America Gets A Boost With The Killing Of Bin Laden

I doubt we will ever know who pulled the trigger on Bin Laden. It would be more than stupid to release the name of the Seal trigger man, or any of the American troops participating in the raid that took down America’s most wanted criminal. It would, of course, lay them and their families open to retribution from terrorists for the remainder of their days.

Having said that, we urge the President to award ALL those troops with the highest decoration he possibly can — in secret.

The assassination of Bin Laden gave Americans a sorely needed morale boost. It was a reminder that even though America is undergoing one of the greatest financial and political trials of its history, we STILL have the capability of fighting three overt wars and one covert war -- simultaneously. No other country on earth can do that. In other words, it sends a clear message to our enemies and detractors. Don’t mess with America. If you do, you had better be prepared to pay an awful price.

American Special Forces are, indeed, special. I am only about an hour’s drive from one of their training facilities and let me tell you, they are held in very high regard here.

I had the privilege of being acquainted with a couple of Special Forces men and both were exemplary young men -- both family men and both religious men who took their faith seriously.

The US military is still the best on earth. Those rough men allow us to sleep peacefully in our beds at night.

I must tell you that I am worried that the change up at the Defense Department and the CIA may weaken the US Armed Forces and our intelligence community.

I am not a great admirer of General Petraeus. I have felt for sometime that he is more politician than military man -- and that suspicion seems to have been borne out. So far as Leon Panetta goes, I fear that he is being placed as Secretary of Defense with orders from Obama to downsize the US military. That would be, in my estimation,, a dire mistake. If anything, we need to enlarge our standing military -- across the board.

Look, we are at war! No matter that some in our national government donned their rose-colored glasses, way back in the 60’s, and continue to wear them today skewing their view of reality, there IS a War on Terror. It is a ,war that will not stop at the killing of Osama Bin Laden. If anything, it may very well intensify. We have had an army in the field for over ten years now. We are nowhere near victory. Nor shall we be in ten more years. This is a war that has no perceptible end, at all.

Americans have to understand that as politically incorrect as it may be -- America is involved in a RELIGIOUS WAR. It is, simply put: the Judeo/Christian religion - vs - the Islamic religion. I understand it is distasteful to even say it, but hey … there it is!

On a slightly different tack … will the killing of Bin Laden frighten Qaddafi enough that he will use what little reasoning capability he has left to remove himself from Libya, at the earliest possible moment, and go off to live a quiet life swearing off the practice of terrorism? Will he stay and die, or go away -- and die? I expect NATO is watching intently to see if Qaddafi is affected in any way by the events of May 1st.

America must abandon its policy of attempting to win the hearts and minds of our Islamic enemy. It isn’t going to happen.

Peggy Noonan in an article in the Wall Street Journal recently said: “Our republic is now in a historical adventure period – that is not what is needed. We are, or should be, in a self-strengthening one. Our focus should not be on outward involvement but inner repair. Bad people are gunning for us, it is true. We should find them, dispatch them, and harden the target. (That would be, still New York, through Washington, too.) We should not occupy their lands or run their governments. We think in Afghanistan we’re buying their love, but I have been there. We’re not even renting it.

Our long wars have cost much in blood and treasure, and our military is overstretched. We’re asking soldiers to be social workers, as Bing West notes in his book on Afghanistan, “The Wrong War.”

Ms. Noonan is correct. Time spent building schools, roads, and hospitals, dulls the edge of the US military sword. In the end it will cost the lives of many US troops. That should never happen. The destruction of an enemy’s country should be a part of the price they must pay for attacking America. It should be viewed as a deterrent -- not urban renewal!

Meanwhile, the war goes on -- with no end in sight.

Posted by J. D. Longstreet at May 3, 2011 3:28 AM
Comment #322711

It’s been all over the news which seal team was on the mission. So too late to keep that secret.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 3, 2011 6:55 AM
Comment #322713

The Problem is, the Bush approach was to play this all as Cold War II, building up arsenals of weapons mainly meant to fight powerful states who can no longer match us at our current level of technology.

Do we really need all that to win?

American needs a cheaper military, and an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It needs those things because we need our resources back home so we can be more flexible in how we choose to act. It also needs those things because cannot sustain costs of several hundred billion dollars a year without some return on that investment.

And yes, give every one of those SEAL Team members a medal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 3, 2011 8:09 AM
Comment #322714

I do not believe Bush was playing this as a cold war, when at the cries of failure from the left, he ordered the surge in Iraq, which was the beginning of success in Iraq. Cold war is when you spend all your time talking and making threats, which will never work with these Muslim terrorists because they only understand force. For whatever reason, Obama was correct in sending troops into Pakistan and taking Bin Laden out. But, I must admit this goes totally opposite to the progressive psyche.

In any case, if we do not maintain a presence in the Middle-East, which will continue to cost America billions of dollars; as soon as we leave, the area will return again to civil war. We will never be able to establish democracies in these areas. Only a secular military government can offer any semblance of a democracy.

I also find it interesting that progressives, who would love nothing better than to completely disband the military and would protect terrorist (sorry Muslim extremists) with the American Constitutional benefits, are the ones dancing in the streets at the death of Bin Laden. Interesting…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 3, 2011 10:10 AM
Comment #322715

Stephen, the “Bush Approach” was to put Rumsfield in charge of the DOD and institute a transformation of our military. That this was met with mixed results is less a statment on Bush and more a statement on how big the Pentegon and its Congressional allys have become.

Obama is facing the same challenge. For all his talk on the campaign trail not much has changed with regards to Defense. I’m sure Obama wants to do more but the Pentegon is a really big battle ship to steer.

Rumsfeld was able to improve the coordination between services and agencies and that has been a plus. And those offensive Predator drones were a Bush era development that Obama has expanded in operation.

Posted by: George at May 3, 2011 10:17 AM
Comment #322717

sorry for all the typos and spelling above! I’ve got company this morning.

Posted by: george at May 3, 2011 11:41 AM
Comment #322719

George, when our troops chased bin Laden into the caves at Tora Bora, they notified command that they would have him trapped if reinforcements where brought up to cover his escape out the back side and into Pakistan. That request had to be directed to the White House to get approval and the White House refused the request. Instead, the White House allowed the escape route to be guarded by a division of the Pakistan Army that was well known for it’s cooperation with the Taliban. That allowed bin Laden to walk out the back side, down the road, and into Pakistan.

Which White House official made that decision? Was it Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush?

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2011 2:40 PM
Comment #322726


I give a lot of credit to Obama. He changed his mind based on real conditions, instead of keeping with that soft headed campaign rhetoric. He did what Bush would have done. Credit to Obama for being realistic.

Re Bin Laden - he was shot down like the dog he was. He died dirty in the dirt.

It was brilliant to dump his body in the ocean.

We did an excellent job of being culturally sensitive. We treated bin Laden in the way that his culture would deem appropriate.

I have been hearing some people say we should have taken him alive to show we were better than he was. We showed that we were better than he was by killing that dog.

Colonel Qadaffi - are you paying attention.

Posted by: C&J at May 3, 2011 8:36 PM
Comment #322727

Conservativethinker, cries of failure from the left? There were demands from members of both parties to change tactics in Iraq and it took months and months before Bush relented, stopped the political micromanagement of the war from the White House and allow the military to do it’s job. Petraeus was chosen to take over in Iraq, as the administration scapegoated the previous command to cover up the White House micromanagement disaster. You fell for it, didn’t you?

Turn the war on terror into a long and drawn out affair, another Cold War is exactly what they were doing. The Cold War was a dream come true for many of our corporations, our wealthy, and so to is this War on Terror. We surfs just pay the taxes and do the work for the promise of safety.

This Commander in Chief has ordered his troops to find the terrorists and kill them, where ever they may be. He let’s his intelligence professionals do their jobs and his military do their jobs without micromanagement.

Obama has repeatedly allowed intelligence agencies to gather the information and allowed his military to act on that information with repeated drone attacks and even cross border incursions by troops. He has done this despite protests from Pakistan and out cries from others, including some of his own constituents.

This is exactly what Obama said he was going to do when he was running for president. ‘If the Pakistanis won’t do it, we will.’

Hillary Clinton said that threatening to bomb our good ally, Pakistan, was proof that Obama was too inexperienced to be president.

John McCain made the same argument repeatedly, throughout his campaign against Obama.

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2011 8:38 PM
Comment #322728

jlw; since Obama has completed the mission, I guess we can expect him to bring our troops home from a war on 3 fronts, right?

“This is exactly what Obama said he was going to do when he was running for president. ‘If the Pakistanis won’t do it, we will.”

He also said he was going to close GITMO, bring the terrorists to trial in US courts, and bring the troops home. Shall we hold our breath?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 3, 2011 8:54 PM
Comment #322729

C&J What BUSH would do??!!??!! You can’t be serious!!! Bush squandered TRILLIONS (trillions) (really, trillions) of dollars, and how many of our best young lives….on an asinine war having nothing to do with the people that attacked us. Bush let Osama slip away when he refused permission to attack, as noted above.

Had we done what Obama did from the get-go, taken our time and focused all of our resources on Bin laden, and not the hapless 2nd rate Hussein, well, we’d be trillions (yes, trillions) richer, and would have dealt with that asshole Bin laden long ago.

Man, some people are slow learners. I am too!! But “what Bush would have done” ????? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (tears)

Posted by: steve miller at May 3, 2011 8:54 PM
Comment #322730


You are talking about the surge? I was in Anbar province 2007-8. The only fooling that went on was the lack of attention paid to our success there. We effectively crippled Al Qaida during that time. They sent in fighters; we killed them. It was like one of those bug killing lights. In 2006, Al Qaida declared Ramadi the capital of their new and expanding caliphate. A year later, we walked the streets and bought kabobs at the market. We defeated radical Islam in the heart of the Middle East on a battle ground of their choosing. Hundreds of those AQI terrorist died in the dirt like their evil leader did a couple day ago.

Say what you want about the mistake of going into Iraq or the management of the initial years, but in 2007-8 the surge worked.

Posted by: C&J at May 3, 2011 9:01 PM
Comment #322731


So Obama closed Guantanamo? Did he change the Bush time line in Iraq? Did he pull out of Afghanistan?

If back in October 2008,I told you that in 2011 Guantanamo would still be open, that terrorists were being tried in military tribunals, that we followed the Bush time line in Iraq and that we escalated the war in Afghanistan, would you have told me that Obama won?

Obama did the right thing in Guantanamo, Iraq, terrorist trials and Afghanistan. He also did the right thing in using information gathered by waterboarding to find and gun down that dirty old pervert bin Laden and dumping his body in the ocean. Indeed, Obama did the right thing; he just didn’t do the left thing.

Posted by: C&J at May 3, 2011 9:09 PM
Comment #322733

Longstreet, perhaps you should try rose colored glasses once in a while instead of constantly wearing blinders.

I am surprised by your assault on one of the Bush/Cheney allies. Don’t you remember, Qaddafi gave up his WMD,s and became an instant friend of the Bush Administration. Why he was as good an ally of the Bush Administration as Musharraf and the Pakistanis.

With the uprising in Libya, Qaddafi became more of a threat than an asset for wealthy interests. The wealthy and their corporations have always done business with many of our enemies, even in times of war.

C&J, do you think Ms. Noonan is correct about our troops building schools, etc.?

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #322734

My point would be that Obama did what Bush did not: shift the military focus back to Afghanistan, and treat the defeat of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden as the priority.

Iraq became Bush’s priority pretty early, and it stayed his priority until the end. Afghanistan and Bin Laden were always Obama’s priority. If Bush had not become so overconfident that he let the Taliban and al-Qaeda regain the initiative, Bin Laden might have been dead a long time ago. Bush, in my opinion, needlessly complicated the War against al-Qaeda, making it a vaguer, broader, more costly campaign than it should have been.

He also failed to resolve on war before embarking on another, and as a consequence, never finished either. Wars don’t get won until they’re over.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 3, 2011 9:43 PM
Comment #322735

C&J, nowhere did I say the Surge did not work. As a matter of fact, I alluded to the fact that the surge did work after the military was allowed to do it’s job without micromanagement by Rumsfeld. Almost all of our problems stemmed from a lack of sufficient manpower. Plus Rumfeldian IEDs. Don’t you remember, ‘forget those damn artillery shells and find the WMDs’?

Rumsfeld was fired and Cheney was sent to the dog house. Yes, those things contributed greatly to turning things around in Iraq. I didn’t think the surge would work. I underestimated the abilities of our military, because of the situation, and I was prejudiced against the War in Iraq. I never ever underestimated the abilities of Bush. No one did unless it was his ability to assist an economic collapse. The problem was overestimation of his abilities by the Right.

What did that liberal socialist McCain have to say about Rumsfeld’s firing?

“he just didn’t do the left thing.” Got your blinders on to, don’t you. The left has always supported going after the terrorists.

It is the right that said forget about bin Laden, we want Saddam and the OIL.

How many people on the right have been saying, forget about those terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pull out?

The left aren’t WAR MONGERS. Your side is such great war mongers that you developed a new strategy that is contrary to our nations ideals, preemptive wars. The door is open for Obama, he might just wag the dog.

People on both sides of the isle underestimated Obama.

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2011 10:24 PM
Comment #322746

Here is another event in which the right under estimated the President, even attacked and ridiculed him. Rush Limbaugh said what he did was OUTRAGEOUS, ABSURD and EMBARASSING, and the only Republican that supported him has been earmarked for replacement by the tea party.

That was Obama’s Cairo speech.

He didn’t write that speech for economically and or religiously bigoted right wing baby boomers. He wrote it for the Muslim baby boomer generation that is around 20 years of age. I believe it had an impact and has contributed to what is happening in many of those countries now.

Posted by: jlw at May 4, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #322761


We (Americans) developed the strategy of the surge. Many opposed it. They were wrong.

You recall that the Democrats controlled the Senate when it authorized war in Iraq. I know that the Democrats now content that they were too stupid and were tricked by the super-smart Bush, but you don’t really believe that, do you?

I know that some people have rewritten history and say now that liberals always advocated something like the surge. They did not. I took a lot of shit from liberal colleagues BECAUSE I volunteered to go to Anbar during the surge. Now some talk like they wanted to go. Remember what they said to General Petraeus in Sept 2007 when he told them we were succeeding. Remember how the left almost excommunicated Michael O’Hanlon for writing that we could win in Iraq? Google some of these things. Find me those liberals you say supported the surge when it was happening, not those that claimed they knew two years later.

The Bush time table envisioned winning with the surge and then drawing down. I saw the beginning of the draw downs in 2008. Obama kept to the timetable. Good for him. Marine units in Anbar were scheduled to go to Afghanistan. Obama kept to the Bush time table. Good for him.

I am proud that Obama did what he did. But what he did was NOT what his left wing supporters thought he would do. After he saw the real information and got some experience, he intelligently changed his mind and worked with the real conditions. It looked a lot like a continuation.

Bush showed extraordinary courage in holding to the surge. The left called him stupid and even many of his supporters were looking for a way out.

I will let you criticize the Iraq venture in general. But you cannot credibly claim that any Bush opponents supported the surge. Remember Harry Reid telling us that we were defeated? We showed him and the terrorists.

President Obama kicked ass and won my respect. Good. Why can’t we leave it at that w/o trying to rewrite history.

Posted by: C&J at May 4, 2011 8:42 PM
Comment #322768

I wonder why conservatives have no respect for liberals? The left has a hatred for Bush that is unbelievable:

C&J and other conservatives: this comment by a liberal radio talk show host speaks volumes. Why waste your time trying to debate these people?

“So when does Seal Unit 6, or whatever it’s called, drop in on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more death, innocent death, than bin Laden. Wasn’t he, or am I wrong here?,” liberal radio talk show host Mike Malloy said on his show Monday evening.”

Posted by: Conservativethinker at May 4, 2011 11:19 PM
Comment #322776

Ct, your last paragraph is indisputable, and your lack of agreement is irrelevant.

Posted by: jane doe at May 5, 2011 2:32 AM
Post a comment