Maybe it’s because I’m a liberal; maybe it is because so much time has passed since the 9/11 attacks and I’ve calmed down, but I feel quite a bit uncomfortable spending too much time celebrating the death of Usama bin-Laden. I’m glad we found him. I’m glad we killed him. But I don’t want to dance in the end zone. I also don’t want to give the impression that I think the president’s greatest accomplishment is that he had someone killed.
Nonetheless, this garbage needs to be answered. The idiots who still work over at Breitbart’s operation are questioning whether the president deserves any credit for authorizing the mission that got bin-Laden, and their conclusion is that he not only deserves no credit but that he was looking to cover his ass if anything went wrong. Their evidence is the note that then CIA director Leon Panetta released to Time magazine:
Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.
The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.
From this, the Breitbart clowns conclude that:
…the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.
The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.
On at least one critically important point, the president exercised operational control. After ignoring the advice of his defense secretary, vice president, and others, he ruled out a bombing mission and he ruled out doing nothing. He then ordered Admiral McRaven to do draw up a plan for a helicopter raid. When he reviewed that plan, he wasn’t satisfied with it. Here’s Military.com, a source the wingnuts might respect:
About 10 days before the raid, Obama was briefed on the plan. It included keeping two backup helicopters just outside Pakistani airspace in case something went wrong. But Obama felt that was risky. If the SEALs needed help, they couldn’t afford to wait for backup.
He said the operation needed a plan in case the SEALs had to fight their way out. So two Chinooks were sent into Pakistani airspace, loaded with backup teams, just in case. One of those Chinooks landed in the compound after the Black Hawk became inoperable.
The raiders scrambled aboard the remaining Black Hawk and a Chinook, bin Laden’s body with them, and flew to the USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea. The ground operation had taken about 40 minutes.
Not only did the president insert the Chinooks into the operational plan, but that decision proved critical to the success of the mission. Unless you expect the president to serve as the operational commander of our Special Forces, something he isn’t trained to do, then I don’t know what more you can demand from him.
He made a decision to intrude on Pakistan’s sovereignty and to have commandos raid an armed compound in the middle of a city (Pakistan’s version of West Point, no less) in the middle of the night. There was a chance that bin-Laden wasn’t there. There was a chance that they’d kill innocent people. There was a chance that the commandos would be killed or captured. An international incident was assured regardless of the outcome of the raid. And Obama didn’t have the cover of unanimity among his advisers. His defense secretary, a Republican, was against it.
He considered all that, and then he ordered the mission anyway. And it went according to plan. And the one thing that went wrong (the helicopter crash) was only put right because of Obama’s intervention in the operational plan.
I ask you, in all honesty, what more could you possibly ask from a commander in chief than that he avenge the death of 3,000 innocent American victims by ordering a cross-border raid on uncertain intelligence, causing a row with one of our most uneasy allies, while making the operational tweak that led to success, and that it all turn out perfectly?
If you wanted to critique him for recklessness, that would be a better argument than to suggest he lacks guts.
To push back against the Breitbart allegations with a thoughtful and rational response based on facts, like you have done, is simply an exercise in futility. They, and their paranoid and delusional followers, are going to believe what they believe, regardless of what the evidence shows or what the voice of any authoritative, expert analyst might conclude. These guys are to politics what extreme fundamentalism is to religion. They have a set of beliefs which must be supported, regardless of where the evidence leads. And anything which is contrary to their views is simply part of a larger conspiratorial effort or is based on lies. And there is a certain segment of the media which will echo their craziness, lending a veneer of credibility to their insanity. To paraphrase a favorite phrase of the religious fundamentalists, “Love the Presidency, but hate the President”.
Sadly, that is just the way it is.
the reason to rebut them isn’t to change the minds of people who have Breitbart as their homepage. It’s about that bleeding out into the rest of the media you mentioned.
The point is .. it’s going to bleed out regardless because Fluffyhead and other fellow travelers want to treat the Breitbartian asshats as serious journalists. The only way to change that is to bankrupt NBC.
which one is Fluffyhead, again?
David Gregory!!!!!!!!!!
I’m against much of Obama’s GWOT posture and rhetoric, but this mission was exactly the right thing to do. It’s exactly what Bush II repeatedly and spectacularly failed to do while he let Cheney and Rumsfeld run the show. The execution of the mission was another proof of Obama’s strength of judgement.
And even if you don’t think it was the right thing to do, you can’t dispute that it took guts, that he worked because of Obama’s intervention in the plan, and that it was completely successful.
And don’t forget one other thing. If that raid had failed, we’d all be getting ready for President R-money right now.
Or worse.
Add the international relations mess it would have made.
For Breitbart to say that about : “The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. “
Friggin’ idiots. That’s just classical decision making. He weighed the potential upside against the best risk assessment people could come up with and he made the call. Guess what? If the risk assessment changes, he’d like to know about it. How is that a problem? What would be stupid and irrespif he DIDN’T say that.
The real comparison was the decision to invade Iraq. I said at the time as soon as W gave his Axis of Evil speech we would almost have to go into Iraq to save face. And maybe there were or weren’t WMD in Iraq, maybe it was or wasn’t a good idea, but whatever he does he needs to make sure it doesn’t get fucked up.
Well he gave almost thought to what would happen after the invasion and didn’t demand anyone else think about what might go wrong and how to prepare for it. HUGE contrast with the very proactive responsible thinking of Obama the the THINKING he demanded of others.
I guess THINKING for the unthinking is wussy stuff.
See, this is what I don’t get. What international relations mess would it have made? How could it ever hope to compare with something like Iraq? We were already doing whatever we please in Pakistan. What’s another bloody screw up there?
See, this is what I don’t get. What international relations mess would it have made? How could it ever hope to compare with something like Iraq? We were already doing whatever we please in Pakistan. What’s another bloody screw up there?
See, this is what I don’t get. What international relations mess would it have made? How could it ever hope to compare with something like Iraq? We were already doing whatever we please in Pakistan. What’s another bloody screw up there?
The thing that saved the mission was Bin Laden was there and we got him.
If either of those things didn’t turn out to be true, Pakistan wouldn’t have had enough egg on their face to keep them (and the world) from complaining about violating their sovereignty.
As it turned out the evidence it pretty clear they would not act so we had to.
Violating their sovereignty? The Bin Laden raid was hardly the first example of flouting Pakistan’s sovereignty.
we have had their permission for the drone attacks there until the UBL incident. The drones were stationed in Pakistan. They don’t want their own people to know that, but you don’t have to play along.
Ok well the outpost we bombed? The CIA agent that went on a rampage like Jason Bourne?
And just so you know, the UBL raid damaged relations so badly that when it was followed up with a friendly-fire incident, Pakistan stopped the drone program (from their territory and cut off our supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan. We’re trying to fix that right now.
I keep wondering who exactly is this going to convince? The simple fact is, a year and a quarter after being elected, Osama was no longer a factor in anyone’s world.
I have difficulty believing that the American public will be impressed with a nuanced version of ANYTHING (remember this is the public that makes the Three Stooges a world class movie), much less a nuanced version of a bumper sticker. Nuance? Forget it.
Wait?
You’re dissing the Stooges?
.
Too bad Obama takes time to reminisce.
The Al Qaeda and extreme Islamist problem is just spreading across the globe. It has retreated from the Far East and Indonesia, but has gained powerful roots in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, Libya and potentially in Syria because of Obama admin miscalculations.
Lebanon: Syria arms ship impounded, crew held for questioning
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."SO, Oui? Which should we invade first?
Oh RIIIIIIIGHT!!!! IRAN. It’s almost Iraq and has about as much relevancy to Al Quaeda as Iraq did.
Good Thinking.
.
Just to keep you updated, the arms were intended for the Syrian Free Army fighters. Their link with Al Qaeda mujahideen is of course not linked to Iran but on the contrary to the alliance USA, France, GCC especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These countries are bound to overthrow the Assad regime at all cost and have promised unlimited dollars and arms. This will certainly undermine the UN’s attempt by Kofi Annan for a cease fire.
Lebanon president Suleiman commends seizure of Syria bound ship
As Safir quoted military sources as saying that the three containers contained a number of Kalashnikov , M16 rifles, RPGs, antiaircraft weapons and TNT explosives. Tele Liban reported that the ship came from Libya , docked on its way to Lebanon at Alexandria’s port in Egypt and that it is owned by Syrian national Mohammed Khafaja.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."So your theory is that al Qaeda spread into Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen after Obama took office, as a result of his “miscalculations.”
You do know that al Qaeda was in all of those places – that, in fact, those were its original incubators – back in the 1990s, right?
From the Military article cited:
“Days after the attack, the administration has fleshed out a reconstruction that is probably more accurate than its initial, flawed telling. More information has been gleaned from the commandos themselves, now back at their home base outside Virginia Beach, Va. Some dust has settled.
But there remains no independent or competing account to the administration’s story as yet. The reconstruction comes largely from Panetta, White House spokesman Jay Carney and Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan. Some of their early details proved unreliable.”
So the source for the news that Obama delivered the key tweak to the plan came from Carney, Panetta and/or Brennan.
OK, their boss is a genius AND a hero. Good to know.
Absolute bullshit. Have you listened to Admiral McRaven? He confirms the story so get the fuck out of here with yout GOP talking points.
Who was it who DISMANTLED the bin Laden search unit at CIA in 2006? GWB. Who was it who said he was not looking for bin Laden? GWB who echoed GWB’s dismissal of the importance of bin Laden? Romeny. Who terrorized us with politically skewed terror alerts in the lead up to 2004 general election? GWB
It is FACT that Pres. Obama called Panetta in June 2009 and charged him to resuscitate the disbanded bin Laden unit and relaunch the search. That alone gives Pres. obama FULL credit for everything that followed that mission he gave to Panetta. The military woyld not have gone to Abottabad but for the revival of the hunt itself. They deserve credit for carrying out the implementation of the mission. The President deserves credit for authorizing it.
Heck your god Reagan gets undeserved credit for the Fall of the Iron curtain 3 years after his presidency, for no conceivable reason than he told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”.
So shut up!
When I am in Europe, the line people like to repeat for me is, “Gorbachev tore down this wall”. 😉
go zizi
If we can trust the New Yorker, here is an accounting of the four Chinooks:
“Forty-five minutes after the Black Hawks departed, four MH-47 Chinooks launched from the same runway in Jalalabad. Two of them flew to the border, staying on the Afghan side; the other two proceeded into Pakistan. Deploying four Chinooks was a last-minute decision made after President Barack Obama said he wanted to feel assured that the Americans could “fight their way out of Pakistan.” Twenty-five additional SEALs from DEVGRU, pulled from a squadron stationed in Afghanistan, sat in the Chinooks that remained at the border; this “quick-reaction force” would be called into action only if the mission went seriously wrong. The third and fourth Chinooks were each outfitted with a pair of M134 Miniguns. They followed the Black Hawks’ initial flight path but landed at a predetermined point on a dry riverbed in a wide, unpopulated valley in northwest Pakistan. The nearest house was half a mile away. On the ground, the copters’ rotors were kept whirring while operatives monitored the surrounding hills for encroaching Pakistani helicopters or fighter jets. One of the Chinooks was carrying fuel bladders, in case the other aircraft needed to refill their tanks.
Much later we learn that the surviving Black Hawk did refuel at the pre-planned point.
Did Obama raise the plan from two to four or zero to four?
Both accounts say that two chinooks entered Pakistani airspace. That seems to be the relevant point. That there were two additional chinooks in reserve is interesting but not really important.
The reason there were any chinooks is because the president wanted added protection and was willing to risk it.
Remember, the blackhawks were outfitted to be super quiet and defeat radar. I don’t know that the same was true for the chinooks, so it probably added quite a bit of risk.
And while it is true that all the eyewitnesses have a motive to portray the president heroically, no eyewitnesses have contradicted them. And where would we find disinterested observers?
Based on (a) the role of the Chinooks, especially refueling the Black Hawks, and (b) the redundancy that went into Eagle Claw in 1980 (IIRC, 8 choppers sent, 6 were minimum for success, 3 got disabled by a dust storm) there is no way (IMHO) that the initial plan didn’t include two Chinooks as backup for two Black Hawks. Any responsible plan included one Black Hawk failing.
Now, maybe those two were initally planned to be on the border and Obama had the military move them into Pakistan to get closer to the action. I don’t know the distances, and maybe refueling at the border could have made sense.
Or maybe Obama’s concern prompted the positioning of two more at the border; since (fortunately!) they weren’t needed, it may have been excellent judgment but it did not save the mission.
I don’t know. You are right that disinterested observers will be thin on the ground.
I also bet someone who did know the map and the typical mission planning profile could speak with authority to the question of whether the military changed their plan to have the refueling rally point inside Pakistan on ten days notice.
Booman – Just to be clear, are you standing by this from your post:
“Not only did the president insert the Chinooks into the operational plan, but that decision proved critical to the success of the mission.”
Or do you want to amend that in light of the New Yorker article (which had four Chinooks) or AP and BBC articles from later in May that had three Chinooks?
sorry, I’ve been concerned with more urgent matters like who the Giants drafted in the 6th and 7th rounds.
For now I stand by what I wrote, however I acknowledge that you’ve raised a potentially important point about the ambiguity of the original plan and of some of the reporting.
If, as it seems, the blackhawks needed at least the potential to refuel within the country, then the original plan would have included at least one Chinook with a fuel bladder.
It is possible that the original plan envisioned this need and that one or two Chinooks were provided for.
If that is the case, it is possible that that Chinook (or a backup) could have served as backup transport for the downed Blackhawk.
However, it seems like you are at pains here to dream up a scenario where the president’s input might not have been critical.
As things turned out, both the backup Chinook and the refueling Chinook were needed. Even in your scenario, that would have left those two choppers with no back up without the president’s intervention.
This is an interesting question, but the really important part is that the president did order the mission and he did get involved in the operational end of it. And his intervention, at the very least, made success more likely.
Booman,
I’d like to say that Obama is a fricking military Genius, but really? I think what happened was that he tasked an intern/military attache to look up similar operations in the past.
That person found Operation Eagle Claw. My guess is that the ordered redundancy was coupled by a clear directive on how and what constitutes an abort in the mission prior to the attack, during that attack and after the attack … including contingency plans for every step of the way.
No genius, just (unfortunately rare) common sense.
The right is just being stupid. Again. What I read in the memo is that Obama very clearly laid out the scope of the mission; directed that within that scope Admiral McRaven would issue the specific implementing orders, including changes to those orders; and further directed that if any risks developed additional to those on which Obama ordered the mission in the first place, they were to be brought to him.
Apparently this is too complicated for the right.
The other side didn’t give an impression, they used the attacks of Usama bin-Laden as an excuse to start a war with the wrong country that lasted for a decade. How different would it have been if we had a Democrat in the White House instead of Bush? I don’t know given the hindsight judgment of Gore picking Lieberman as VP but we do know what Obama has actually done. He went directly after the people who attacked us, and yes, he killed a lot of people and is still doing it. They deserved it. How different would the world look today if that path were followed then, remembering we had the sympathy of the whole world at that time. This a major portion of the choice we should consider when we decide to put the other side back in power or not.