say, Syria or Iran, would pose too many practical risks, so why not let the water "run down hill?" Finally, it is a good excuse to (unwittingly?) turn the US into a police state.

The threat Arab regimes have on US sovereignty is minimal. Just as Plato's Republic was the ideal or perfect regime in (some say ironical) speech, but in reality would be completely unworkable, the Arab threat is mostly highlighted in a certain brand of abstract neo-conservative speech, but has not shown itself as a high existential menace, 9-11 not excluded. And now that our friends the Pakistanis have been deprived of their erstwhile sub rosa guest, the world must be safer, and we can begin to extract ourselves from these non-productive Arab entanglements? But I make a bad joke. It will never get better, because we will never leave these Muslim lands, and cease to cavort with them as equals.

Muslims can never be "our friends." Who would ever want that? But that does not mean they are, ipso facto, our enemies. They should be denied immigration status, and we should be doing all that is possible to obtain economic independence from them. Let them live in peace, and separately within their own emotional, intellectual, and geographical deserts.

Please note that my analysis of threat does not include the European and British situation. There, Muslims pose an immediate existential cultural and political threat. In the US the analog is the Mexican reconquista. If Mexicans were Muslims, the US would already be over. As it is, we have a few years left.

@ Johnny Fincioen

Somebody has to explain me why he killed OBL and goes in partnership with Al Quaeda in Benghazi for turning non-fundamentalist Libya into a new Al Quaeda stronghold.

My brain is not able to understand this kind of retarded stupidity from a man everybody calls "highly intelligent".

On top of that not the slightest intelligent reaction from the different "services".

The soundbite becomes more important than the long-term planning.